[jdonn]

Normal 3♦, way too easy to have slam, 4♠ will just end the auction 100% of the time.

I like methods where you can bid 2♠ here as an artificial game force, with 3 minor promising 5-5. That involves playing 1♥ 2♠ as about 6-9 with six spades.

[ArtK78]

Some players have a tendency to jump to what they believe is the best contract. Unfortunately, belief and reality are often not the same thing.

Just give partner a chance to bid his cards. You have plenty of time to arrive at 4♠ if that is going to be your destination. But every so often partner will surprise you by showing a spade fit.

[microcap]

OK, there seems to be a consensus for 3♦.

Now partner bids 3♥.

What now?

[P_Marlowe]

microcap, on Dec 22 2007, 12:44 PM, said:

OK, there seems to be a consensus for 3♦.

Now partner bids 3♥.

What now?

3S.

3D did create a game force,
now I show my 6th spade.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArtK78]

It may be just me, but I don't see how 3♦ created a game force.

And, even if it did, I bid 4♠ now. When partner does not support spades, slam prospects dim. It is still possible that slam has play, but the chances have gone down. And, if slam does have play, partner may be able to take another bid.

[microcap]

I do want to add that to me, while 3 diamonds is an ok bid, it has the distinct disadvantage of creating an extremely vague picture of your hand. After all, how would you bid with AKxx x Akxx xxxx? And isn't 3 diamonds really screaming that you want to play 3NT if partner has clubs stopped, which you know he probably doesn't?

[jdonn]

microcap, on Dec 22 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

I do want to add that to me, while 3 diamonds is an ok bid, it has the distinct disadvantage of creating an extremely vague picture of your hand. After all, how would you bid with AKxx x Akxx xxxx? And isn't 3 diamonds really screaming that you want to play 3NT if partner has clubs stopped, which you know he probably doesn't?

There are a million auctions where you have four small in a suit and it leaves you no good bid to make. However a four card suit is generally considered stopped for the purposes of what bids mean, so to answer your question a 4144 hand will generally bid 3NT. The fact that a particular 4144 hand might not want to is a different matter.

3♠ now is clearly forcing if you choose that, but I prefer 4♠. Slam is a lot less likely now that partner bid 3♥, and partner knows you were interested anyway so it's possible for him to move with Kx AT9xxxx KQx x or something.

[foo]

Out of curiousity, what hand types would people assign to each of these sequences?

a= 1H-4S
b= 1H-1S;2H-4S
c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S
d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc
e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

[foo]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

lol every thread has become foo vs everyone......

*shrug* as long as it's kept civil and about the bridge, it's fine.

No one learns anything if everyone agrees all the time. Polite debate is one major way new knowledge is found.

[han]

Agree with 3D.

[mike777]

3s as forcing over 3H is exactly the type of bid that should be discussed in more detail to help us, int. level players improve. It is just the type of bid that comes up alot which we think is forcing hopefully but we worry about what it shows on this type of auction. Forcing or not, if forcing what does it show compared to 4spades.

Again excellent hand to post, alot of meat here for many of us to learn and become more confident on these auctions.

[pclayton]

I have a hunch the call that caused the bonkers reaction was 4♠ and the beer contract was missed.

Foo - no one is trying to gang up on you, but when you are by yourself on just about every situation, isn't it time to re-evaluate your views about the game? I have never heard you once say, "hey, thats a good idea, perhaps I should try that", or "wow, I'm really in the minority here. What am I missing"?.

Instead you pontificate ad naseum.

[foo]

I don't feel "picked on" by any means. My skin is plenty thick.
...and I don't care to waste time on the personal here. The important thing is the bridge.

I try to back up every opinion I post with bridge logic and examples. I go into more detail the more controversial the issue is. If some choose to label that "pontification", that's their misinterpretation of an honest attempt to bring logic and evidence to a discussion.

EDIT: And Bridge is a game of skill, not a popularity contest. The "right" answer is not detemined by how popular it is, but rather by how well it works ITRW.
If Bridge was a game where the majority opinion defined what the correct answer was, it would be a very different game.

(...and if you have never seen me say "that's a good idea", or have never seen me apologize for being wrong, or have never seen me change my mind, then you have not been paying attention.)

So instead of giving me some personal sass, perhaps we can try answering the important question.

What hand types are best assigned to each of these sequences?
a= 1H-4S
b= 1H-1S;2H-4S
c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S
d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc
e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

[pclayton]

foo, on Dec 22 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

What hand types are best assigned to each of these sequences?
a= 1H-4S
b= 1H-1S;2H-4S
c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S
d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc
e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

a: AQJTxxxx and out

b: AQJTxxx(x) and an outside King

c: Something like: ♠AQJxxxx ♥x ♦AKx(x) ♣xx(x)

d: I suppose this is supposed to key card for spades, but I wouldn't try that without prior discussion.

e: Gad - wtf is this? It sounds quantitative to me - 5=1=4=3 and an 18-19 count.

Notice how none of these hands even remotely resembles a leap to 4♠ over 2♥ in the OP's auction.

[jdonn]

foo, on Dec 22 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

a= 1H-4S
b= 1H-1S;2H-4S
c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S
d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc
e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

c= ATxxxxx x AJx AQ

foo, on Dec 22 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

And Bridge is a game of skill, not a popularity contest.  The "right" answer is not detemined by many people believe it, but rather by how well it works ITRW.

It's not determined by how many people believe it, but there is a very strong correlation, one that it is pigheaded to ignore every single time.

[Winstonm]

I am of the opinion that this problem is more complex than thought by many. It is extremely difficult to get partner to support spades on a solitary (x) in the suit. Quite often after 3D we end up in a poor 3NT.

Give partner some holding like x, AJxxxx, Kx, KJxx and I would bet we end up in 3N more often than the superior 4S contract.

Also, given that partner has made a minimum, non-forcing rebid should we really be thinking slam? The question here should be reaching the best game contract, and I'm not sure 3D gives any assurance. The main benefit to the 3D bid is it allows us to play in a better heart fit than spade fit.

I'd almost think it worth sacrificing the weak jump shift in order to adopt the Reese-style game forcing jump shift. An immediate 1-suited, game-forcing 2S bid over 1H would go a long way in solving the problems of this hand.

[pclayton]

Winstonm, on Dec 22 2007, 02:41 PM, said:

I am of the opinion that this problem is more complex than thought by many. It is extremely difficult to get partner to support spades on a solitary (x) in the suit. Quite often after 3D we end up in a poor 3NT.

Give partner some holding like x, AJxxxx, Kx, KJxx and I would bet we end up in 3N more often than the superior 4S contract.

Also, given that partner has made a minimum, non-forcing rebid should we really be thinking slam? The question here should be reaching the best game contract, and I'm not sure 3D gives any assurance. The main benefit to the 3D bid is it allows us to play in a better heart fit than spade fit.

I'd almost think it worth sacrificing the weak jump shift in order to adopt the Reese-style game forcing jump shift. An immediate 1-suited, game-forcing 2S bid over 1H would go a long way in solving the problems of this hand.

Sure Winston, but whats the hurry? We can construct hands from pard that give us slam in 3 different suits?

4♠ can wait.

[pclayton]

Quote

c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S

Quote

c= ATxxxxx x AJx AQ

Actually I think this hand looks like 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♦ - 3♥ - 3♠ - 3/4 anything - 4♠.

[han]

Winstonm, on Dec 22 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

I am of the opinion that this problem is more complex than thought by many. It is extremely difficult to get partner to support spades on a solitary (x) in the suit. Quite often after 3D we end up in a poor 3NT.

Give partner some holding like x, AJxxxx, Kx, KJxx and I would bet we end up in 3N more often than the superior 4S contract.

Also, given that partner has made a minimum, non-forcing rebid should we really be thinking slam? The question here should be reaching the best game contract, and I'm not sure 3D gives any assurance. The main benefit to the 3D bid is it allows us to play in a better heart fit than spade fit.

I'd almost think it worth sacrificing the weak jump shift in order to adopt the Reese-style game forcing jump shift. An immediate 1-suited, game-forcing 2S bid over 1H would go a long way in solving the problems of this hand.

I bet I would never end up in 3NT on this hand.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Dec 22 2007, 05:46 PM, said:

I bet I would never end up in 3NT on this hand.

Didn't you listen to Winston? After partner bids 3NT you are barred! hehe