[whereagles]

I'm totally dizzy with this auction. Can't stand any more confusion, so I pass

Very technical decision... lol.

[gnasher]

It depends on what 2S and 3S meant. Were they both natural? I'm struggling with several alien concepts here.

[kgr]

KQJTx xx -- AKTxxx imps.

1D - 2C
2H - 2S
3C - 3S
3N - 4C
4S
Is 2S 4th suit forcing in 2/1?
I guess partner would have cued D or H with an ace and has something like:
Ax-Kxxx-KJxx-Jxx

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Mar 8 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

It depends on what 2S and 3S meant.  Were they both natural?  I'm struggling with several alien concepts here.

So am I.

I guess from the context that 2S was not natural, otherwise we wouldn't be being asked what 4S means...

I am guessing that
2S was FSF
3S was natural

which is consistent with partner having some 2443 weak NT (or 1453).

If 3S was natural, then clearly 4S is natural.

If all the above is right, then partner has something like
xx
KJxx
AQxx
Qxx

he should not be particularly suitable for clubs, as you could have bid 3NT over 3C with less slam interest whatever 3S meant.

[andy_h]

Well, my guess is that if partner had a weak NT he would rebid 2NT (presuming that doesn't show extras?) unless he had concentrated red suits. If he had 1453 with SA he probably won't pull out a 4S cue of clubs, and he can cue a red suit anyway. So I'm guessing partner has a 2443 and 4S is just a preference.

[Rebound]

Just my guess FWIW :

I think I agree with the idea the 2♠ was FSF and 3♠ nat. I think opener is 3-4-5-1 and relatively weak. I pass 4♠.

[jdonn]

Yes what is this lol. Sorry that we seem to confuse everyone with our completely natural auctions where every bid shows that suit and bidding it twice shows more cards in it.

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on Mar 8 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

I dont understand how the sequence clubs-spades-spades can not have shown 5-6. How do you Brits ever show 5-6? Is it possible?

I guess I should have asked "what do you think you have shown" but I thought it was so obvious that your bidding is 5-6 that there couldn't be any other interpretation.

But I thought that can't be what you have shown, because if it is why ask what 4S means?

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Mar 8 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

I dont understand how the sequence clubs-spades-spades can not have shown 5-6. How do you Brits ever show 5-6? Is it possible?

I guess I should have asked "what do you think you have shown" but I thought it was so obvious that your bidding is 5-6 that there couldn't be any other interpretation.

I do indeed think that I'm likely to have shown 5-6, because it would have been foolish for me either to agree to methods that don't let me show this hand, or to not show my hand when I had the methods to do so.

However, I'd like to know when I showed it, and what I had shown prior to showing it. On this side of the linguistic divide, partner might make a different bid over a 2♠ bid that showed spades than over a 2♠ bid that asked for a spade stop.

So, if you tell us what 2♠ and 3♠ meant, we'll tell you what 4♠ means. Is that a reasonable offer?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-March-08, 17:34

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Mar 8 2008, 06:44 PM, said:

Yes what is this lol. Sorry that we seem to confuse everyone with our completely natural auctions where every bid shows that suit and bidding it twice shows more cards in it.

As I understand it you bid diamonds followed by hearts when you have three of the former and four of the latter, so perhaps we can be forgiven a little uncertainty.

[jdonn]

I know I said "we" but I wasn't in this hand, I just meant "we people who bid naturally".

You said they play 1♦ and 2♥ as both showing some minimum length in the bid suit, 3 for the minor and 4 for the major? Just brushing up on my definition of natural Another way to look at this is the OP told you about the part of the system you mentioned so there would be no confusion, yet made no mention of any artificial bids otherwise.

[CSGibson]

Jlall, on Mar 8 2008, 01:54 AM, said:

KQJTx xx -- AKTxxx imps.

Partner opens 1D, and you bid 2C. Partner bids 2H which promises neither extras nor extra diamonds (yes, lol@this system). You bid 2S, partner bids 3C, you bid 3S, and partner bids 3N.

You bid 4C (agree?), and partner bids 4S.

1) How do you interpret 4S?

2) Construct a couple of hands consistent with partner's bidding. Partner is an expert.

3) What do you bid?

A possibility is that partner is 1-4-5-3 with the ace of spades and no red suit ace, especially if you play that 4 clubs after 3NT is a mandatory cue bid auction. This depends on your follow up agreements of course (would partner have bid 2 diamonds with any hand that has more than 4 diamonds, for example? In that case 2-4-4-3).

Either way, I think 4 spades is the ace of spades, denying either red suit ace. Partner has something like:

---

, with a small diamond moved to the spades if partner is known to not have extra diamond length on the auction.

I will either bid 5 clubs or 6 clubs, but it's close for me. It probably depends on the state of the match at the time, whether partner will be more upset about missing a slam or going down in a slam, etc.

[ceeb]

1. Natural -- "return to 4 of a major is always a place to play". Without this rule there is no sanity.

2. Ax,J10xx,AQxxx,Qx. Or Ax,KQxx,J9xx,Jxx.

3. 5♦.

[CSGibson]

ceeb, on Mar 8 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

1. Natural -- "return to 4 of a major is always a place to play". Without this rule there is no sanity.

This is a definition that doesn't make sense for this problem. If partner had a flat NT hand, he can bid 2NT after 2 spades, especially if 2 spades was natural originally. We were told that the person opposite would recognize the bidding as a 6-5 in clubs and spades, and, after having shown delayed support in clubs, which usually indicates 3 cards, decided to bid 3NT anyway. If they were interested in 4 spades, they would bid it right away. After that action, partner removed to 4 clubs. At some point you have to assume partner isn't crazy and start cooperating. 4 spades almost has to be a cue-bid.

[rogerclee]

ceeb, on Mar 8 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

1. Natural -- "return to 4 of a major is always a place to play". Without this rule there is no sanity.

Not only do I disagree with this "rule", I don't even see how it is playable. Maybe you should change it to "return to 4 of a major is always a place to play when we have not agreed any other suit." It is easy to generate a lot of auctions where returning to 4M is very obviously not natural.

[benlessard]

If 2H doesnt show extra then 2C has to be GF (and i lol at this system). So after 3S you have told your story, you might have little extra but misfits hand are ugly, So i pass 4S.

[ceeb]

CSGibson, on Mar 9 2008, 02:36 AM, said:

ceeb, on Mar 8 2008, 09:57 PM, said:

1. Natural -- "return to 4 of a major is always a place to play". Without this rule there is no sanity.

This is a definition that doesn't make sense for this problem. If partner had a flat NT hand, he can bid 2NT after 2 spades, especially if 2 spades was natural originally. We were told that the person opposite would recognize the bidding as a 6-5 in clubs and spades, and, after having shown delayed support in clubs, which usually indicates 3 cards, decided to bid 3NT anyway. If they were interested in 4 spades, they would bid it right away. After that action, partner removed to 4 clubs. At some point you have to assume partner isn't crazy and start cooperating. 4 spades almost has to be a cue-bid.

My examples showed Ax of spades, with which 4S instead of 3NT would not be tempting.

When you can't state a hypothesis without including qualifiers like "especially" and "usually", your conclusion also won't be any stronger than "usually".

I'm sure partner has the ♠A, not xx, but only by looking at my hand do I know it's not ♠QJ. Judging from the discussion you posted earlier where we differ is only in that you think partner has ♠A singleton. With the example you gave as a 4♠ bid I'd prefer to bid 4NT anyway.

[ceeb]

rogerclee, on Mar 9 2008, 06:35 AM, said:

ceeb, on Mar 8 2008, 10:57 PM, said:

1. Natural -- "return to 4 of a major is always a place to play". Without this rule there is no sanity.

Not only do I disagree with this "rule", I don't even see how it is playable. Maybe you should change it to "return to 4 of a major is always a place to play when we have not agreed any other suit."

What does "agreed" mean for purposes of your rule? Does it mean that the logic of the auction says we will definitely play in this suit? either in this suit or NT? Does the present auction constitute agreement of clubs?

Quote

It is easy to generate a lot of auctions where returning to 4M is very obviously not natural.

Please show me a few. I don't recall ever being discomfited by this old Acol rule, and have seen many times where it helped. I can well imagine that, if the partnership puts no price on a proliferation of detailed agreements, this rule like any simple rule will be slightly non-optimum on occasion. But you said "very obviously."