[FrancesHinden]

Under "game is to play" rules, it's to play.

Without knowing the rest of the system, I can't tell you what hand types are excluded, but perhaps partner has a weakish 6-4 in the majors, and was going to play a 5-4 heart fit if one existed, but otherwise thinks 4S will be safer than a putative 4-4 heart fit.

[gwnn]

6 spades, 4 rather bad hearts? Tricky one, but I won't assume stuff like (03)55 looking for the best strain for slam (which doesn't sound like a half-sensible agreement anyway) without agreement. I'll just pass.

[kenrexford]

Interesting. Undiscussed, several options come to mind.

The first is natural, with an agenda. The problem with that is the obvious -- I could bid 3♥ (possibly good for a surprise slam sequence) and then 4♠.

I like the idea of the 0355, if a slam try. That would, for me, make 2♠...3♠ assuredly 2-1 in the majors.

Related, 4♠ could be Exclusion 6KCB; minors.

Ultimately, though, I would guess in my world (undiscussed though) that 4♠ should be either RKCB for diamonds or a flag for diamonds. As 3♥, 3♠, 4♣, and 4♦ all handle the majors, sufficiently at that, I might need something for 3361 and 3316 slammish hands (actually, the stiff could be anywhere). In situations like this, I generally default to Flags or Flagwood, where 4♥ focuses clubs and 4♠ diamonds.

[FrancesHinden]

I love Ken's world, as long as I am always happy it is in a different universe to mine.

In ken's world, partner comes up with some new sequence we haven't discussed that involves jumping to game, and Ken thinks it must 'agree' diamonds in some way.

In my world, partner comes up with some new sequence we haven't discussed that involves jumping to game, and I am happy he wants to play there. What's he actually got for the bid invovles knowing more about the rest of our methods but is actually a secondary problem.

[david_c]

Agree with Frances. This is to play, and it's not our job to work out what hand partner is doing it on.

[ASkolnick]

I actually think the most likely shape is 63(xx) with game values and at least one shortness (4-0,3-1,1-3,0-4 all possible). If partner is holding a 5 card heart suit, you want to ruff with the short trump side. However, once partner established he does not have a 5 card heart suit, he thinks spades will play best.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 20 2008, 08:23 AM, said:

I love Ken's world, as long as I am always happy it is in a different universe to mine.

In ken's world, partner comes up with some new sequence we haven't discussed that involves jumping to game, and Ken thinks it must 'agree' diamonds in some way.

In my world, partner comes up with some new sequence we haven't discussed that involves jumping to game, and I am happy he wants to play there. What's he actually got for the bid invovles knowing more about the rest of our methods but is actually a secondary problem.

In my world, though, we have discussed very specifically that 4♥ and 4♠ are often flags for the minors. We have also discussed general principles of bidding that would never involve a leap to 4♠ here as natural. Hence, in my world, this is not truly an "undiscussed" sequence because we have done our homework and can assess the meaning of specific auctions that have not been discussed by application of consistent principles.

It is really not that hard in a well-tuned partnership.

An example recently came up where one of the majors and diamonds were kind of both in focus. Partner then bid 4♣, which I took as a flag for diamonds, whereas 4♦ would have been a flag for spades. I was right as to his meaning. The auction, however, was not discussed. The strange-looking inversion here, however, was easy for both of us to follow because of prior discussion of general principles about clarification of focus suit in ambiguous sequences when the next call must be at the four-level.

Is that other worldly? Perhaps, but not all that strange in the context of discussion.

[fred]

Jlall, on Jun 21 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

Partner was actually 6-4 in the majors. I did not work it out but I guess I should have.

I am curious as to what you were thinking.

I think I would be thinking "I have never heard this bid before, but if partner wants me to do anything other than Pass 4S, he is going to be disappointed".

I think that I would not even concern myself with trying to figure out what kind of hand partner might have - I would just Pass.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

PS Even if I laugh-out-loud at your answer, I promise I won't post a LOL

[helene_t]

In Niemeijer, it shows diamonds. Not quite sure what shapes it would be based on - presumably 5♦332 since responder would use MSA with 54 minors and with 6 diamonds it would not be so vital to go through PS. OTOH with 5332 responder would rarely be looking for a minor suit fit I think, so mayhbe it should show (31)54, but then I think 31(54) would be more useful because opener needs to evaluate he's assets opposite the singleton.

Not sure how opener must respond to it either. Maybe 4NT= sign off, others shows keycards.

[fred]

helene_t, on Jun 21 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

In Niemeijer, it shows diamonds. Not quite sure what shapes it would be based on - presumably 5♦332 since responder would use MSA with 54 minors and with 6 diamonds it would not be so vital to go through PS. OTOH with 5332 responder would rarely be looking for a minor suit fit I think, so mayhbe it should show (31)54, but then I think 31(54) would be more useful because opener needs to evaluate he's assets opposite the singleton.

Not sure how opener must respond to it either. Maybe 4NT= sign off, others shows keycards.

Never heard of Niemeijer before - what is that? I am not even going to ask you how to pronounce it

I don't really understand how it can work the way you describe - what if opener bids spades in response to Puppet Stayman? Surely 4S now is not diamond-showing.

FWIW my regular partner (Brad Moss) and I play:

1NT-4S=5332 with 5 diamonds, at least invitational to slam
1NT-2D-2H-4S=5332 with 5 clubs, at least invitational to slam

These hands don't come up very often, but when they do I have found it is in fact useful to have a way to bid them

Note that we play that a transfer to hearts does not have to contain hearts (5332 with 5 clubs is not the only non-heart alternative). Strongly suggest you don't get involved in anything like this unless you are prepared to do some serious work with a regular partner. Make sure to discuss what happens after a superaccept of a 2H transfer as well as how you handle overcalls at various levels.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[han]

Dutch people can't pronounce puppet Stayman so they have their own version called Niemeijer, after the inventor.

[helene_t]

fred, on Jun 21 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

Never heard of Niemeijer before - what is that?

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/LittleK...YCThygesen.html

Thinking about it, I am not sure what I would do with 6-4 majors. Maybe I should poll a Dutch forum or ask Mr. Biedermeijer (Chris Niemeijer) so I can get updated the document.

[andy_h]

What a torture partner bid! No agreement, then I'm going to assume it's to play.

[han]

How do you play 2NT-3C-3D-4M? (not playing puppet)

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Jun 21 2008, 09:05 AM, said:

In Niemeijer, it shows diamonds. Not quite sure what shapes it would be based on - presumably 5♦332 since responder would use MSA with 54 minors and with 6 diamonds it would not be so vital to go through PS. OTOH with 5332 responder would rarely be looking for a minor suit fit I think, so mayhbe it should show (31)54, but then I think 31(54) would be more useful because opener needs to evaluate he's assets opposite the singleton.

Not sure how opener must respond to it either. Maybe 4NT= sign off, others shows keycards.

You must have this wrong. Apparently only people in Bizarro World play that! LOL