[twcho]

Playing 2/1 GF. The auction went:

Scoring: IMP

1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 3♣
3♠ - 4♦
4♠ - 4NT
5♦ - 5NT
6♦ - Pass

---

The 1st and 2nd round bidding need no explanation.
Is 3♠ the best choice of bid for west?
4♦ east set the trump
4♠ west intend as choice of game
4NT east intend as keycard in ♦
5♦ west construe as keycard in ♠ and count 3 (1430)
5NT east knows! that all keycards and ask king again
6♦ originally this should be confirming ♦K. However, west, being contracdictory with his own bidding, hope this to be construed as choice of contract.

This is not a good slam. How should the auction be improved? And how will you play this hand if north lead ♠J?

[kenrexford]

A 2/1 2♦ bid has some appeal. But. let's play this out with the reasonable start that did occur.

IMO, every single bid makes sense, with one exception. I completely sympathize with Opener's decision to bid 4♠, because he does have what appears to be a very nice holding of two Aces and an obviously useful spade King. And, Opener likes his body in the red suits for good reason. But, I think this was too much.

I hear the definition of 4♠ as "intended as choice of game," but that's stupid. I cannot believe that this was the actual intended meaning, especially with a doubleton. Opener was drunk or something?

4♠ only makes sense if it showed what it should show, namely interest and a spade card. I think Opener reached. It's not a hopeless reach -- the diamonds could have come in for no losers. The hearts might have cooperated. But, it is still quite a reach. I mean, sometimes a ratty 11-count is not that powerful after all.

[han]

Playing 2/1 I might bid:

1H - 2C
2D - 2NT
3NT - 4NT
pass

The auction 1H-1S-2D-3C must be the most cumbersome in standard bidding, it is really hard to have a controlled slam investigation after this start.

I think bidding spades twice on a doubleton (as a suggestion to play there!) isn't right, west should just bid 5D with his minimum. 4NT as keycards for spades just because you have bid them twice is also strange. Diamonds is the only suit in which a fit has been confirmed.

You might have an agreement about whether 4C by east over 3S sets spades as trump. I think it should.

[Winstonm]

I agree with Han that this is a horror in Standard. Somehow it seems like it should never be right to make 3 suits bids with a balanced hand. For this reason I am a strong advocate of a natural 2N bid.

1H-2N
3D-4N

or

1H-2N
3N-4N

Much easier.

[mike777]

I did not respond early because i thought this was a tough hand, very tough.


1) 3c=game force...solid game force?
2)4d=better than 5d?
3)assume, yes..then 4h= rkc gets me to easy slam......but I grant.....tough hand.

[Trinidad]

I don't think that playing 4♠ as a suggestion to play is so bad. But I read the auction a little different. The explanation of the auction that the original poster gave is from the East perspective. I will give you my interpretation of the auction:

1♥-1♠
2♦-3♣

Spoiler

..

Fourth suit, can be bid for a number of reasons
3♠

Spoiler

.......

Not my personal choice (3♦), but I can understand it.

Spoiler

....

4♦

Spoiler

..

Suggests diamonds as a trump suit with an alternative strain available

After all, if East wanted to set diamonds as trump (without an alternative strain), he wouldn't have bid 3♣. He would have bid 4♦ immediately. Thus, the interpretation of the auction as given by he original poster seems inaccurate (unless they are playing an unusual version of fourth suit forcing e.g. with an immediate jump to 4♦ giving west a choice between diamonds and spades).

4♠

Spoiler

......

The alternative strain is most likely spades. Let's play 4♠ in a 5-2 fit.

I can also imagine that West thought that 3♣ asked for a club stopper or spade tolerance. In that case, 4♦ could easily be construed as a cue for spades. With that reasoning, 4♠ is definitely the obvious bid.

I think that in the actual auction the 4♦ bid was the culprit. If East had bid:
1♥-1♠
2♦-3♣
3♠-3 NT

He would have shown that he wanted to play NT, with another strain possible. What could that strain be? It is not spades, since West gave East good news about spades. Hearts and clubs are unlikely too, which leaves us with diamonds.

What reason can East have to suggest a diamond contract when he has the values and the stoppers for 3NT? East must have some interest in 6♦ (not 5♦). Therefore, East also has some interest in 6NT.

In my opinion, this is a case of confusion about one of the most difficult conventions in bridge: Fourth suit forcing.

Rik

[Gerben42]

Quote

The 1st and 2nd round bidding need no explanation.

I would start with 2♦, as it makes sequences like this easier:

1♥ - 2♦ (GF)
2♥ (not 3♦ with a minimum) - 2NT (balanced)
3♦ (fit, minimum) - 3♠ (control, no ♥ control)
3NT (leave me alone) - 4♣ (control, 2nd try)
4NT (no pls) - Pass (sigh...)

[Fluffy]

starting with 2♦ requires some partnership experience I guess, but it is reasonable.

The amin problem of the hand IMO is west's inability to show a trash hand at some point, he should try and bid 5♦ over 4♦. IMO 4♠ is a cuebid.

[twcho]

Some thoughts spring to my mind:
1. Many have suggested to start with 2/1 response (2♣, 2♦ or 2NT) instead of the plain 1♠ bid. Is 1♠ really inferior?
2. Does east have any alternative bid after pd's 2♦ except 3♣? I guess 4♦ is the only reasonable alternative. Which bid is better?
3. Should west bid 3♠ with only Hx support or he should bid it unless he has 3 cards in ♠? What is the standard (or "common") agreement here?
4. If 3♠ is not a mere preference (as the above treatment which promises 3 cards), then 4♦ may not be agreeing ♦ as trump but rather cuebid with ♠ as trump. If this happens to be true, 4♠ must be the obvious signoff bid.

[jdonn]

I really believe in responding 2♣ on the east hand. It makes the auction SO easy, no matter what partner bids the auction will flow smoothly since you don't have to worry about finding forcing bids later, you can just bid completely naturally.

[Fluffy]

twcho, on Dec 10 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

1. Many have suggested to start with 2/1 response (2♣, 2♦ or 2NT) instead of the plain 1♠ bid. Is 1♠ really inferior?

1♠ is great when partner raises or rebids 1NT, 2/1 is better when he is gonna rebid 2♦ or 2♥, not sure wich is better when he has clubs. Helps sometimes, but also might create problems when partner doesn't know later that your 2/1 followed by 2♠ can be balanced.

Quote

2. Does east have any alternative bid after pd's 2♦ except 3♣? I guess 4♦ is the only reasonable alternative. Which bid is better?

4♦ looks great, 3♣ is better when you ahve other contracts in mind such as 4/6♥ and 3NT.

Quote

3. Should west bid 3♠ with only Hx support or he should bid it unless he has 3 cards in ♠? What is the standard (or "common") agreement here?

♠Kx is a great holding in support of partner. Lack of space means he has no choice but 3♠.

Quote

4. If 3♠ is not a mere preference (as the above treatment which promises 3 cards), then 4♦ may not be agreeing ♦ as trump but rather cuebid with ♠ as trump. If this happens to be true, 4♠ must be the obvious signoff bid.

Yes, there is a kind of duplicated meanings for one bid. I myself am happy to set diamonds as trumps and then rectify to spades later.

[han]

han, on Dec 9 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 I might bid:

1H - 2C
2D - 2NT
3NT - 4NT
pass

Maybe a better auction is

1H - 2C
2D - 2NT
3NT - 4D
5D - pass

[Winstonm]

Quote

The auction 1H-1S-2D-3C must be the most cumbersome in standard bidding, it is really hard to have a controlled slam investigation after this start.

I think everyone is in agreement here. I think a valid starting spot to cure this "flaw" would be with the concept that in this sequence, 3D by responder is forcing. Now, how would that change affect all other bids? Can the hands that need to be shown still be shown if we make this change? What bids are left to use?

If 1H-1S-2D-3D is changed to have a forcing meaning, then 3C is free and 2N is somewhat free. Are those two bids enough to show other hand types and still allow 3D to be forcing?

There is also merit to first ignoring spades and bidding 2/1 or to make an immediate NT bid.

[cherdano]

han, on Dec 10 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

han, on Dec 9 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 I might bid:

1H - 2C
2D - 2NT
3NT - 4NT
pass

Maybe a better auction is

1H - 2C
2D - 2NT
3NT - 4D
5D - pass

I also agree with the improvement, but isn't the West hand worth one cuebid with two aces and a working king?

[han]

I don't think you should cue with this 11-count when partner has shown a balanced hand.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3S is not an option.
Opener should either bid 3D or 3H, decide before hand,
which bid is the default answer, and make it, 3S should
show 3 cards.
Surprise, surprise, if opener does not bid 3S now, he
wont have a problem later on in deciding, which suit
was the agreed.

Next: Over 3S responder should bid 3NT.
Opener told him, he has a 5431 shape, in other words AKx
in clubs are wastage.
Besides 3NT already showes a hand 15-18, so if responder
bids 3NT, he tells his partner, I happen to be bal. with
15-18HCP, and, surprise surprise, that is what responder
is holding.
Opener will move on if he has more than a bare min.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

AKx opposite shortness are wastage? It may not be the best holding but I bet you will still be able to score two tricks with these. I think 3NT is too little.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on Dec 10 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

han, on Dec 10 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

han, on Dec 9 2008, 11:59 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 I might bid:

1H - 2C
2D - 2NT
3NT - 4NT
pass

Maybe a better auction is

1H - 2C
2D - 2NT
3NT - 4D
5D - pass

I also agree with the improvement, but isn't the West hand worth one cuebid with two aces and a working king?

Cherdano,

Is a good question but I believe it is a matter of partnership style. I cannot say for sure that 3D under the current methods would be necessarily a slam try - only forcing, trying to get to the best game - but could also be a mild slam try or serious slam try. I don't know at this point.

The way I play, my obligation at this point is to describe as best I can the values I hold and how much I can offer in the way of shape. In this hand, I would be happy with my cards if partner had a serious slam try, but I wouldn't want to suggest more than a balanced minimum otherwise. Because I don't know which he has, I make a minimum bid showing no real interest in slam.

In other words, my bidding at this point shows an attitude about my hand.

It is my opinion that the most difficult slams to reach are when both hands have slight interest. If one hand is strongly interested, that hand can always later take control - but initially, I have found that bids that convey the meaning "I have mild slam interest if you do" to best for me.

[cherdano]

Winston, you misread the auction. Nobody ever bid 3N.

[Winstonm]

cherdano, on Dec 10 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

Winston, you misread the auction. Nobody ever bid 3N.

Cherdano,

Perhaps I misunderstood the auction or your question. Maybe to be safe I'll give you a generic answer and hope it is helpful.

I have found for me the best style or method of slam bidding is to show an attitude about trying for slam before showing cards in a minimum hand- goes with my not caring so much about captaincy, as well.

So what my generic answer is is this: Unless my partner had shown a strong hand and a serious interest in investigating slam, I would not describe my AAK, even though they are good key cards unless the rest of my hand was slammish (means spots and shape are critical to me in minimal hand slam interest.)

Let me set an auction to illustrate: 1S-2C-2D-2S. At this point opener can deny a slam interest QJxxx, KQ, KQxx, xx with 4S or show mild or better interest with a cue bid. A minimum hand with good shape and cards for slam purposes takes a cue bid: KJxxx, x, AJxx, Kxx.

Best I can do. Thanks.