[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♥
 Pass  1♠    2♣    2♥
 Pass  4♠    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

[brianshark]

I disagree with north's 4♠ bid. It seems a little unilateral both in terms of level and strain. 3♠ shows your hand I think... it's highly invitational with a good 6+ ♠ suit. Partner can choose between pass, 3NT, 4♠ or even 4♥.

[P_Marlowe]

Bidding was reasonable.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

I guess it's easy to arrange the cards so that 4H makes and 4S doesn't, and this is with S providing good spade cards, so one could think a bit about the wisdom of 4S.

I have found that when holding a stiff A or K in partner's suit, with an auction such as this, I might want to consider putting him in four of his major.

It's not clear to me what I would do here.

[ASkolnick]

I'm not quite sure what the problem is here:

You have 25 HCP and an 8 card spade fit, I would be in game.

To play:

I assume the play went 2 clubs followed by a diamond shift.
Win AD, cross to AH, cash 2 trumps ending with K and hope that either hearts split 3-3 or the person with less than 3 trumps also has the heart shortness.

Sure, in hearts you sort of need the same kind of breaks, except you need to follow to one extra round of spades.

So, I have no problem playing in about a 45-50% game.

[brianshark]

The fact that the final spot is a reasonable one has nothing to do with discussion on whether the auction was a good one.

[kenrexford]

Responder's hand could easily be worthless in a 4♥ contract.

Slam is remote after the 2-only-hearts rebid. Could be, but remote.

Responder can handle a "0-card fit" in spades reasonably well.

3♠...4♠ is a slam try and too rich, IMO.

Thus, I see no problem with Responder's calls. In fact, anything other than the exact sequence chosen would be wrong, IMO.

I also see no problem with Opener's sequence, either. I might chuckle approvingly if South had opened 1NT, but 1♥...2♥ seems appropriate.

[cherdano]

Ken, 3♠ would be non-forcing and invitational for the rest of us.

[neilkaz]

I don't find anything wrong with the bidding here. N could be a bit cautious and just invite with 3♠ but S is going to accept and the contract is the same. That being said, I'd probably have bid the direct 4♠ that N did.

.. neilkaz ..

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Dec 30 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

Ken, 3♠ would be non-forcing and invitational for the rest of us.

If you play that 1♥-P-2♠ is natural with either a weak hand or an intermediate/constructive hand, then 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠ shows the other, and 1♥-1♠-2♥-3♠ is GF.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 30 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 30 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

Ken, 3♠ would be non-forcing and invitational for the rest of us.

If you play that 1♥-P-2♠ is natural with either a weak hand or an intermediate/constructive hand, then 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠ shows the other, and 1♥-1♠-2♥-3♠ is GF.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts then everyone would have a merry Christmas.

[jillybean]

I was south and knew I'd have a problem rebidding this, I like rexfords 1nt!
4♠ took me by surprise but worked well, I would have bid 3♦ then my ♠ again whats wrong with this?

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Dec 30 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 30 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 30 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

Ken, 3♠ would be non-forcing and invitational for the rest of us.

If you play that 1♥-P-2♠ is natural with either a weak hand or an intermediate/constructive hand, then 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠ shows the other, and 1♥-1♠-2♥-3♠ is GF.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts then everyone would have a merry Christmas.

That's true, but you do have to assume something, don't you? I assumed that a 3♠ rebid would be forcing. If 3♠ is not forcing, what the heck do you bid with the big hands but uncertainty as to strain? If you say, NMF or something, then you are assuming NMF.

[jdonn]

I don't decry the practice of assuming. I decry the practice of making unlikely assumptions instead of likely assumptions.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Dec 30 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

I don't decry the practice of assuming. I decry the practice of making unlikely assumptions instead of likely assumptions.

Wow. I cannot think of anyone with whom I play where 3♠ would not be forcing. It might exist in some strange world somewhere, I suppose. LOL

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Dec 30 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 30 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

I don't decry the practice of assuming. I decry the practice of making unlikely assumptions instead of likely assumptions.

Wow. I cannot think of anyone with whom I play where 3♠ would not be forcing. It might exist in some strange world somewhere, I suppose. LOL

What world do you live in, Ken?

[brianshark]

jillybean2, on Dec 30 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

I was south and knew I'd have a problem rebidding this, I like rexfords 1nt! 
4♠ took me by surprise but worked well, I would have bid 3♦ then my ♠ again whats wrong with this?

In my opinion:

3♦ is GF and I think this is not quite worth GF and invite (but most others think you should GF so this is no big deal)

3♦ tends to show a ♦ stop and asks about a ♣ stop. You're ♦ stop is a tad flimsy, if pard has a small doubleton or singleton in ♦s, he will not worry about the suit. And maybe those tricks that they can cash and you can't ruff are tricks 4 and 5 for the defence.

3♦ tends to show a 5-4 hand, so with a good doubleton in your suit, pard is still unlikely to play you for 6 and will rarely raise to 4♠, especially if he holds a ♣ stop. And 4♠ is often the correct spot.

I think 3♠ solves all the above, it shows 6 good spades, can be passed, leaves 3N, 4♥ and 4♠ open and brings pard attention that there may be a weakness in both minors.

[FrancesHinden]

jillybean2, on Dec 30 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

I was south and knew I'd have a problem rebidding this, I like rexfords 1nt!
4♠ took me by surprise but worked well, I would have bid 3♦ then my ♠ again whats wrong with this?

There's nothing wrong with the theory of bidding both your suits, it's just that on this particular hand:

- Your spades are so good that they can play opposite a void.
- You don't have any real interest in playing in diamonds.
- You know partner doesn't have a decent diamond suit, because she didn't take the trouble to bid them at the 2-level

I think the 4S rebid is fine. 3S (invitational) would also be OK, but a bit cautious.

[y66]

I think I would have bid 3S there, intending it as invitational. I like FH's arguments for 4S.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Dec 30 2008, 02:27 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 30 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

I don't decry the practice of assuming. I decry the practice of making unlikely assumptions instead of likely assumptions.

Wow. I cannot think of anyone with whom I play where 3♠ would not be forcing. It might exist in some strange world somewhere, I suppose. LOL

That strange world is called reality, Ken

BTW, a new year's resolution for me is to be nice to Ken

JB I agree entirely with Frances on this hand.

If you want, as north, to create an unambiguous gf, the way to do it is to cue 3♣... it says nothing other than 'we are going to game, do something descriptive'. It is NOT purely a stopper ask, altho South should strain to bid notrump if that is the descriptive bid... I would not advise 3♣ here, because when one bids 3♣ and then pulls 3N to 4♠, you are making a slam try.... if all you wanted to do was to play 4♠, you'd bid it over 2♥... thus creating the force THEN bidding 4♠, while not forcing, would be a very strong move, and south would be expected to consider moving on.