[lamford]

You have ♠ AQ8742 ♥ K92 ♦ QJ ♣ 64. You are playing strong NT, 4-card majors, and you bid 1H - (Pass) - 1S - (Pass) - 1NT (12-14) - Pass - 2C* (Crowhurst, or checkback, asking about majors) - (Pass) - 3C (undiscussed) - (Dble). What do you bid now, and what other calls do you seriously consider? If you elect to bid 3H, it goes (Pass) - 3NT - (Pass) - ? What do you bid now and what other calls do you seriously consider?

If you know the case; please avoid commenting on any ruling until I give it; thanks!

[hatchett]

Was the ruling anything to do with the fact we only had 12 cards?

[TimG]

I think I'd want to know more about the checkback/crowhurst agreements, but it seems to me that 3C is an impossible answer. I think that is enough to wake partner up. So, I think partner has raised our (presumed) clubs and then bid 3N over our suggestion to play hearts. I pass now. If my 13th card is a heart, I would see no problem with correcting to 4H.

[Edit: sorry missed the 4cM part. I would think 3S over 3C is better than 3H and see no reason to pull 3N once I have neglected to do that.]

[lamford]

Sorry about the wrong hand; corrected now.

[mtvesuvius]

I would bid 3♠ over 3♣, then over 3NT, I bid 4♥. I beleive this shows my exact hand, 6♠ and 3♥.

[lamford]

3C is undiscussed and over your chosen sequence, partner would correct to 4S.

[mtvesuvius]

ok... Pass wtp? Partner has 2=5=2=4...

[lamford]

A couple of points here; if partner is 2-5-2-4 he will surely bid 4H over 3H. And his normal rebid is 2C after 1H - 1S.

[mtvesuvius]

lamford, on Jan 18 2009, 06:02 PM, said:

A couple of points here; if partner is 2-5-2-4 he will surely bid 4H over 3H. And his normal rebid is 2C after 1H - 1S.

Partner doesn't always do what he is supposed to , however you make a good point... 2=5=3=3 is more likely I guess.

[lamford]

Indeed, with perhaps ♣ KJx, which does not want to be led through. But 3NT on a club lead is not going to be that great after the double, unless you have 9 quickies.

[manudude03]

I suppose partner might have something like Kx Axxxx AK xxxx that really doesn't want to risk getting passed out in 2C. I can't think of any reason why partner would want to show off a 3 card suit.

The alternative would be something like Jxx xxxxx Ax AKQ ie "I have a maximum with 5 hearts, 3 spades, with longer clubs"

I bid 3S (must surely be forcing) offering a choice of games.

EDIT: oops, missed the 4cM part, 2nd hand was impossible.

[lamford]

2♣, in theory, asked partner whether he had five hearts or three spades. The ox bid something else; we have not discussed what that means, but we do know that partner normally responds at the two level, so can presume he has better than a minimum for 3♣. The rest is guesswork. And 3♠ cannot be silly.

[gnasher]

If you want our uncontaminated opinions, it would be wise to wait more than three hours before posting your own answer to your question.

In all the partnerships where I've discussed it, and several where I haven't, a non-standard reply to Checkback shows an offshape 1NT rebid. I'd expect a 1534 or 2524 shape, and I'd bid 3♠ followed by 4♥ with the responding hand.

I'd consider 3♥, but only for long enough to realise that it's the wrong bid: it won't get us to spades when it should, and 3♥-3NT-4♥ sounds like a slam try. I don't think this constitutes "serious" consideration.

I wouldn't consider pass, which sounds like an attempt to play in 3♣.

[mtvesuvius]

gnasher, on Jan 18 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

If you want our uncontaminated opinions, it would be wise to wait more than three hours before posting your own answer to your question.

I agree. It seems like you are pushing us toward an answer... To receive unbiased opinions, ask a question and don't hint toward an answer.

[lamford]

gnasher, on Jan 18 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

I wouldn't consider pass, which sounds like an attempt to play in 3♣.

I am trying to avoid offering an opinion, and I am not advocating a pass at all. In fact I don't disagree with your suggested action at all, and am not trying to push you in another direction. Shortly, I shall relate the reasons for the question. My postings just clarified what various bids would have meant where I was aware of the agreement.

[gnasher]

lamford, on Jan 19 2009, 04:11 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jan 18 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

I wouldn't consider pass, which sounds like an attempt to play in 3♣.

I am trying to avoid offering an opinion, and I am not advocating a pass at all. In fact I don't disagree with your suggested action at all, and am not trying to push you in another direction. Shortly, I shall relate the reasons for the question. My postings just clarified what various bids would have meant where I was aware of the agreement.

No one has accused you of advocating a pass. You do, however, appear to advocate 3♠, when you say "3♠ cannot be silly".

[peachy]

Once there is a non-systemic bid in the auction, matters become a bit complicated. However, I bid 3S which shows a six-carder. Next round, I bid 4H if given a chance.

Apparently the Dbl over partner's 3C was some lead director which might make 3H bid more attractive, making partner declarer, but I'll still stick with my original plan, 3S, followed by 4H.