[hrothgar]

---

IMPS

Auction starts:

1♣ - 1♠
2♥ - 3♦
3♠ - 3N

Question 1: Agree with the auction so far?

Question 2: How do you continue?

[jdonn]

1. No. I would bid this way for the first three rounds:
1♣ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♠ 4NT (natural)
If I were worried partner wouldn't take 4NT as natural after I confirmed a fit then 4♣ is an acceptable alternative.

2. From your start it's hard to know without having any definition to 3♦ (even given that bid I don't see why responder didn't bid 4♣ next). Over 3NT I think opener has to pass, he isn't aware of all responder's extra values and lacks the safety to move farther.

[Fluffy]

I prefer to bid 3♣ rather than 3♦ as north if its avaible. what is 3NT?


After a forced 4SF, we should raise clubs at last. Innercy will get us to the cold slam in clubs, althou the slam could be on a finese as well.

[rogerclee]

I agree with everything Josh wrote. 3♦ to me is a strange bid, unless we had no cheaper game-forcing bid, but at any rate I certainly would have bid 4♣ instead of 3NT.

On the actual hand of course south has a pass, south has described his hand very well and north has placed the final contract.

[Impact]

I must have missed something:-

After the reverse by South, the North hand is loking at 14HCP including prime support for opener's first bid suit, control of both of the other 2 suits, and his only unsupported minor Honour (the HQ) is in opener's 2nd suit.

All of that screams slam, and assuming it was a pick-up partnership with no special agreements my unambiguous choice would have been 4C to clue partner in!

Actually, if you could agree C with 3C, and later Kickback or KCB in C given your controls that would be fine but many peole still play the return to 3C as n-f (whether you like that or not).

2. Frankly, I don't think opener has an excuse for another bid as he has no huge extra values after responder effectively signs off in 3NT. I would be reluctant to partner North again as he obviously despises slam bonuses, and hogs the hand under all circumstances!

apologies for any offence in advance :-;
regards

[Codo]

1. I agree with north first bid and with all bids from south.

2. I bid 4 Club. Partner bid 4sf and now, after I showed 3 card support, he bids NT. This could show doubt about the diamond stop (my guess) or a hand with Slam interest (obviously norths idea). In both cases I must bid on.


I really HATE Norths bidding, he should have raised partner instead of 4sf.

[Hanoi5]

1. I'm not sure I agree with 3♦ and then 3NT. Of course it depends on what they mean.

2. Depending on the meaning of 3♦ the best continuation could be Pass, 4NT or 6NT.

[Edmunte1]

1. I definitely prefer 3♣ instead of 3♦
2. In the proposed sequence, i would bid 4♣

[gnasher]

Everyone seems to assume that 3♣ would have been forcing. Do you assume that you're playing Lebensohl/Ingberman without any agreement?

[mike777]

prefer 3c over 3d
3c=natural and 100% game force

that means 2nt is default non game force rebid. but expect opener to rebid.
2s=rebid =5spades....less than game force but expect opener to rebid.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 No. 3D?
Assuming you play something like Lebensohl, 3C by
North should be clear cut.
#2 I guess, I have to bid a quantitative 4NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

gnasher, on Feb 23 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

Everyone seems to assume that 3♣ would have been forcing.  Do you assume that you're playing Lebensohl/Ingberman without any agreement?

Gnasher raises a valuable point:

Partner and I don't play together very frequently.
We had not discussed Lebensohl over reverses.

The 3♦ bid was intended to establish an absolute game force and (hopefully) suggest extra values.

I think one of the big issues on this hand was reverse style (does South have significant extra compared to the minimum necessary for a reverse?)

[Codo]

Sitting opposite any partner (from int to exp.)I had taken 3♣ as forcing.
This is the best treatment, I would believe that it is the most common treatment and it may even work when partner is not on the same wavelength.

But despite this, south cannot pass 3 NT when he takes his partner serious.
Which hand shall partner have after this bidding? Passsing 3 NT is at least lazy.

[P_Marlowe]

hrothgar, on Feb 23 2009, 07:21 AM, said:

<snip>
I think one of the big issues on this hand was reverse style (does South have significant extra compared to the minimum necessary for a reverse?)

Hi,

I would say yes, although I am not quite sure about the
significant part.

As it is, NA reverse style you are approx. a King better than
a dead min / maybe only a Queen.
I guess withouth the King of spades some would make the
reverse, some would raise to 2S, although I would say, that
the hand would be too strong for a single raise, at least it
would be super max.
Since you dont play often together, I doubt that you should go
this conservative path, because it is quite certain that partner
wont be on the same wavelength.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

Agree with Uwe, south has etras after reverse, Kxx IN PARTNER'S SUIT, and solid cards in the others is enough to consider it extras.

[MFA]

Fluffy, on Feb 23 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

Agree with Uwe, south has etras after reverse, Kxx IN PARTNER'S SUIT, and solid cards in the others is enough to consider it extras.

When partner bids 3NT he says he doesn't have a suit. So ♠Kxx should not be overrated. But on the other hand, S might have stretched with the actual distribution, and this time he has surely not.

3♦ -> 3NT is unacceptable.

It all depends on system, but N must show strong values. There are many possible ways,

3♦ -> 4NT natural
3♦ -> 4♣ -> cuebid
3♣ (if forcing) -> 4NT natural or 4♣ or cuebid
2NT (if natural forcing) -> 4♣ or 4NT
4♣
etc.

Which to choose depends on what's available.
South would be happy to cooperate towards slam.

[Phil]

First three calls are fine.

Don't like 3♦ and I much prefer 3♣ if its forcing.

Over 3♠, I strongly prefer 4♣. 4N is kind of descriptive, but its reckless with those diamonds and its a space hog. It also does not say "I have three big cards for you pard".

Over 4♣, I'd expect 4♥...4♠...5♣...6♣

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Feb 23 2009, 06:19 AM, said:

Everyone seems to assume that 3♣ would have been forcing. Do you assume that you're playing Lebensohl/Ingberman without any agreement?

Yes. But as I mentioned, if you are worried about it and bid 3♦ anyway then that in no way excuses the 3NT bid.

[fachiru]

1) The 3♦ bid really sucks

[JanM]

This particular auction is awkward when you play a reverse style where the 4th suit is the "negative" bid over a reverse. In fact, it's so unusual (4th suit higher than opener's first suit) that in my partnerships we define it separately from other reverses. Our agreement is that 3♣ is non-forcing and that 3♦ is like 4th suit forcing, implying club tolerance. Obviously, I have no idea whether that is even remotely mainstream, but once you decide that it isn't sensible to use 2NT as the negative bid (often wrong-sides 3NT both when responder does and doesn't bid 2NT), it seems like the best agreement for this awkward auction.

Having said that, I don't think this hand is right for 3♦, even assuming that you've agreed 3♣ is non-forcing and 3♦ is a game force with club tolerance. 2NT seems to be better, since it shows the diamond stopper(s). But of course that wouldn't be a good bid if you thought 2NT might be the non-forcing negative bid here. I suspect that's the real problem with this auction - N was worried that either 2NT or 3♣ might show a minimum and be non-forcing. Obviously, it was better to make a clearly forcing bid than to make a bid that might be passed.

Still, the result of the uncertainty about method was that responder badly misdescribed the hand, suggesting concern about the diamond stopper. Then responder bid 3NT to try to overcome part of the misdescription. The problem with 3NT of course was that it clearly isn't forcing, so although it described the diamond stopper(s) it didn't adequately describe the strength. On the auction so far, North knows that s/he's facing a 3415 hand. I think that opposite that shape, the cards outside diamonds are just a little too good to settle for 3NT, so probably N should bid 4♣ instead, continuing to misdescribe the diamonds, but doing a better job of describing the values. Or 4NT, describing values and diamond stopper(s) and maybe not adequately showing the club support.

The main reason for S to act over 3NT is that I think N's auction should show doubt about the diamond stopper, with club tolerance. In that case, 5♣ may easily be a better contract than 3NT. And if N has something like QJxx, xx, Axxx, Kxx, 6♣ is (I think) better than 3NT on the obvious diamond lead. I think I've convinced myself that S should bid, not because the hand is significantly better than a minimum reverse, but because it is unsuitable for 3NT when partner has doubt about diamonds. Of course, I'm basing "doubt about diamonds" on the failure to bid 2NT last time, which was really based on concern that 2NT might not be forcing, so maybe all of this is wrong and failure to discuss reverses in general and this particular awkward auction in particular is the complete "culprit" here with neither player seriously at fault.