[DinDIP]

Playing with a good -- and aggressive -- partner against quality opps in a serious teams playoff match, we had this auction. Where did we go wrong and what suggestions, if any do you have, given our (imperfect but partner's preferred) methods (old-fashioned SA with some tweaks)?

First board of the match we held

---

By way of explanation:
Our partnership agreement is not to stretch on the first board: being aggressive is fine, but not stretching. (That might be semantics for some but the distinction is meaningful for us.)
2♠ was NF and did not promise 6; a NS, 2N or 3♠ would have been GF
3♣ 2N instead here would have been INV but NF; 3N would have been NF but promises S tolerance (doubleton or stiff honour) so O(pener) knows when to remove when holding a six-card suit
3♠ All actions here would be GF: 3♦ would usually be three-card support, could be Hx at a pinch; 3♥ would be asking for a stopper (partner would bid 3♣ with a hand like x KJT AQJxx Qxxx as 3N would promise better S); 4♠ would show 6 or 7 good spades (a picture jump: 3♠ then 4♠ would show weaker S); 4♥ would be a SPL (over this partner's 4♠ would be a cue, not an offer to play); 4♣ would be a hand strong enough to make 5♣ -- weaker hands would bid 3♥ then pass 4♣, while a direct 5♣ suggests minimum with good clubs, often 5 (4♠ over a direct 4♣ is an offer to play, not a cue)
P (over 3N) 4♣ here was undiscussed but would show 6S and 4C: in related auctions we have bid like this with shapely hands with minimum high-card values so partner might take this as NF.

The partnership agreement is that when choosing between equally suitable or equally flawed calls (such as O's call over 3♣) choose the cheapest.

We know the hand would be easier using other methods. But should we have done better given what we were playing?

Thanks

David

[kenrexford]

Ultimately, West is at fault, IMO. I am not that impressed with East, either, but I can understand the thinking. It is just too weak to make a non-forcing 2♠ call with all three top spade honors sixth, a 6-4 hand, and five losers by LTC.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I agree with Ken on the poor 2S rebid.
Stronger would be to try to show a 6-4 hand by rebidding the 4 card suit, then the 6 card suit again ( 6-4-6 ).
However, that 4 card ♣ suit doesn't look so great ( K x x x ) and the only justification is the stellar ♠ suit to fall back on:
1S - 2D ( F1 )
3C ( extras ) - 3H ( GF )
3S - 4NT ( RKC )
5S ( 2 + Q ) - 6NT

[gnasher]

West might have bid more than 2♠, but I don't think it's clear to do so. ♥Q will often be useless, because even if you can use it to set up a trick in partner's hand, what you're throwing away may not be a loser. Also, your spot cards aren't very good.

East's hand merits strong action on the third round. A natural 4NT would be reasonable, but you're probably playing that as ace-asking.

The one action I think is clearly wrong is West's pass of 3NT. He has extra values, unshown four-card support for partner's second suit and a singleton in the unbid suit. I'd bid 4♣. Maybe East can now picture West's hand (less ♥Q)?

[inquiry]

Does your tweaks to SAYC include some form of a forcing raise, say like Jacoby 2NT?

What would the following auctions have meant?

1♠ - 3NT? (you said non-forcing, but didn't give it a range).

1♠-4NT?

1♠-2♦; 2♠-4NT?

Was showng that "long" diamond suit necessary in your methods? Could Responder have bid 2♣ instead of 2♦ giving opener more room to bid?

[DinDIP]

inquiry, on 2011-April-04, 08:21, said:

Does your tweaks to SAYC include some form of a forcing raise, say like Jacoby 2NT?

Yes, and 1M-2N might only be good three-card support.

Quote

What would the following auctions have meant?

1♠ - 3NT? (you said non-forcing, but didn't give it a range).

Just to clarify, the 3N I was describing was in the auction 1♠-2♦-2♠-3N.

A direct 3N over 1M shows a min BAL GF raise with three-card support no stronger than Hxx and stoppers outside.

Quote

1♠-4NT?

Partner treats bids like these as RKC for S. I'm working on persuading him that such a definition is unnecessary when a forcing raise is available as responder can always start with that and then use RKC. But there are more important things to get him to adopt so that's way down my list at present.

Quote

1♠-2♦; 2♠-4NT?

Snap, even though (again) a slam INV raise is available (3♠ -- F because game INV hands start with a 3♣ raise that promises a GI with three-card support. This is a great method as we have lots of auctions that go 1M-3♣-4M and the opps have very little information to go on -- at most a negative inference from 4th's failure to double. Contrast that with auctions like 1M-NS-NS-3M[GI] where we have bid three suits to help the opps on lead and defence.)

Quote

Was showng that "long" diamond suit necessary in your methods? Could Responder have bid 2♣ instead of 2♦ giving opener more room to bid?

He could but our style is to bid NAT unless there's a very good reason for not doing so. Not obvious here what that is; after all, 1♠-2♣-2♠-3♦ leaves even less room for O on the third round. Partner's sequence must be better.

David

[OleBerg]

Assuming IMP's (Not BAM.)

1♠ - 2♦

Off to a nice start.

2♠ = Quite conservative, but just acceptable. 3♣ is probably better, and would be my choice, but it preempts the bidding, on a hand where the question: "3NT or 4♠?" will often be the problem that needs to be solved.

3♣ = Annoying to have to bid like this on 4-3 instead of 5-4. (Dont try it with screens.) Why not 3♥?

3♠ = Why not 4♣? It seems like 3♣ is really an artificial bid, if you do not support it on this hand. At least bid 3♥, showing doubt about the final denomination. (Get rid of that "asks for a stopper" nonsense.)

3NT = Much to little. Partner bid spades three times (With weaker spades 3♥ could have been bid.). 4♥, showing a good raise to 4♠, is obvious.

Pass = ?????
Even if we somehow know that partner has temporized with 3♣, he must have had a reason for doing it, instead of bidding 3NT directly on 2♠. Taking another initiative seems completely obvious.