[SimonFa]

Pick-up partner whose play to this point and profile led me to believe they he was a reasonable player. My profile says SAYC.

Red V White, IMPs.

♠KJT82
♥AQJ754
♦K2
♣Void

Ops silent, partner dealt:

1♣ 1♥ : I didn't see any point in rushing and planned to reverse to show strength and then rebid Hearts if it came to it

1♠ 2♦* : Partners bid threw me a bit and I had to think about it for a while and got hassling PMs from the table host. *I self alerted the 2♦ as game force.

3NT : now I was really thinking - partner must have a flat hand, maybe 4333 and with extra points, I gave them 16. Not sure what to do next, I would have liked more space to agree spades and then start cue bidding as I didn't want to use RKBC (in partner's profile) with a void.

As I couldn't think of anything constructive to say I blasted to 6♠ with the expectation that partner had 4. Partner corrected to 6NT, which made.

So, my questions are:

1. Given our limited agreements how should I have bid?
2. Having seen partner's hand what's the bast sequence with (a) our limited conventions and (b) if we were playing 2/1 which I am currently reading with a view to playing with a new partner.

As always, thanks in advance,

Simon

Spoiler

As you can see partner's hand wasn't what what I expected.

♠ AQ6
♥K9
♦87
♣AQJ832

[Cyberyeti]

1♠ is horrible, bid 3♣.

Would 1♣-1♥-1♠-4♣ be exclusion with spades agreed and a club void ? (it should be, with real club support you 4th suit and bid clubs) if so bid that, over partner's 4♥ (1) you bid 4N (Q♠?), he bids 5♣ (A♣/Q♠), you bid 5 ♠ and now partner knows about the diamond/heart issues and can bid 6N. You can hardly have less than this.

1♣-1♥-3♣-3♠ IMO is how the auction should start but what the continuations mean is not clear from this point.

[ahydra]

That bidding seems fine to be honest. The 1S on the other hand is... well... a bit odd?

I'd bid
1C-1H
3C-3S
3NT

and then... well... not sure. 6H or 6NT is a reasonable punt.

This is yet another hand for my useful 4C/4D convention where 4C whould show a slam try in clubs and 4D one in hearts. You bid 4D and partner bids 4S accepting the slam try (♥Kx and the spades are gold - and partner knows you must have 6 hearts since he could have supported hearts instead of 3NT), you bid 5D suggesting D control and (because you bypassed Blackwood) probably a void somewhere - has to be clubs on this bidding. Partner can now judge where to go and picks 6H. True, you miss the grand if partner has the ♦A instead of the ♣A, but that's hardly likely after the 1C-3C start.

ahydra

[mikeh]

We have a post from someone who plays SAYC and is playing with a pickup partner and we get responses that tout exclusion keycard or artificial cues.

Back in the real world, the OP has a legitimate problem for which he seeks guidance within the context of SAYC with a pickup partner whom he infers is 'reasonable'.

Clearly the 1♠ call was weird, and I suspect that it caused OP to have some reservations about his partner once he saw the hand on which it was bid.

Simon, your thinking about what he held for 3N was flawed. You assumed he had a balanced hand with extras, but that was impossible.

A balanced hand with 15-17 would open 1N in SAYC. A balanced hand with 18-19 would jump to 2N over 1♥. So whatever he held, he couldn't hold either of these.

Your partner did you in here on 2 calls.....1♠ and 3N. Your 2♦ was appropriate because, I assume, you either don't play or didn't want to risk exclusion in partner's first bid suit at your second turn, and who could blame you? This hand wouldn't be a good dummy in 5♣

Having bid 2♦, if 3N is even permissible, and my thinking is that it should be either very rare or impossible, it presumably shows extras with shape....maybe 4=1=3=5 16 count. One way of thinking about 2♦ is that it sends the message: we are going to game, maybe to slam...but I can't tell you yet why I am so excited....please make a CHEAP but descriptive call, over which I will tell you what denomination I am hoping to play in. If you think of 4SF in this way, you and your partners will not destroy your very valuable bidding space with jumps.


In any event, I think your 6♠ call was a practical solution to an impossible problem, given that you had no agreements in place. SAYC is a very bad slam bidding method (it's a very bad method, period, but it really sucks at slam bidding).

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2011-November-20, 17:41, said:

We have a post from someone who plays SAYC and is playing with a pickup partner and we get responses that tout exclusion keycard or artificial cues.

Back in the real world, the OP has a legitimate problem for which he seeks guidance within the context of SAYC with a pickup partner whom he infers is 'reasonable'.

I would expect any reasonable player (as the OP says his partner seems to be, and particularly if I suspect he has the same opinion of me) to play 4♣ as exclusion here for the reason I gave, although possibly the follow up bidding might be a bit obscure for a pickup partnership.

In fact his odd 1♠ makes bidding a slam much easier and has worked out OK if the A♦ is onside. I misread the hand initially as to who had the K♦ so my cue bidding sequence is rubbish, and partner should allow you to play 6♥/♠ rather than declaring 6N.

[campboy]

Take another look at the hand he bid 3NT on. I don't know of many people who play exclusion but not 4SF.

[Antrax]

mikeh's post was excellent IMO.
I can show you the auction I'd have, but it ends in 4♥

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on 2011-November-20, 18:36, said:

Take another look at the hand he bid 3NT on. I don't know of many people who play exclusion but not 4SF.

A lot of people play 4SF F1 not FG at the 1/2 levels, I know I do, so he felt 2N or 3♣ would be NF and was in a hole (of his own making). I'm not sure I know how partner would interpret 3♦ in a pickup partnership, so what do I do ?

It may also be that the OP thought he was a reasonable player because he just hadn't done anything silly yet, but that was the information we were given so I bid on that basis.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 1H is fine
#2 2D is fine as well, since some play 2D asGF, the 3NT does not promise add. strength,
so opener has not shown any add. values, and may still have a min opener (absent more
specific agreements).
#3 6S is fine, I would not criticize 5S (a quantitative invite), but 5S may be overcautious.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[S2000magic]

SimonFa, on 2011-November-20, 16:15, said:

Pick-up partner whose play to this point and profile led me to believe they he was a reasonable player. My profile says SAYC.

Red V White, IMPs.

♠KJT82
♥AQJ754
♦K2
♣Void

Ops silent, partner dealt:

1♣ 1♥ : I didn't see any point in rushing and planned to reverse to show strength and then rebid Hearts if it came to it

1♠ 2♦* : Partners bid threw me a bit and I had to think about it for a while and got hassling PMs from the table host. *I self alerted the 2♦ as game force.

3NT : now I was really thinking - partner must have a flat hand, maybe 4333 and with extra points, I gave them 16. Not sure what to do next, I would have liked more space to agree spades and then start cue bidding as I didn't want to use RKBC (in partner's profile) with a void.

As I couldn't think of anything constructive to say I blasted to 6♠ with the expectation that partner had 4. Partner corrected to 6NT, which made.

I think that your 2♦ is fine: you need to keep the bidding open, and no other forcing bid really fits the bill.

I disagree with your interpretation of partner's hand, however. If you follow the principle of fast arrival, I wouldn't credit partner with 16 points. (If you don't, then 16 is possible, I suppose.) I wouldn't expect him to be 4-3-3-3; I'd expect 4=1=4=4, 4=2=3=4, or, remotely, 4=2=2=5.

I don't agree with partner's 1♠ on ♠ A Q 6; I'd have rebid 3♣. I think it's too hard for you to field a 3-card spade suit on that auction.

After 3NT, I's say that 6♠ is a reasonable shot. It's hard to imagine that a scientific auction will garner the information you need to decide between 5♠, 6♠, and 7♠.

Just my thoughts.

[phil_20686]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-November-21, 03:55, said:

A lot of people play 4SF F1 not FG at the 1/2 levels, I know I do, so he felt 2N or 3♣ would be NF and was in a hole (of his own making). I'm not sure I know how partner would interpret 3♦ in a pickup partnership, so what do I do ?

It may also be that the OP thought he was a reasonable player because he just hadn't done anything silly yet, but that was the information we were given so I bid on that basis.

there is no way that 4c = exclusion is any anyway standard at any level. If I was playing with an expert level partner a more normal meaning is a hand with 4 hearts and longer clubs, and no interest in 3N. An example my be V- Axxx xxx AQxxxx.

Bidding FSF depending on other agreements, FSF then preference back to clubs should be reserved for those hands with more HCP and less trumps. This is a common problem if partners club could initially be short and you always respond with a 4 cM.

EDIT - on the actual hand your plan A should be to bid 6S at some point, having agreed that, it is best to keep the bidding open in case partner can do something useful. 2D seems fine. When partner does not do anything useful, just default to plan A and bid 6S. As you did. Your partners bidding is, as mentioned above, absurd.

[manudude03]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-November-21, 03:55, said:

A lot of people play 4SF F1 not FG at the 1/2 levels, I know I do, so he felt 2N or 3♣ would be NF and was in a hole (of his own making). I'm not sure I know how partner would interpret 3♦ in a pickup partnership, so what do I do ?

Well, one thing is for sure, I don't bid NT with xx in the 4th suit.

Moot point really, but I bid 1C-1H-3C-3S-4H-6H playing standard.

[SimonFa]

Thanks for all the replies and general thoughts, especially MikeH some interesting stuff.

I don't think many players in the main club play exclusion, even if they have heard of it, but FSF is common. The only issue I have come across with it is that some play it as forcing for 1 round and others to game.

Simon