[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BPO-003A

No opponent bidding.

You  Partner
1♣     1♠
2♥     2♠
? you bid

Submitted by Mike777

---

If you haven't voted, we have extended the voting 12 hours to give you time (people have been having trouble finding the forum). Don't take all the suggestions here as being right (I haven't read them yet), but oftne the majority vote getting bid by readers is not what the panel votes (but often it is).... When I post questoin B, the poll will be closed.

Ben

[hrothgar]

BPO-003A : 4C

BBO Advanced is very different from Kaplan-Sheinwold. With this said and done, I believe that it would serve us well to remember some of the basic tenets of K-S. In particular, the more bidding space that a bid uses, the more descriptive that it needs to be.

Opener's 4C rebid is not defined in BBO-Advanced. However, logically the 4C rebid MUST show this hand type... Slam invitational. 3 card Spade support. Solid Clubs. In a similar fashion, a 4D rebid would show 3 card Spade support, a singleton or void in Diamonds, but deny solid clubs.

[hrothgar]

Jlall, on Jun 13 2005, 11:07 PM, said:

I dont think 4C shows this. Partner can pass a 3C bid so 4C would be your only way to force in clubs.

This brings up an interesting point...

Modern 2/1 game forcing systems have a number sequences in which a bids serve as puppets to the next high suit. The Wolff signoff is a classic example. Following an auction like

1m - 1M
2N

3♣ is an artifical bid forcing partner to bid 3♦. Lebensohl over reverses is another classic example. Responder's 2NT advance is a puppet to 3♣. I beleive that this basic principle should be applied MUCH more widely. Use the first step as an artificial puppet. While you will lose a "ntural" bid, you'll free up enormous numbers of additional sequences.

In this case, consider the impact of using 2NT as a puppet to 3♣... The partnership would lose the ability to drop-dead in 2NT, however, how often will you be able to thread that needle. The partnership gains the ability to signoff in 3♣ (bid 2NT and pass partner's response) and show good clubs below the level of 2NT (bid 3♣ directly).

Such an agreement provides the partnership with enormously more bidding space. True, it also increases complexity/memory load but its gonna solve a LOT of problems. Note that this meshes very well with the K-S aphorism with which I started the thread...

[Rebound]

I chose 5♦, EKB for spades. There are really only 3 cards I care about at this point. If partner shows AK of ♠ I have room to ask about the ♠ Q. That should be enough for the grand.

[Echognome]

I also bid 4♣ intending to make things clear if not take control on my next bid. Was an interesting problem.

[hrothgar]

Rebound, on Jun 13 2005, 11:38 PM, said:

I chose 5♦, EKB for spades. There are really only 3 cards I care about at this point. If partner shows AK of ♠ I have room to ask about the ♠ Q. That should be enough for the grand.

Good point...

If Exclusion RKCB is available, it could work better than 4♣...
5 Spades + 6 clubs + Diamond ruff + Ace of Hearts = 13
One the big question is what does 5♦ show in this sequence

With this said and done, a number of other posters have pointed out that 2♠ is not an especially strong rebid. Its unlikely that partner is sitting on three keycards.

I think that I still like 4♣ best, as this gives use a reasonable chance to stop in 4♠. If 4♣ is natural and forcing but does not show Spade support then I'd choose a 4♦ splinter.

[mike777]

Rebound, on Jun 13 2005, 03:38 PM, said:

I chose 5♦, EKB for spades. There are really only 3 cards I care about at this point. If partner shows AK of ♠ I have room to ask about the ♠ Q. That should be enough for the grand.

Man oh Man Good Grief I get the worst partners. Rebound and Richard get all the good ones.
With my partners we are down in 4s while Rebound and Richard are trying for 7

This problem was from 1983, I had 10 possible answers and missed this one so now 11 possible answers

[Blofeld]

I went for a simple 3♠. 5♦ looks like it might work; I hadn't considered that.

Do the 4♣ bidders think that it shows a 3-4-0-6 shape precisely? I would have thought that it was just the cheapest force in clubs.

[luke warm]

well i also responded 5♦, and i'm pretty sure it's wrong however, that's the bid i'd make so get ready to go minus...

[Double !]

If 4C promises solid clubs and Hxx in spades, well, then fine. Definitely considered 4C, but concerned about getting another zero for a creative bid.

I selected 4D: has to show 3 card spade support, 0 or 1 diamonds, and enough to GF.
Again, not sure we are so safe at 5-level opposite Qxxxx or Kxxxx of spades and whatever else outside. BTW: if P has something like KQ5th of spades, are you so sure that the hand belongs in 6S after a diamond lead, tapping dummy. Hand might actually belong in 6C!

Nothing has happened so far to assure that partner has particularly good spades, (just 5 or bad 6 of them) or that P doesn't have wasted values in diamonds. (There are still a number of honor cards in hearts and diamonds somewhere.) So, I think I'll ask him/her. 4 diamonds seems to do that.

oh, well. Maybe I'll get 20 pts for this one.................lolololololol

[mike777]

Jlall, on Jun 13 2005, 08:29 PM, said:

Blofeld, on Jun 13 2005, 05:53 PM, said:

I went for a simple 3♠. 5♦ looks like it might work; I hadn't considered that.

Do the 4♣ bidders think that it shows a 3-4-0-6 shape precisely? I would have thought that it was just the cheapest force in clubs.

again, I would not take 3S as a forcing bid.

Some try for grand slam, some try for game. I can think of hands with 4-1 spade breaks or even a few with 3-2 breaks where 3s might be too high.

[pclayton]

I chose 4D which should logically show a void, since I'd just raise to 3 or 4 with a stiff. (duh - edited)

I'm assuming some sort of LTTC is in use after all the discussion we have had. If that's the case then pard is free to use it with good trump. A follow up of 5D would be ekcb.

While a 4C call could be played as a walsh jump its hardly standard. To me, 4C shows something like: x, AQx, A, AQxxxxxx.

[Winstonm]

I'm not completely familiar with system required, but I would think in any system 3S would be forcing, so that's my bid. (So sue me if it's not, LoL.) I think the problem here is to help partner pinpoint the specific problem, the quality of the spades. A direct 4C bid might be confusing if undiscussed.

Over the expected 4S bid, I will now continue with 5D, pinpointing the spades as the trouble spot; even if pard bids 5H, I will still bid 5S indicating that the problem with the hand is the spade suit.

I like this sequence better than a direct 5 spades as pard could correct us to 6C with something like: AQ532, Kx, xxx, xxx.

WinstonM

[Dwingo]

I presume 4♦ can be only ♦ splinter with Spade support. I have now completed the description of my hand, atleast 5 ♣, 4 ♥, 3 ♠, singleton or void in ♦.

At the minimum, I want to be in game even though my pips in the ♠ suit is not very encouraging.

After the 2♠ bid slam prospects look bleak. So I let partner assess his hand in light of my ♦ shortness and what I have shown so far. A 6th ♠ will be a useful card, but I have no methods to find that out. If he makes the right noise with a 4♥ bid, I might think of making a push towards slam.

In all probability, I expect the auction to die in 4♠


Godwin

[Rebound]

Jlall, on Jun 13 2005, 04:56 PM, said:

because you play with pards who respond with nothing (like me LOL)

I guess that is the key point, isn't it? With what range of hands will partner respond 2♠ on this auction. I don't believe it's happening on Kxxxx. To me this should show a 6-card suit so I believe 5♦ to eminently reasonable. But then, I've been known to be wrong about such things :-)