[Dwingo]

I am probably in the minority here. My 4S bid was based on my understanding that 1S promises atleast 5 cards. If this is not , then I have to find another bid.

For all the 2D bidders, won't 2D deny ♠ support, though it sets up a force.

Godwin

[Elianna]

Dwingo, on Jun 15 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

I am probably in the minority here. My 4S bid was based on my understanding that 1S promises atleast 5 cards. If this is not , then I have to find another bid.

Well, BBO-Advanced doesn't address whether 1♠ in this auction is four or five cards, but I know that I for one would treat it as four cards, and a negative double as promising at least four cards in BOTH majors . In an earlier post, Phil (Pclayton) says that this seems to be "standard", and I know that this treatment is the only one I've actually seen used.

This allows you to show your suit (as opposed to if double could be just ONE of the majors left), especially if your LHO raises his partner's suit (CHO will be better positioned to know where a fit is, or if there is none.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[kgr]

Elianna, on Jun 16 2005, 02:09 AM, said:

Dwingo, on Jun 15 2005, 04:59 PM, said:

I am probably in the minority here. My 4S bid was based on my understanding that 1S promises atleast 5 cards. If this is not , then I have to find another bid.

Well, BBO-Advanced doesn't address whether 1♠ in this auction is four or five cards, but I know that I for one would treat it as four cards, and a negative double as promising at least four cards in BOTH majors . In an earlier post, Phil (Pclayton) says that this seems to be "standard", and I know that this treatment is the only one I've actually seen used.

This allows you to show your suit (as opposed to if double could be just ONE of the majors left), especially if your LHO raises his partner's suit (CHO will be better positioned to know where a fit is, or if there is none.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Also 4S from me thinking that partner did show 5-card. (...or should I say NOT thinking...)
There has been a question like this on rgb:
1C-(1D)-DBL
Most respondents say that it shows 2 4-cards M and with a 5-card you just bid it. So, that can be considered as the standard.

[luke warm]

Dwingo, on Jun 15 2005, 06:59 PM, said:

For all the 2D bidders, won't 2D deny ♠ support, though it sets up a force.

no, though it *might* deny 4 card support... i'm not even sure of that

[inquiry]

Scoring: IMP

BPO-003D

South WEST North EAST
1♣ (1♦) 1♠ (pass)
? Your bid

submitted by cherdano

---

Once again the panel split 6-4 between the two obvious votes. After the free bid of 1♠, it is difficult to imagine you not getting to game. The panel choose between two bid. The majority went with the somewhat mildly off-shape 2NT, the minority with an unassuming cue-bid. I think the majority got this one right, see if you agree that their logic and the fact that the subsequent auction will be simplified after 2NT versus 2♦.

Fred 2NT. Perfect except for the missing X of hearts. The alternatives have created flaws in my view. We can still get to 4♠ if we belong there.


Ritong 2 NT I can hardly imagine my part passes after his free bid of 1 spade.

Jlall 2NT. 18-19 balanced, wtp? Ok...maybe not so balanced lol. This bid comes closer than any other bid at describing my hand. I'm not worried about the hearts, even if partner has nothing in hearts AND the opps lead one lho probably has the ace. This describes my values perfectly, and almost the shape. 3S, the other option is a slight underbid and is missing a trump. We can always find a 5-3 spade fit after 2N anyways, and I don't think the moysian will necessarily play better than 3N. Again, I hate a 2D bid as it doesn't describe my hand, is an overbid, and is misguided.

Fluffy 2NT, I want to be in game, and these bid is the best describing one, we can find about ♠ fit if it's there

Cherdano2NT. I would like to show stoppers, my values (despite the singleton king, I like this hand and think it is worth 18 pts), and 3-card support. 2NT shows two of them, and partner can easily find about the third (3-card support) afterwards.

Cascade 2NT Partner can checkback for spades

The minority view was to start with 2♦ and then figure out where to go from there. Rich simply voted for 2♦ without explanation. The others explained their bids as follows.

Luis 2♦. Many options in this hand but an unassuming cuebid should be the most flexible way to handle this strange combination of cards. I guess we'll have a much more interesting problem in our next round of bidding.

nG 2♦. It promises: 1. Good hand with 3 card spade support. OR 2. Good hand without diamond stopper (and max 3 hearts).

Walddk 2♦. Forcing with no clear direction, usually with 3-card support for spades. Since LHO rates to have KQ in diamonds, all values partner have look valuable. The hand is too good for a simple spade raise (even ♥K may turn out to be useful), and I don't like 3♠ with only 3. A jump support should guarantee a fit. Take ♥K away and I would just bid 2♠. Finally, 2♦ is not game forcing by any means, just a hand with extras and no clear bid available.

I think the agreement is 2♦ promises a spade fit, so while the 2NT bidder all expressed the possibility to get back into spades, it is not so clear the 2♦ bidders can get out of spades and into notrump. Roland, for example, never even mentions a possible NT contract (one is implied by the comment that the heart king might be valuable). Usually a cue-bid is the most flexible bid, but here, I agree with the panel that after partners free bid, 2NT is the best way to find the right spot. Therefore, similar to the last hand, unlike the last time where I upgraded the second place vote from 70 to 80, this time I have down graded the second place vote from 70 to 60. The reason my feeling that 2NT is more likely to make it easier to get the rest of the auction right as oppossed to 2♦.

Panel votes are also in table format on this link...
BBO-003 question post

VOTES  Panel  Score
2NT        6      100
2♦       4       60
3NT        0      30
3♠        0      20
4♠        0      10

[Elianna]

CONTESTANTS' responces:
2♦ 18
2NT 4
4♠ 3
2♠ 3
3♠ 2
4♥ 1

This problem, while most people agreed, had the second most number of different answers for all problems (and the second most number of people picking the leading answer).

[Double !]

This hand is more than meets the eye at first. I admit that bidding 2NT either just didn't occur to me when I answered, or it seemed to be such a distortion. This seemed like a clear-cut 2 diamond bid to get more info from partner. The more I've thought about it, the more curious this hand became to me. One issue not discussed is how to reach a club slam if partner has something like K 5th of spades and K5th or KQ4th of puppy tracks (clubs). Since BBO Adv. plays wolff, what is 3C/2NT on this auction? I am assuming that 3D/2NT is just checkback. So, how will partner show the above (admittedly constructed) hand if opener rebids 2NT without going past 3NT?
Just the same, if 3NT is correct contract, then 2NT does have the effect of likely right-siding the declarership. IMO, both 2D and 2NT have advantages and liabilities. At mp, 2NT is starting to look more interesting.
Ho, Hum
have a nice weekend everybody

[JLOGIC]

I prefer 2D now, very suit oriented hand and a free 1S is probably a little higher minimum than if LHO hadn't bid. I don't really want partner to pass 2N with 5 spades and a meh hand, and if we have a club slam 2D will make it a lot easier.