32519

No, I am not joking. This hand occurred during an online team game some time ago. Neither table appeared to have proper agreements regarding the continuation bidding to an artificial strong 2♣. At our table the bidding went: 2♣-2♦ (waiting)-2♥-3♣. The 3♣ bid was understood to be the “second negative” and 0-4 HCP (see cheaper minor as the second negative above). After 3♣, North decided to blast into 4♥ which went down when the trumps broke 5-2 and the opponents kept tapping declarer in ♦. At the other table a complete disaster unfolded when the bidding went: 2♣-2♦ (waiting)-2♥-4♣. The 4♣ bidder was trying to show a real ♣ suit (versus 3♣ as the second negative). Needless to say, opener interpreted 4♣ as a splinter in support of ♥ and decided to blast straight into 6♥ which was doubled. Even with our own poor continuation agreements, our side picked up a sizeable gain on the hand. I posted the hand to find out what others do. Not everyone plays 2♦ as waiting.

This hand was dealt at IMPs. Dealer = North with N/S vulnerable. North opened the bidding with a strong artificial 2♣. [hv=pc=n&s=s954h6dj765ckj743&n=sakt7hakj42dcaqt8]133|200[/hv] How would you find the cold ♣ slam using every one the more popular methods for responding to a strong artificial 2♣ opening bid listed below? If you use something else, e.g. Kokish, then include it so that we can see how you would find the ♣ slam. 1. Albarran 2. Cheaper Minor as a Second Negative 3. Control Showing Responses 4. Natural Responses 5. Oswald Jacoby Step Responses 6. Two Diamonds as “Waiting”, Two Hearts as “Negative” I am trying to convince myself which of these methods is better to use. Thanking you all in advance.

You’re focusing too much on the hand itself and not enough on the principle that I was trying to illustrate; the principle being that I don’t believe that fit jumps are appropriate when all four hands are bidding. By all means, shuffle the cards around in any combination which you choose. Just don’t lose sight of the principle. This thread has already attracted a fair amount of views which tells me that others are interested in what is being discussed. A lot of players know about the Snapdragon Double. How may of these players actually use it? I have absolutely no idea. I am willing to put my head on the chopping block here and say that not enough partnerships using Snapdragon have detailed agreements on its wider possible applications. More to follow here as I have another idea on how Snapdragon can be made more useful. Watch this space!

The hand posted above was exploring further the question asked in post 16 (repeated here for convenience): Including 6-cards in the fourth suit was therefore done intentionally. A 5-card misfit in the fourth suit is discussed at the end of this post. The hand posted above was also exploring further the suggestion made by chasetb in post 17 to allow 3 cards in partners suit (repeated here for convenience): Therefore, including 3-cards in partner’s suit was also done intentionally. After reading more about fit jumps over here and over here I’m not convinced that they are applicable when all four players are bidding. You can quite easily end up in a disaster like this: [hv=pc=n&s=saqj64h72dj85c832&w=sk852hkj98dcaqjt6&n=s9h54dakt632ck754&e=st73haqt63dq974c9&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c1d1h2s(Fit%20Jump)p3d(No%20Spade%20fit)d(Penalty)p(Damn%21%20Should%20have%20used%20Snapdragon)pp]399|300[/hv] When the bidding goes: 1♣-1♦-1♥-2♠ (fit jump), you are forced to 3♦. With the HCP favouring the opponents they now trot out the red card and you end up red-faced! The Snapdragon Double keeps the bidding lower. It also keeps you out of trouble. The first article stipulates the criteria for Fit Showing Jumps as the following: 1. A good 5+ card suit, typically with 2-3 working honours 2. 4+ cards in partner’s suit, preferably 5 when partner bids a minor suit 3. 10-11 HCP, perhaps shaded with primary honour controls 4. An unbalanced distribution, preferably with a singleton or void (no flatter than a 5-4-2-2 shape) The first hand posted is out of kilter with Fit Showing Jumps, both regarding HCP and the number of cards promised in partner’s suit. It is also out of kilter regarding a (normal) FSJ sequence.

With these sorts of hands, the only place I want to play is in either minor. So how would I bid it? Not sure - maybe something like this: 1♦-(any from partner)-5♣ to get the message across that I want to play in game in either minor. Partner can pass/correct to the better minor.

We’ve had plenty of threads on these 4441’s which turned belly up. There have been differing opinions on how to bid them. Many favour treating the hand as balanced, and depending on the actual HCP count, either opened 2NT (20-21 HCP) or 2♣ followed by 2NT (22+ HCP). At least the 1♦ (all pass) never went down lol! :P Here are some other threads covering the same issue: 4441 Rock 4X1 25-Count Bid Hand 4144 Strong 4441 Hand The Hated 4441 Again 2C versus 2C Debate Natural systems seem to cope the worst with the 4441 hand pattern. I would love to hear from naturalists who have found a good solution steering away from these 2NT/3NT contracts which inevitably go down when the opponents runs the first 5 tricks in the suit containing your singleton.

Jilly Can you post the full hand please? These big 4441's have been often discussed in the forums. I would like to see how previous comments would have fared with this hand. Thank you.

If I choose either of these methods I must pay the price somewhere else. A popular method I have been using is this: 1♣-2♥ or 2♠ showing 4-7 HCP and a 6-card suit and most (all) of the HCP in the suit bid. How would you bid these hands types now if I chose to use one of the methods specified above?

I'm still trying to decide whether it is worthwhile including Snapdragon as part of your bidding arsenal. I agree with you that the occasions for its meaningful use will probably seldom occur. But when it does, it can surely prove useful. What if something like this was dealt? [hv=pc=n&s=saqj643h742dj85c3&w=s85hkj98dq2cakt76&n=sk92h5dakt63c8542&e=st7haqt63d974cqj9&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c1d1hd(Snapdragon)2hd(Game%20invite%20in%20Spades)p4s(Must%20have%20distributional%20fit%21)ppp]399|300[/hv] With such a nice ♠ suit, my guess is that Snapdragon won't even cross the mind of most. Instead the player sitting fourth will automatically bid the ♠ suit. Game may not be reached now when West's 2♥ bid is overcalled with 2♠ by North. A distributional game double fit may be lost

You may have nailed it with this analysis of yours. The chances are now increasing that either the takeout double or the 1♠ bid by South were made with insufficient values. So who do you think screwed up with their bid? The 1♠ bid from South makes me think partner is the one who screwed up here. West needs to proceed with caution now. Getting overboard happens easily in a sequence like this.

I saw this acronym GOSH in a different thread and wasn't sure what it meant there. I thought it may stand for "Good Old Stayman Hand." :P Your post rather indicates "Good One Suited Hand." I hope I got it right this time.

I don’t agree with this. Instead I will go along with the thread title, “Lunatic Fringe.” Partner’s 2♣ cue shows a good hand interested in game. With such an awful hand and 6X♣ you need to pull a rabbit out of the hat to turn a potential negative result (as your post rightly indicates), into a positive result. How do you intend doing that? My next bid after 2♣ = Pass! You are unlikely to be doubled. If you are, partner can return to 2♥. Additionally, you have two short suits with plenty of ruffing value. Partner has shown a good hand which should see both short suits disappear quickly. Believe it or not, but I think 2♣ may be your best spot. As I said, this post belongs to the Lunatic Fringe. Dave, kindly post the full hand and the result so that we can all see what actually happened at the table. Thank you.

How would our Italian Gazzilli friends bid this hand? 1-of-a-suit in their system promises an unbalanced hand. Maybe something like this? 1♣ = Suit, unbalanced 1♥ = Natural 2♣ = Gazzilli? 2♥ = Natural 5-7 HCP 4♥ = Natural, signoff

Having read everything PrecisionL posted, perhaps the “Impossible Negative” isn’t so bad after all. Certainly everything posted is workable but they also consume bidding space (the very thing I hate so much about the Impossible Negative). After 1♣-1♦-? opener will show a real suit or NT if balanced. At least 50% of the time the suit will be a major. Using the Impossible Negative now is fine. Opener will know where the final contract is heading. Unfortunately I see a possible serious flaw in the sequence 1♣-1♦-? when responder holds 4441 and 8+ HCP? What must opener do when his real suit is ♦? Is he allowed to pass the 1♦ bid (possibly missing an easy game), or is 1♦ forcing for one round? A wily opponent sitting in fourth seat with some values may be sharp enough to realise what has happened and allow you to play in 1♦ when an easy game was up for grabs.

Both PrecisionL and your suggestion here fit in with my bidding style. However I would like to get some more info on this method of yours. How does the bidding continue after 1♣-1♦-1♥-1♠, when opener holds 4144 (singleton ♥)? 2♦ would be in the 16-19 HCP range and a singleton ♥ (bidding the suit below the singleton). How does responder invite game now with 6-7 HCP and now a known fit in one of the other suits? Bidding it directly could prove costly when opener has only 16-17 HCP.

Chasetb, I doff my hat to you. Thus far you have been the only person to venture a suggestion to my question in post 16 above. I like your suggestion that the double promises either Hx (doubleton) or 3 small cards in partner’s suit. Having upvoted your post, I have borrowed this idea from you and expanded on it below in an attempt to dissect the Snapdragon Double further. I want to make the following suggestion and then allow others to shoot it down from every conceivable angle. As we later sift through the shrapnel and debris, hopefully something will emerge that can be considered workable. As a starting point – 1. Once the opponents have opened the bidding, a takeout double by the next player promises an opening hand as well and (normally) support for all unbid suits. 2. A takeout double, later followed up with a bid of one’s own suit would indicate a stronger (and unbalanced) hand. With a strong balanced hand, the player sitting second can overcall 1NT. 3. A simple overcall (normally) shows anything from 8-16 HCP (vulnerability and partnership aggressiveness will both play a role here). The fact that an overcall was made (versus a takeout double), would indicate – ...a. An unbalanced hand not able to support all the unbid suits, ...b. A hand with less than opening values, or ...c. An unbalanced hand without extra values (see 2 above) Here is the lowest possible hypothetical auction incorporating the Snapdragon Double: 1♣-1♦-1♥-X What have we already learnt from the auction? 1. Between the first 3 players, a minimum of 26 HCP are already accounted for, 12 with opener, 8 with overcaller and 6 with the player sitting in third seat. 2. The player sitting in third seat is holding a 5-card ♥ suit and at most 3X♠ (with at least 4-4 in the majors, a negative double would have been made). 3. The Snapdragon Double indicates a player willing to compete at least to level 2 on a 5-2 ♦ fit (could possibly be 5-3 if we allow chasetb’s suggestion), but more importantly on a possible 5-2 (or 5-3) ♠ fit as well. So how many HCP do you expect to find in the fourth hand? Before answering, let’s consider some more variables: ...a. If you end up playing in the ♠ suit (especially on level 2 or higher) you better have something decent, as the opener, the player with the most HCP, is sitting behind you. If he rates to win more tricks than you in the trump suit, then your Snapdragon Double was made on a hopelessly inadequate suit (strength and/or length). ...b. 2♦X down 1 can still be a good score. 2♦X down 2 will inevitably be a bad result. Therefore, just looking at point 3 above, I would expect the player sitting in the fourth seat to hold a minimum of 8 HCP and, either a 6-card ♠ suit or a decent 5-card suit. In line with chasetb’s suggestion, the location of those HCP are more important than outright HCP. As an afterthought, with a double-fit (or partial double-fit), how does the player sitting in the second seat encourage a mild game try even though the HCP appear to be evenly split? The bidding has given you the HCP distribution and the hand layout. You can now use that to your benefit and (possibly) bid a thin game. The player sitting in fourth seat with 3 small cards in partners suit could easily be persuaded that there is enough potential in a double fit to bid a thin game. How about this: A cue bid of the opponent’s lower ranking suit as merely competing for the part score in fourth players suit and a cue bid of the opponents higher ranking suit as a mild game try? Bidding either suit directly second time round is to play and a signoff. Any thoughts?

Love it! :) The ♣ suit has already been bid, albeit artificial. Actually what I had in mind was how to keep the strong hand as declarer when responder has a positive response and a long minor suit. How about this (in being consistent with the OP): 1. 2♣ = Positive response, 8+ HCP and 5+ card ♦ suit. Opener with a 3-card suit can accept ♦ as (a potential) trump suit by bidding it. Now responder can continue by showing the rest of his shape. 2. So how do you now show a 5-card ♣ suit and 8+ HCP? If you choose to do this with a 3♣ bid, you are consuming your own bidding space. This could possibly still be acceptable if 3♣ denies a 4-card major.

After a 1♣ opening, I see more and more players using some or other treatment of Kaplan Inversion to get the strong hand as declarer when responder has a positive response. One structure often seen is this – 1♣-1♥ (promising a 5-card ♠ suit and 8+ HCP) 1♣-1♠ (promising a balanced hand, no 5-card major and 8+ HCP) 1♣-1NT (promising a 5-card ♥ suit and 8+ HCP) If this is becoming the “standard” how does responder show a 5+ card ♦ or ♣ suit now?

In modern versions of Precision, does the “Impossible Negative” still form part of the system? If not, how do modern versions of Precision show 8+ HCP and the 4441 hand pattern with responder after a 1♣ opening? The one thing I have always hated about the “Impossible Negative” is the amount of bidding space it consumes. Surely to goodness there must be better ways for responder to show a 4441 hand and 8+ HCP?

How do Precision players cope with the 4441 hand pattern and 16+ HCP? After a Negative Response (1♣-1♦-?) How does your continuation bidding structure change with the following – 1. 16-17 HCP any singleton 2. 18-19 HCP any singleton 3. 20+ HCP any singleton? After a Positive Response How do you convey the 4441 hand pattern to partner now? Knowing where the singleton is could mean the difference between just game or an easy slam?

Regarding the Snapdragon Double, what is the expert consensus on the following? 1. The minimum number of HCP promised by the fourth hand? (6-7-8-?) 2. The minimum number of cards promised in the fourth suit? I have heard some absolutely insisting a minimum of 6-cards in the fourth suit. Others have been heard to say a 5-card suit is sufficient if it is a reasonable suit e.g. AQJxx. Do you agree or disagree with this?

Thanks, corrected the typo. :)

Guys, I'm the novice poster in this thread. I had no idea what PLOB stood for. So I looked it up in a Google search. For the benefit of others (like myself) who don't know what PLOB is, it is an acronym for Petty Pretty Little Odius Bid and you can read more here. The other one I had to look up as well is The Bourke Relay. Those interested can read more here. This post has been edited.

My methods are a combination of what others have already said. The 3♦ overcall has disrupted all my standard methods. Now a whole new set of rules kicks in. The pre-empt has given some info about the ♦ distribution. The overcaller has 7 and opener has at least 2, may have 3. That leaves a maximum of 4 between the other 2 players, one of which may be holding a singleton. If the singleton is held by the 1NT opener’s partner, how do I show it? In the bidding sequence posted: 1NT-3♦-? 1. X = stolen bid, asking for partner to transfer to ♥. ...a. 3H followed by a raise to game would be a mild slam try, showing 6X♥, some HCP and ♦ shortness. ...b. 3♥ followed by 3♠ would show 4♠-5♥, with or without mild slam interest. ...c. 3♥ followed by 3NT giving partner a choice of places to play, with or without mild slam interest. This would show only 5X♥. 2. 3♥ = transfer to ♠. 3♠ followed by 4♥ = 5♠-5♥-2♦-1♣ (compare with 3 below) 3. 4♦ = cue-bid, implying ♦ shortness, both majors and also a mild slam try. This bidding sequence suggests that ♠ are longer than ♥, usually 5♠-4♥ (can be 5-5, then responders distribution would be 5♠-5♥-1♦-2♣). 4. 4♣ = Stayman, this time with the majors always unequal in length, always longer ♥ (4♠-6♥). 5. 4♥ = to play (no slam interest). The 3♦ overcall has disrupted my normal methods. Unfortunately the stronger hand is now displayed on the table. Similarly 4♠ would be to play, no slam interest. With mild slam interest in ♠ the bidding would proceed as follows: 1NT-3♦-3♥ (transfer to ♠). 3♠ will be lifted to 4♠ as a mild slam try. Without the opposition intervention, normal Texas / SA Texas would be in force as a signoff in the applicable major. That leaves the 3♠ bid still unused after opposition intervention. What can it be used for? Some like to use it as a transfer into a ♣ single suited hand. Another possibility would be to use it as showing exactly 4-4 in the majors.

I would love to see the full hand. Can you post it?