When fits give you fits

[Al_U_Card]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skjxxxhjtxxdaxcak]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♠ p 2♥ p

3♥ p 3♠ p

4♣ p 4♥ p

4♠ p ???[/hv]

 

Would you believe, missed it by THAT much! :angry:

 

Pard passed, asking when he saw my hand. "Why did you sign off?" <_<

 

Did I? :o Your usual incisive comments and suggestions, if you please. :D

[SoTired]

3H sets hearts as trump. 3S,4C & 4S were all q-bids. This is standard 2/1. 1st major suit raised sets trump. You don't go looking for a different trump suit after that.

 

If a minor suit is raised that usually sets that as trump, also. There is an exception in 1M 2m 3m 3M which sets M as trump rather than m.

 

HOWEVER - After 2H, what information are you missing? You have 1st/2nd in all sides suits and interest in slam. I think over 4H, just bid 4N and stop playing around. You even might have bid 4N over 2H.

[whereagles]

I take it 3H is game forcing. Being so, 4S is not a sign-off, but a hand that, for some reason, doesn't want to ask for aces but rather continue bidding (can have, for instance, a club void).

 

In any case, since there's a chance for a misunderstanding and since 4NT is also a good bid, I would just bid 4N.

[Al_U_Card]

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=saqxhakqxxdxxcxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

2H was the game force and my slow arrival (I thought) showed extras. It does seem clearer now (thanks to the comments) that my concern about finding the D K was subordinate to bidding 4NT over 4H to see if he had 2 KeyCards with the queen or not etc. Then 7 may not come into view, but it gets a chance when he has 3 Keys and I ask and he shows it by bidding D!!!!! (when he has the K)

[mikeh]

I have sympathy for both players here. Clearly (or so it seems to me) each of you believed the other's suit was trump.

 

I agree that it is useful to play a defined rule here, and the concept that 3♥ established trumps (for now) is useful.

 

However, I do not believe that 4N is the magic bid. I like cue-bidding in these auctions: you are far more likely to reach a good contract by cue bidding than by keycarding. You would like to describe your hand, with its controls, and allow partner to make an intelligent contribution.

 

Having said that, 4♠ was still too risky for my taste, given the possibility (which became a reality) that partner was unsure (or plain mistaken) about what 4♠ meant.

 

In any event, to me 4♠ conveys a ♦ concern. So I would have moved over 4♥ with 5♦. That has a couple of advantages.

 

It eliminates any possibility of a pass <_<

 

And it confirms slam interest, with both minors controlled, in a hand ill-suited to simply ask about keycard and place the contract. This strikes me as an accurate description of the hand, and it is difficult to see how partner can go wrong now.... altho partners often display considerable imagination in an effort to make such statements erroneous :angry:

[Guest Jlall]

4S is not forcing. Pard showed hearts and spades, so did you, so you seemed to indicate a desire to play 4S.

[Al_U_Card]

So it has become Serious 4S.....? <_<

 

While pard's bid could be support or a q, my 3H must be support, so going past game has to be slam oriented.....

[cherdano]

And it confirms slam interest, with both minors controlled, in a hand ill-suited to simply ask about keycard and place the contract. This strikes me as an accurate description of the hand, and it is difficult to see how partner can go wrong now.... altho partners often display considerable imagination in an effort to make such statements erroneous <_<

Interesting -- I would think this hand is very well suited for RKCB -- unless you are unsure whether it would be RKCB for spades (ok), hearts (better) or 6-keycard blackwood (excellent) :angry: If you are sure you and your partner agree on the meaning, I think 4NT is perfect, or at least the practical bid. You have a huge hand, whose only concerns is the quality of the fit suits.

 

I could well imagine taking 4♠ as correcting to the better game, btw, so I too have sympathy for this auction.

 

Arend

[mikeh]

4S is not forcing. Pard showed hearts and spades, so did you, so you seemed to indicate a desire to play 4S.

I see (I think) the logic behind this, but I disagree. Were you interested only in 4♠, you would have bid 4♠ over 3♠. You clearly have some slam interest for 4♣, altho not necessarily as much as you do have here. It seems unlikely (given your slam probe) that you could hold a hand that was concerned that ♠ plays better than 4♥, especially since you have not rebid ♠ and partner, who knows of your ♥ support and lack of rebid of ♠, has opted for 4♥.

 

So, along the same lines as 'not improving a partscore', why should 4♠ (on this particular auction) be viewed as 'improving the game'?

 

I agree that it is not clear, and thus, in my post, I advised against 4♠.

 

I normally agree with your posts, Justin, so I had to post this disagreement <_<

[whereagles]

4S is not forcing. Pard showed hearts and spades, so did you, so you seemed to indicate a desire to play 4S.

Hum.. I would be weary to reason like that without having an explicit agreement that 3S shows double fit and that subsequently 4M bids are choice of game.

 

Besides, even if you did have such an agreement, is it still logical that 4M are sign-offs after this much cuebidding?

[Guest Jlall]

4S is not forcing. Pard showed hearts and spades, so did you, so you seemed to indicate a desire to play 4S.

I see (I think) the logic behind this, but I disagree. Were you interested only in 4♠, you would have bid 4♠ over 3♠. You clearly have some slam interest for 4♣, altho not necessarily as much as you do have here. It seems unlikely (given your slam probe) that you could hold a hand that was concerned that ♠ plays better than 4♥, especially since you have not rebid ♠ and partner, who knows of your ♥ support and lack of rebid of ♠, has opted for 4♥.

 

So, along the same lines as 'not improving a partscore', why should 4♠ (on this particular auction) be viewed as 'improving the game'?

 

I agree that it is not clear, and thus, in my post, I advised against 4♠.

 

I normally agree with your posts, Justin, so I had to post this disagreement :D

If I had QJxxxx KQx xx AK I would bid this hand exactly as the auction had gone. How would your auction have differed?

[Guest Jlall]

4S is not forcing. Pard showed hearts and spades, so did you, so you seemed to indicate a desire to play 4S.

Hum.. I would be weary to reason like that without having an explicit agreement that 3S shows double fit and that subsequently 4M bids are choice of game.

 

Besides, even if you did have such an agreement, is it still logical that 4M are sign-offs after this much cuebidding?

I understand what you are saying about it being useful to have the agreement that 3S shows a double fit, I have never heard of it played any other way but I guess one could mean it as a cue.

 

As for your second comment, I think it is very logical that you can cuebid once (4C) and still be able to signoff in 4M when you have shown a suit and then a fit in that suit (you said assuming we had the agreement 3S shows a fit).

 

I guess I don't understand but if 1S=spades and 3S=spades, why can't we play spades?

[whereagles]

Well, obviously this is a sequence that requires some fine-tuning with pard. Otherwise the auction's interpretation really depends on past experience of players.

[SoTired]

I guess I don't understand but if 1S=spades and 3S=spades, why can't we play spades?

Because it confuses otherwise simple rules. 1st major fit establishs the suit.

 

Therefore, 3S is a q-bid and does not show a double-fit and 4S (although foolish) is forcing.

[Guest Jlall]

to me a simple rule is 2/1 then raise=3 card support. I guess some people have different simple rules :D

[inquiry]

I guess I don't understand but if 1S=spades and 3S=spades, why can't we play spades?

Because it confuses otherwise simple rules. 1st major fit establishs the suit.

 

Therefore, 3S is a q-bid and does not show a double-fit and 4S (although foolish) is forcing.

Well, I am going to disagree with this "simple" rule, as the only thing it has going for it is "simple".

 

This is two suit agreement, 3♠ by responder shows ♠... and presumably more than a minimum because otherwise might not choose this option. 4♣ shows control, and I will assume this is not non-serious (that is no mention of serious 3NT) ... 4♥ is probably a "I can't cue-bid ♦" bid. I would bid 5♣, showing first and second round control, and by inference a control in ♦ (with xx of ♦ i would either pass 4♥ or bid 4♠.

 

For the less adventuresome, go wth 4NT over 4♥. But if you bid 4♠ with this, you get what you deserve... while you can see your ACE of DIAMONDS, you do understand that your partner CAN NOT see it, right?

[SoTired]

So you put 1S 2H 3H 3S in the same category as 1S 2C 3C 3S? Up to you. You are now at the 4-level, doing slam bidding and do not have a set trump suit. I think using the 3S bid for a q-bid rather than a double-fit will occur more often.

 

I agree that 4S was a poor choice. Esp after seeing all the disagreements with me over the meaning of the 3S bid.

[inquiry]

So you put 1S 2H 3H 3S in the same category as 1S 2C 3C 3S? Up to you. You are now at the 4-level, doing slam bidding and do not have a set trump suit. I think using the 3S bid for a q-bid rather than a double-fit will occur more often.

 

I agree that 4S was a poor choice. Esp after seeing all the disagreements with me over the meaning of the 3S bid.

When the bidding goes 1A-2y-3y-3A, two suit agreement is the normal, expected way. Don't have suit agreement? Blah, you ahve two suit agreement. That is even better, for now instead of 5 keycard blackwood, you have six keycard blackwood plus the queens. Also, by showing fits, it make subsequent bidding easier. You can always cue-bid something other than spades with a fit, easy enough.

 

Now having said this, I understand that there are many, many people, such as yourself, that play 3♠ on these auctions as cue-bid, not second fit. But before you start looking for slam, it is often best to look for the best game contract. That is something 3♠ does, as well as simplifying many slam auctions as well.

 

Let;s take this hand for instance... if you wanted the auction could have been...

 

1S-2H

3H-3S

4C-4H

4N-5C

5D-5NT

7NT-Pass

 

Where

3S was two suit agreement,

4C was cue-bid

4H was I have bid my hand (actually probalby an underbid given 3H and 4C)

4N = six card blackwood

5C = 0 or 3 keycards, obviosuly three

5D = queen ask

5NT = both queens (third step)

7NT = five hearts, five spades, 2 clubs, 1 diamond. This will require good splits in hearts if you don't have the jack.

 

Finding out about the queen of spades is a tad bid trickier if hearts alone is agreed suit....

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

for me 3H sets trumps and 3S is a cue,

showing the King or the Ace of spades.

=> 4S is also a cue, but now shws the

Ace of spade.

 

With kind regards

[Al_U_Card]

So what is the magical phrase to say to pard to agree on one or the other? ie Fast arrival, 1430 and two suit agreement or some such?

[bridge2k]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skjxxxhjtxxdaxcak]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♠ p 2♥ p

3♥ p 3♠ p

4♣ p 4♥ p

4♠ p ???[/hv]

 

Would you believe, missed it by THAT much! :D

 

Pard passed, asking when he saw my hand. "Why did you sign off?" :D

 

Did I? :o Your usual incisive comments and suggestions, if you please. :D

For me, 4S is forcing Q. I don't see any reason why I need to signoff ar 4S in such a bidding sequence.

 

I expect more on 4S Q, at least KJT, usually 2 of 3 tops.

 

Looks no grand here. So I will go RKC instead of 4S. If everything is in hand, you may still probe grand.

[mikeh]

If I had QJxxxx KQx xx AK I would bid this hand exactly as the auction had gone. How would your auction have differed?

Well, for one thing, I would likely have rebid 2♠, rather than jam the auction with 3♥ :)

 

Yes, 2♥ promises 5 cards (in all rational methods I have seen), so we have a fit. But we are never losing the ♥ fit by rebidding 2♠, unless we have a double fit, and then we probably do not care which suit is trump.

 

In the meantime, my 2♠ bid allows partner to make a lower descriptive bid, which cannot be bad news for me, with my complicated hand.

 

Is 2♠ perfect? No: it is easy to construct hands on which announcing the ♥ support may be more effective. But my view is that such hands will be relatively infrequent. So for me 2♠ is a more effective rebid than is 3♥.

[Guest Jlall]

Well I guess that is where we differ. Your point is well taken, but it may be difficult for partner to know you dont have Hx of hearts when you preference later. Things can get murky. I guess for you spades can never be better than hearts, so your view makes a lot of sense. I guess that the real crux of this matter is about the 3H and 3S bids, and what hand types are and are not acceptable, and then what 4S means in that context.

[Al_U_Card]

Wow, i wouldn't have thot of that one. Wouldn't the eventual choice of 6H after a sort of indirect preference get you over to 6NT when P has only 5 H?