Echognome Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sqj974hkqdt5cat52]133|100|Scoring: XIMP1♣ - 1♠2NT - ?[/hv] 2NT shows 18-19 balanced. 1♣ was 4+ as playing 4 card majors. 3♣ would be checkback. That is all you have agreed. What is your bidding plan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I want to try for 6♣. I bid 4♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Unfortunately, all you have agreed leaves out one nice tool. If 3C is checkback, I personally like to use 3D as a slam try for Opener's minor. This would have been nice for this hand. Barring this, 3H. Without the agreement, 3H "should" be a cuebid in support of clubs, implicitly denying a diamond control. 3H as natural lacks utility when 3C is checkback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Unfortunately, all you have agreed leaves out one nice tool. If 3C is checkback, I personally like to use 3D as a slam try for Opener's minor. This would have been nice for this hand. Barring this, 3H. Without the agreement, 3H "should" be a cuebid in support of clubs, implicitly denying a diamond control. 3H as natural lacks utility when 3C is checkback. I agree it would be nice to have agreements, but this is a partnership which plays together once a month. I'm not sure why using checkback and bidding a natural 3♥ should be incompatible. What should responder do with 5-5 in the majors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I'm not sure why using checkback and bidding a natural 3♥ should be incompatible. What should responder do with 5-5 in the majors? Over a 1NT rebid I like the Bergen approach where 2H shows a 7-9 hcp 5-5 in the majors. After a 2NT rebid, I'm not sure what the hcp range for the 5-5 should be but if it is still 7-9 then it allows opener to find the right game (3NT or 4 of the 8 card fit major). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 3♣ checkback then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 3♣ checkback then. What else? Trying for a clubs slam makes sense, but it can't hurt to know whether we have a double fit. Arend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 The reason why checkback is incompatible with 3H as natural is redundancy in a tight auction. With 5-5, you "should" be allowed to bid 3C, hear 3D, and THEN bid 3H. This negates the necessity of 3H as natural. Hence, a cuebid. If redundancies exist, bid 3NT. With so many HCP's, 3NT wins at IMP's and MP, usually, and averts the risk of a set through club ruffs. You have insufficient values and tools to seek a difficult club slam. For that matter, partner "should" open 2NT with the "right" 19-count, so slam is far off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Hate the methods: but I have been asked to fill in. So 3♣ checkback it is. I hope I am not playing with a partner who opens 1♣ with 4=4 in minors, because (if not) I can interpret a 3♦ rebid as showing 5+♣ (no 3 card ♠ suit and no 4 card ♥ suit), and that would get me to move srongly towards 6♣. If he bids 3♥, I bid 4♣, which I assume has to be setting trump and forcing, but not committing to slam. On that auction, I will pass should he bid 4N at some point. If he bids 3♠, I suspect that my methods leave me with no good bid. Probably stuck with 4♣ as a cuebid, altho that begs the question of how I am supposed to set ♣ as trump if I only hold 4♠. Hate the methods Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Hate the methods: but I have been asked to fill in. (...) Hate the methodsUh oh. What is Mike gonna say when he reads echo's thread over in the B/I forum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 LOL arend. Unfortunately, these were actually our methods. I agree they could be better, but not sure it's worth agreeing too much in such a casual partnership. Have been playing in this monthly competition for 5 sessions and it was the first time it came up and it was a hypothetical as partner actually rebid 1NT showing 15-17 as he miscounted his points. B) This went: 1♣ - 1♠1NT(15-17) - 2♦ (ART GF)2NT - 3♣3♦ - 3NTAll Pass I didn't feel I was worth more than one slam try opposite a 15-17 bal hand. I then realised it wouldn't have been much easier if partner had rebid 2NT. And to make Mike feel even better, partner's shape was 2=3=4=4. 6NT was on a (making) finesse. 6♣ had no play as clubs were Kxxx opposite ATxx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.