To advance?

[fred]

I could understand playing 4H/S over 3NT to show a 1-suited slam try (or better) with shortness in the suit bid because these such calls are not that useful in the natural sense. My regular partner and I actually do play 4 of a major here as natural (describing a minimum opening bid with 5-6 distribution), but this is probably a stupid treatment (due to frequency).

 

Playing 4H/4S as a natural and forcing (typically 4-6) or as a self-cuebid in support of diamonds also makes some sense to me.

 

But I agree with MikeH that 4C is too valuable a natural bid to give up.

 

As far as I can tell many top-level pairs in American do play 1m-2NT-3M is shortness showing, but that does not make it "standard". I would never make a bid like this without prior discussion and expect partner to be on the same wavelength.

 

The principle that "undiscussed bids that could be natural are natural" works very well in practice.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Patapon]

Hi,

 

 

I use to play a very natural system and as I am very lazy I don’t have discussed any special agreement in this auction.

 

Still I think 6♦is a too fast conclusion.

I don't want to play the slam if my part holds 3 small cards in Diamond.

 

.I would have said 4♦.

In first place I want my partner to judge his points in Diamond.

 

If my partner bid 4NT( discouraging here I think) I would pass.

 

If my partner says 4Spades (I think he should here cue bid even a King if he is interesting with the Diamonds) I now bid 5♣ that should be a void (and implicit Heart control of course)

 

The grand slam is still possible if my part holds a hand like this:Kx, Qxx, Axxx, QJxx( I don’t even need the Jack of Heart) or like this KQx, Dxx, AQx J10xx

 

On 5♣ my partner can now bid 5NT with a such hand that is always a BW in my system when cuebid made BW impossible in 4NT.

 

Agree to bid a direct 6♦ with a new or a weak partner.

[kenrexford]

I suppose it would be a good idea to discuss this. :o

 

If 1min-P-2NT-P-3Maj is shortness, then it seems logical for the same treatment after 3NT.

 

As to the club shortness issue. I'll concede wholeheartedly that discussion is required. That being said, I do not understand why there is this "need" for a natural club call, as opposed to a need for a shortness-in-clubs call.

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

First, as partner is expected to have 3334/3343/2344/3244 pattern, probably, his rough likelihood is that clubs will be longer than either major, on average. Thus, your most likely shortness as Opener is in clubs.

 

Second, it you have a diamond-club two-suiter, one that justifies a bid, you will either be short in a major OR you will be quantitative.

 

After a quantitative 4NT, partner will not usually care about the possible minor fit if he is 3334/3343; with 2344/3244, he can always accept by bidding 5♣. If he wants to play in the minor, or offer it, with 3334/3343, he can bid the minor.

 

Third, if you have shortness in a major, you can find the club fit when it matters after showing the shortness. A simple example is 1255. If you are slammish, you bid 4♠. What if partner is interested? With 2344/3244, knoweldge of the secondary club fit is irrelevant. However, if he is 3334, there is an issue. So, he bids clubs. No problem.

 

In other words, you never need to bid clubs immediately to show clubs when it is important.

 

I could see more of a problem possible after a 1♣ opening. After 1♣-P-3NT-P-? This might be a problem if Opener has 5♣/4♦, because a conversion bid is not possible. Partner cannot accept diamonds without bypassing clubs, and Opener cannot, similarly, introduce his diamonds without bypassing clubs. In that situation, though, I would still prefer to use 4♦ to show shortness. I would then have 4♥ or 4♠ show shortness with 4 diamonds promised, and use 4♣ as a one-suiter without shortness in diamonds. Partner could then bid 4♦ to ask if I have shortness in a major.

 

This obviously, again, would need to be discussed, apparently. But, the structure:

 

1♦-P-3NT-P-?

4♣ = short clubs

4♦ = long diamonds, no shortness, slammish

4M = shortness, might have both minors, either partner can suggest clubs

4NT = quantitative, can check back on 4-4 minor fit

[5♣ direct might be minors, pick-a-game]

 

1♣-P-3NT-P-?

4♣ = long clubs, not short in diamonds

4♦ then asks for shortness (bid major shortness, or NT with neither)

4♦ = long clubs, short in diamonds

4M = 4♦/5+♣, short in this major

4NT = Quantitative (can check back on minor if desired)

 

What do you think, Fred?

[pclayton]

Ken, I'm not trying to pick on you here, but I don't think you've really thought through a lot of these issues.

 

If 1min-P-2NT-P-3Maj is shortness, then it seems logical for the same treatment after 3NT.

 

Disagree: After 2N, the prime issue is getting to 3N or 5 of the minor. After 1x - 3N - 4x, its very tricky to manoever back to 4N.

 

First, as partner is expected to have 3334/3343/2344/3244 pattern, probably, his rough likelihood is that clubs will be longer than either major, on average. Thus, your most likely shortness as Opener is in clubs.

 

Statistically insignificant. Don't forget 3325, which is as least as likely as any balanced hands with 4 diamonds, which should start with an inverted raise.

 

Third, if you have shortness in a major, you can find the club fit when it matters after showing the shortness. A simple example is 1255. If you are slammish, you bid 4♠. What if partner is interested? With 2344/3244, knoweldge of the secondary club fit is irrelevant. However, if he is 3334, there is an issue. So, he bids clubs. No problem.

 

And what if opener is 3=6=1=3? I think the shortness idea is 'cute', but it creates more problems than it solves, by having to work out our fit at the 5 level.

 

I don't think you've considered the 5 major / 6 minor hands either. So I bid 4♣ (shortness), fair enough. How do I ever convince pard that I have a higher-ranking 5 card side suit?

 

Note that over 2N, 4 of the major can be played as the 5-6 quite easily.

 

In other words, you never need to bid clubs immediately to show clubs when it is important.

 

Nuff said :o

[fred]

As to the club shortness issue. I'll concede wholeheartedly that discussion is required. That being said, I do not understand why there is this "need" for a natural club call, as opposed to a need for a shortness-in-clubs call.

Here are 4 reasons (the last one I admit is subjective):

 

1) Because if you bid 4 of a major to show shortness with both 1-suited diamonds and 2-suited minors, partner will something have a difficult time evaluating aspects of his hand (the value of his club holding for example).

 

2) Because if 4C is natural a RKCB auction in either minor can be arranged.

 

3) Because it is nice to be able to use 5NT later in the auction as some kind of grand slam-related bid (as opposed to a last minute "pick a slam" where the opener finally reveals his hand type).

 

4) Because it gives me some comfort to agree on trumps before we start cuebidding, showing shortness, and bidding Blackwood.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Disagree: After 2N, the prime issue is getting to 3N or 5 of the minor. After 1x - 3N - 4x, its very tricky to manoever back to 4N.

 

Statistically insignificant. Don't forget 3325, which is as least as likely as any balanced hands with 4 diamonds, which should start with an inverted raise.

 

And what if opener is 3=6=1=3? I think the shortness idea is 'cute', but it creates more problems than it solves, by having to work out our fit at the 5 level.

 

I don't think you've considered the 5 major / 6 minor hands either. So I bid 4♣ (shortness), fair enough. How do I ever convince pard that I have a higher-ranking 5 card side suit?

 

Note that over 2N, 4 of the major can be played as the 5-6 quite easily.

I cropped the four issues above.

 

Issue #1: Hard to get back to 4NT.

 

Why? A bid of 4NT after 3NT-slamtry is a signoff. Thus, 1♦-P-3NT-P-4♥-P-4NT is to play. That's not all too difficult.

 

Issue #2: "Statistical Insignificance"

 

I'm not sure of your point. You gave the example of a five-card club suit, which increases the chance that Opener is short in clubs. Surely short-in-the-other-minor is more common than short-in-a-specific-major, right?

 

Issue #3: Opener is 3613

 

I'm not following this one. This structure does not apply after major openings. Is your concern is 3163/1363 and finding the 5-3 club fit? The solution would not be for Opener to bid 4♣ as fragment+, surely. In contrast, if Responder happens to be 3325 and hears a well-placed splinter, and now wants to play 6♣, his 3NT call was silly. He has good clubs, three small in a major, only two diamonds, and bids 3NT?

 

Issue #4: 5-6 Major-Minor Hands

 

I would not open one of a minor with 6-5 unless I am strong. I think that is standard. With junk, 1M...2m. If I have that rare 6-5 and values, I would jump to five of the major (showing this hand). I'm not all that concerned about having a method to stop on a dime at four of the major after 1min-P-3NT when I have a 6-5 player.

 

Ideally, after five of the major, partner will elect the strain for slam. If he happens to have some death hand, like KQJ in each of the side suits, he can resign to 5NT and cross his fingers, or pass with tolerance for the major. In the one-in-a-bazillion hands where I open a 5-6 player, hear 3NT, and cannot make slam, 5NT, or five of the major, and someone else stops at four of the major, I'll get a bad result.

[BebopKid]

I vote 5♦. I'm guessing we have 29-30 HCP.

 

Partner should know i have long diamonds and singletons or void. He can decide to raise from there.

[pclayton]

Why?  A bid of 4NT after 3NT-slamtry is a signoff.  Thus, 1♦-P-3NT-P-4♥-P-4NT is to play.  That's not all too difficult.

 

Depends if you decide to show the 2nd suit after 4N or not.

 

Issue #3:  Opener is 3613[/i]

 

I'm not following this one.  This structure does not apply after major openings.  Is your concern is 3163/1363 and finding the 5-3 club fit?  The solution would not be for Opener to bid 4♣ as fragment+, surely.  In contrast, if Responder happens to be 3325 and hears a well-placed splinter, and now wants to play 6♣, his 3NT call was silly.  He has good clubs, three small in a major, only two diamonds, and bids 3NT?

 

I meant 3316, and I think its obvious what I meant in this context. My concern is the dual meaning of a shortness bid. If its an auto-splinter; 3=3=6=1 or 3=3=7=0, then responder will be evaluating his hand opposite a club one suiter. If it could be a 2 suiter, or quasi 2 suiter (6-4, 5-4?), then responder will have a tougher time.

 

Issue #4:  5-6 Major-Minor Hands

 

I would not open one of a minor with 6-5 unless I am strong.  I think that is standard.  With junk, 1M...2m.  If I have that rare 6-5 and values, I would jump to five of the major (showing this hand).  I'm not all that concerned about having a method to stop on a dime at four of the major after 1min-P-3NT when I have a 6-5 player.

It most certainly is not standard to open a major with 5 major / 6 minor. BBF has had many discussions about this, and opening the minor is the most common treatment. Personally, I'll make a few exceptions if the major is strong and the minor is weak, but generally the hand is opened the minor.

[kenrexford]

Down to three issues. :o

 

First -- "depends if you decide to show the second suit after 4NT." Why would you do that? What second suit are we talking about? If 5♣, for a minor two-suiter, then who cares? You would not typically bid 5♣ as a minor two-suiter, with known wasted values opposite your shortness. If you did, you were planning to bid past 3NT whatever happened when you bid past 3NT to begin with.

 

Second -- 3316. With specifically short diamonds, long clubs, and therefore not a minor two-suiter, you would bid 4♦. If 3NT could have included a four-card major also, then I suppose you could now offer either major suit as a possible slam alternative strain. If you want to fine-tune Responder's analysis, such that he can distinguish your expected average 3316 from, say, specifically the 4216 variant, and have the methods, please tell me. This would be quite amazing. I'm not sure when that will make much difference, though.

 

Third -- BBF opens 1min when 6min/5maj, even if weak. Two responses. First, I don't, so that is not an issue of mine. Maybe this 1min-P-3NT problem should have been discussed better in the prior debates on what to open. Second, if you can have 5-6 and weak, then 3NT is a terrible bid. I have no idea how to handle all of the likely possibilities and add in 5-6 weak. Fred's solution, of handling 5-6 with four-of-a-major, leaves 5-6 strong unbiddable, and leaves you jumping to 6♦ on the problem hand with no clue whether it makes or bidding 4♦ to have partner join in the confusion without recourse. (Two confused people are better than one? Share the pain?)

 

I don't understand an agreement that caters to 5-6 hands that might have been opened in the major (treated as 5-5) to begin with, a rare occasion, and yet leaves very common circumstances (unbalanced slam tries) without solution. It seems akin to using 2♣ after 1NT to show a bust 2425 hand (a nice bid when it comes up) but leaving no tools for finding 4-4 major fits.