Apollo81 Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 ♠Axxx♥---♦Axxx♣Kxxxx all red, imps 1♦-(pass)-1♠-(2♥)Dbl*-(pass)-3♥-(pass)3NT-(pass)-4♦ *support Please comment on the auction so far, particularly the 4♦ bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 Assuming 3H agreed diamonds, then 4D was wrong. Why ask partner a question if you won't accept the answer? Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 seems fine to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchiu Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 I usually play the double in this sequence as "competitive", usually showing a non-minimum hand with no other useful alternative bid. After the competitive double, limit bidding principles apply. So I agree with 3♥, since most other bids show weaker hands. The rest of the auction looks fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 Assuming 3H agreed diamonds, then 4D was wrong. Why ask partner a question if you won't accept the answer? Peterwhy would 3♥ agree ♦s? S has not yet shown anything. 3♥ is a generic game force, conveying no information beyond that S doesn't have the ability to suggest a resting spot based on what he has heard so far (which isn't much, since the support double does little to define N's hand beyond the length of the ♠ fit). So 3♥ was NOT asking for a stopper: it was saying: we're going to at least game, and I need a dialogue. Thus 4♦ was a continuation of a natural conversation, albeit that S may be developing a nasty feeling that he has overbid this one. If partner is minimum 3442, 5♦ may prove awkward. As for the original bid... it is close between bidding 2♣ or 1♠. Give me good interior spots (A109x void A108x K109xx) and I'd bid 2♣ IF 1♦ promised 4 cards (I am one of those who open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2 shape) but, given the x's as posted, I agree with 1♠. As for 3♥... it's close but it gets my vote... after all, there really is no alternative that makes as much sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 ♠Axxx♥---♦Axxx♣Kxxxx all red, imps 1♦-(pass)-1♠-(2♥)Dbl*-(pass)-3♥-(pass)3NT-(pass)-4♦ *support Please comment on the auction so far, particularly the 4♦ bid. My extremely unexpert opinion.... The opps couldn't find it in their hearts (if you'll excuse the pun) to bid 3♥, in spite of my void. Either they're far more conservative than my opponents usually are, or they don't have a 10 card fit. So I think partner has 4 hearts. So that makes the majors known- 4 hearts, 3 spades. The minors could be anything from 6 diamonds and 0 clubs to 3 diamonds and 3 clubs. But partner bid 3NT. That doesn't look like the obvious bid to me with a club void. With a 4-3 fit in spades, I don't think a 4-4 diamond fit is going to be worth 3 extra tricks. And I'm awfully minimum for my bidding so far. I'll pass the 3NT. Maybe it's just my MP ways, but 4♦ sounds slammish, and I think partner will be disappointed. Edited to add- it seems like you're guaranteeing playing in diamonds, with the 4♦ bid, unless you like the Moysian. I think if I was going to insist on diamonds, I'd bid 3♦ instead of 3 hearts. I don't think this hand has the power to force to the 5 level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted February 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 This was another GNT hand my opps had. There were hesitations on double and 3NT, so I thought bidding on here was at best little sketchy. 6♦ was cold (push); partner has a 3442 18-count (I think). Didn't call director since 4♦ looked reasonable and very consistent with the player making the bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 23, 2007 Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 Bidding seems fine so far. Tad optimistic, but ok (I would have passed 3NT). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted February 23, 2007 Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 This was another GNT hand my opps had. There were hesitations on double and 3NT, so I thought bidding on here was at best little sketchy. 6♦ was cold (push); partner has a 3442 18-count (I think). Didn't call director since 4♦ looked reasonable and very consistent with the player making the bid. 3442 18-count??He can't bid 3NT with that. When I force to game vs a possible minimum opening he's got to bid 4NT over 3♥ to show such strenght.3NT should be the same distribution (or 3343) and (11)12-14. 4♦ is slammish, with 3♥ an advance cuebid. My hand isn't worth that. I'd guess 3NT works better than 5♦, and thus would pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 23, 2007 Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 I guess the bidding was ok but I would have just bid 4d over the double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshs Posted February 23, 2007 Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 The auction looks automatic to me. I guess you can pass 3N but in my mind thats a big position and I would never consider it at imps. Partner doesnt have to have 2 stoppers. If partner did not bid 3N you can practically force to slam, so cue-bidding did get you useful info. The only question is whether you should bid 4D directly or bid 3H first. Depending on style the difference in sequences might be:a. Heart control or notOrb. Strength of the diamonds (maybe 4D direct should be at least Hxxxx?)OrC. maybe a different distinction, perhaps 4D direct is a distributional invite that had no interest in 3N, so is not even forcing? So a hand like AQxx - QJxxxx xxx? (I have conflicting rules here: rule a: absent competition that forced you to compete to 4m, bidding 4 of a minor is forcing whenever you didn't try for 3N (so for instance all jumps to 4m) rule b: In a competative auction, where my side has opened and responded but hasn't shown game INV or better values yet, all strong auctions start with x or a cue-bid. Jumps show extras but are not forcing.) Josh 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.