Is this the best sequence?

[geofspa]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sq86hak73dkj3caj2&w=sak2h54d764ct9863&e=s4h962dt9852ckq75&s=sjt9753hqjt8daqc4]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Sitting south with this hand the bidding went as follows (EW silent)

 

1♣ : 1♠

2NT : 4♠

 

My thoughts for 4♠

 

Partner has shown 18-19 and a balanced hand ... he must have at least 2 spades therefore we have at least an eight card fit. Why go looking for another?

 

I have 10 HCP enough for game, just bid it.

 

In the post mortem I was wondering if the heart fit should be looked for or if my reasoning at the table is correct.

 

Feel free to abuse me if I am being stupid :unsure:

[jtfanclub]

1. You're strong enough for two bids, why not bid 1♥ first, planning to bid spades later?

 

2. 2NT isn't forcing, therefore a new suit over 2NT should be forcing. What's wrong with 3♥?

 

As it turns out, you're better off in spades than in hearts, but that's a heck of a thing to assume to start out. If partner has, say, the same hand but two small spades and another club, you're really going to wish you were in hearts.

[pbleighton]

"You're strong enough for two bids, why not bid 1♥ first, planning to bid spades later"

 

Because he has 6 spades and 4 hearts.

 

If you play NMF or checkback over a 2NT rebid, you can check for a heart fit, but the way I play, showing 3 spades would come first, and I would wind up in 4S.

 

Without such an arrangement, 4S is fine.

 

Peter

[geofspa]

1.  You're strong enough for two bids, why not bid 1♥ first, planning to bid spades later?

 

I would never bid a shorter suit before a 6 carder.

[helene_t]

Hearts first and then spades? That doesn't sound like standard bidding to me. Not sure how you will show partner that the spades are longer.

 

A 4-4 fit in hearts is usually better than a 6-2 fit is spades. But 6-3 is probably better than 4-4 (at least on this deal it happens to be the case). If your checkback structure allows you to sort that out, you should probably do so.

[kenrexford]

From your side of the table, partner could easily have ♠AKx ♥AKxx ♦Kxx ♣xxx, right? Not likely, but possible.

 

With that holding, slam in hearts is reasonable, and better than slam or game in spades probably. So, finding the heart fit may be not just superior for game purposes but also for possible slam.

 

Whatever technique you have to seek that result should be used, IMO.

[geofspa]

Any checkback structure that the partnership uses ( and it was a pickup partnership with limited agreements) would, as PBleighton says, give priority to opener showing 3 cards in spades. We would therefore on this hand always end in 4♠

[jtfanclub]

Hearts first and then spades? That doesn't sound like standard bidding to me. Not sure how you will show partner that the spades are longer.

1♣-1♥

1NT-2♠

 

Spades must be longer than hearts- if you play some form of checkback, you'd use it with only 4 spades, if you don't, partner would never bypass spades to bid NT.

 

That's really only to show 5-4, not 6-4, so maybe it is better to start with spades and then bid hearts with this.

[geofspa]

1♣-1♥

1NT-2♠

 

Spades must be longer than hearts- if you play some form of checkback, you'd use it with only 4 spades, if you don't, partner would never bypass spades to bid NT.

 

That's really only to show 5-4, not 6-4, so maybe it is better to start with spades and then bid hearts with this.

Albeit that partner rebids 2NT I begin to see your reasoning. If using checkback (assuming 3!c here is check back) the sequence might be something like

 

1♣ : 1♥

2NT : 3♣

 

where 3♣ is looking for 3♥ or 4♠ ... therefore a direct bid of 3♠ by south (me) over 2NT must be showing at least 5 cards ... the penny is dropping very slowly! :angry:

[Guest Jlall]

You bid it fine. For game purposes you probably want to be in the 6-2/3 not the 4-4 as it's less risky. So if you decide not to try for slam I think bidding spades was right.

[bid_em_up]

Hearts first and then spades? That doesn't sound like standard bidding to me. Not sure how you will show partner that the spades are longer.

1♣-1♥

1NT-2♠

 

Spades must be longer than hearts- if you play some form of checkback, you'd use it with only 4 spades, if you don't, partner would never bypass spades to bid NT.

 

That's really only to show 5-4, not 6-4, so maybe it is better to start with spades and then bid hearts with this.

This auction would show 6+ hearts, and 5 spades, in most systems.

[inquiry]

1. You're strong enough for two bids, why not bid 1♥ first, planning to bid spades later?

Cough, cough... gag....

 

I did bid 1♥ on a four card suit recently when holding FIVE weak spades. My hand was something like...

 

S-xxxxx H-KTxx D-QTx C-x

 

Partner opened a diamond and I planned on finding a fit and stopping. If partner raised hearts fine, if partner bid spades, fine. if partner rebid diamonds, fine. And if partner bid 2C, I would take preference to 2D. But this is one of a very FEW times I have bid a four card major before a five card onel. And bidding a four card suit before a SIX? Not going to happen.

 

2.  2NT isn't forcing, therefore a new suit over 2NT should be forcing.  What's wrong with 3♥? 

 

No 2NT is not forcing. There are hands where, after 2NT showing 18-19 you have reached your final contract.

[brianshark]

If you have more than one 4+ card Major, you bid the longer. If they are equal, then you bid ♥s if you have 4-4, or ♠s if you have 5-5 or 6-6.

 

The auction above need only be 5+♥s and 4♠ I think. It's just a normal reverse by responder, showing 5+4+ and GF values.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3H over 2NT is certainly better,

as long as you are sure, that partner

knows, that 3H is forcing.

 

If you fear partner may pass, 4S

is correct.

 

It may even be possible, that you

have slam, ... if partner looks at honors

in spade and hearts, he may be willing

to cooperate over a 3H bid, 3S setting spades,

4H / 4S sign off, any other suit bid being a

heart fit and a cue.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

Are you sure that opener cannot rebid 2N with 1-4-4-4 shape? Then I would want to be in Hearts, not least because of the poor quality of my own spades. I would be happy to treat responder's hand as if 5-4 shape.

[bid_em_up]

Any checkback structure that the partnership uses ( and it was a pickup partnership with limited agreements) would, as PBleighton says, give priority to opener showing 3 cards in spades. We would therefore on this hand always end in 4♠

Checkback sequences should show the other major first when 3-4, imo.

 

Why?

 

Because the 4-4 fit will frequently produce extra tricks than are not available in the 5-3 (or 6-3) fit.

 

You will always be able to find the 5-3 fit anyway.

 

If the checkback bidder holds 4 cards in the other major, he will raise to 4M. If he fails to do this, he must have 5 of his suit (otherwise there was no need for the checkback), and will bid 3N. Now opener holding 3-4 in the majors can correct to 4 of responders major.

[bid_em_up]

If you have more than one 4+ card Major, you bid the longer. If they are equal, then you bid ♥s if you have 4-4, or ♠s if you have 5-5 or 6-6.

 

The auction above need only be 5+♥s and 4♠ I think. It's just a normal reverse by responder, showing 5+4+ and GF values.

There is no reason to show 4S in the sequence 1C-1H-1N.

 

Opener has normally denied 4 spades by his failure to bid 1S. Even if you partnership "might" rebid 1N when holding 4 spades, you still normally would bid 2D (nmf) to find out whether opener has 3 hearts or 4 spades.

 

Which is why this sequence should be 6+♥, 5♠.

[kenrexford]

The question was not whether the result was right, but whether the auction was right. So, I'm not sure why we are assuming that a 6-3 fit is better than a 4-4 fit and that therefore the auction was fine. Is Opener somehow barred from holding 2443 pattern?

 

I also do not understand the preference for showing 3-card spade support over 4-card hearts. Sure, the checkback sequence always will feature a five-card spade suit, but Responder can bid 3♠ after 3♥. Given the choice between a 5-3 and a 4-4, most would want to find the 4-4, and bidding a spade fragment before a heart suit makes that difficult, unless of course Responder can bid 4♥ after 3♠ as choice.

 

But, now the question arises as to which technique better facilitates slam. If either is possible for game purposes, but a 4-4 heart fit offers the best strain for slam purposes, then why not first support hearts, allowing 3♠ as choice, rather than 3♠, requiring 4♥ as choice, losing forcing ability and space?

 

I understand the theory for 2-level checkback, after 1NT, but I do not understand it after 2NT, except as purely simplification for ease of memory.

 

I am also concerned about the theory that 4♣ or 4♦ is a cue in support of hearts. Checkback usually guarantees the fifth card in the initiated major but not a fourth card in the other major. If the cue response makes sense, it should be in support of the assured fit, not a possible fit, as this causes great problems if Responder does not have four hearts.

[Guest Jlall]

Is Opener somehow barred from holding 2443 pattern?

If you don't want to try for slam then you would probably prefer to be in spades opposite this shape.

[kenrexford]

Why would you want to be in a 6-2 fit instead of a 4-4 fit at game? Especially when the queen is an unknown in the 6-2 fit and we have Q-J-10 in the four-card suit?

 

If Opener's doubleton is AK, we gain a trick playing in the 4-4 when the queen does not drop but can be ruffed. If Opener has Ax or Kx, we have similar potential for gain. Heck, Opener might even be xx. With AQ tight, similar gain.

 

If the spades were Qxxxxx, the chances of gains are reduced, but still present. It is only with KQJxxx or so where there is no internal suit gainer.

 

The heart suit also is a reason for the 4-4. If hearts were Axxx, Kxxx, or AKxx, or even xxxx, then we might be able to dicth losers in that suit on diamond or club winners. But, with QJ10x, this option is less appealing, as we probably gain nothing from that option.

 

If Opener's hearts are lousy, repeated club leads might dip into out QJ10x, reducing, for example, Axxx or Kxxx to problematic, whereas spades cannot be so affected. But, when we have near-slam values (28-29 HCP's, probably), this risk seems of reduced concern.

 

I'll grant that the extra ruff from a trump when hearts are 3-2 is of minimal usefulness here, when spades come in. However, that extra trick may well come from a spade ruff.

 

I'll also grant that hearts may be difficult to play if a 4-1 or 5-0 split develops.

[Guest Jlall]

Why would you want to be in a 6-2 fit instead of a 4-4 fit at game? Especially when the queen is an unknown in the 6-2 fit and we have Q-J-10 in the four-card suit?

 

If Opener's doubleton is AK, we gain a trick playing in the 4-4 when the queen does not drop but can be ruffed. If Opener has Ax or Kx, we have similar potential for gain. Heck, Opener might even be xx. With AQ tight, similar gain.

 

If the spades were Qxxxxx, the chances of gains are reduced, but still present. It is only with KQJxxx or so where there is no internal suit gainer.

 

The heart suit also is a reason for the 4-4. If hearts were Axxx, Kxxx, or AKxx, or even xxxx, then we might be able to dicth losers in that suit on diamond or club winners. But, with QJ10x, this option is less appealing, as we probably gain nothing from that option.

 

If Opener's hearts are lousy, repeated club leads might dip into out QJ10x, reducing, for example, Axxx or Kxxx to problematic, whereas spades cannot be so affected. But, when we have near-slam values (28-29 HCP's, probably), this risk seems of reduced concern.

 

I'll grant that the extra ruff from a trump when hearts are 3-2 is of minimal usefulness here, when spades come in. However, that extra trick may well come from a spade ruff.

 

I'll also grant that hearts may be difficult to play if a 4-1 or 5-0 split develops.

I think you have missed my point. I did not imply that I think you will not take more tricks on average in hearts than spades (in fact I implied the opposite), I did imply that I think you will go down at the 4 level more often in hearts than spades.

[skjaeran]

In our methods the bidding would start 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠.

1♥=transfer, 1♠=any hand with 3c supp and some with 4c support.

 

I would then bid 2♣, a puppet to 2♦ (to play 2♦ or make an invite). (This is called the xyz convention.) Partner wld rebid 2NT to show 18-19 with 3♠'s.

 

Over 2NT I'd bid 3♦, a new transfer, showing a ♥ suit. Partner would respobd 3♥, showing 3-4 in the majors, and I'd rebid 3♠, showing 6-4.

 

Partner would really like this development, and respond 4♣, flag for ♥'s. Since the magic hand AKQ-AKxx-Kxx-xxx would make slam laydown, and the same hand without the ♠Q slam reasonable, I might press on with 4♦. Lacking a ♠ control, partner would now sign off in 4♥, which I'd pass.

[sceptic]

Geof, you have some serious issues here, I would have bid 4 spades also

 

I can not believe that some one suggests bidding 1heart first, I think that is suicidal, but what the heck do I know

[1eyedjack]

I guess I am alone in fearing a singleton Spade opposite.

[pbleighton]

"I guess I am alone in fearing a singleton Spade opposite."

 

After a 2NT rebid?

 

Peter