Pick a contract

[Fluffy]

I hate it when so many people bid better than I did :)

 

I am surprised many say 6-1 plays better than 4-3. Of course it does, but partner already knew that, and he pick to bid 4♥, not 4♠ isn't that revealing?

[P_Marlowe]

I hate it when so many people bid better than I did :)

 

I am surprised many say 6-1 plays better than 4-3. Of course it does, but partner already knew that, and he pick to bid 4♥, not 4♠ isn't that revealing?

I though about that shortly, maybe he has a spade

void, maybe he holds the Ace of hearts and wanted

to give you a choice, take your pick.

In view of your strong spade suit, 4S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

I voted 5♣ but thnking more about it I would have passed 3N. Hard to think of a hand by partner that makes 5♣ better than 3N.

[Finch]

I hate it when so many people bid better than I did :)

 

I am surprised many say 6-1 plays better than 4-3. Of course it does, but partner already knew that, and he pick to bid 4♥, not 4♠ isn't that revealing?

If 3♠ was forcing, then partner thinks you are now looking for a club slam and is cueing the ace of hearts.

[jdonn]

I hate it when so many people bid better than I did :o

 

I am surprised many say 6-1 plays better than 4-3. Of course it does, but partner already knew that, and he pick to bid 4♥, not 4♠ isn't that revealing?

No since partner doesn't know we have the jack of spades. I would pass 4♥ without it and take my chances.

[foo]

I voted 5♣ but thnking more about it I would have passed 3N. Hard to think of a hand by partner that makes 5♣ better than 3N.

6C331 or 6C322 10-11 count with a hole or asymmetric guard or 1 stop in D's.

 

opposite this: ♠KQJ742♥KQJ4♦5♣K4

 

I dislike both 3N and 5C

[Fluffy]

[hv=n=sha109dqxxcaj9xxxx&w=sxxxhxxxxdak10cq10x&e=saxxxhxxdjxxxxxcx&s=skqjxxxhkqjxdxckx]399|300|[/hv]

 

4♠ and 5♣ make easilly with the diamond/spade position, I don't know wich one will pick partner if you bid ♠ because I played 4♥.

 

on 4♥ LHO led ♦AK on wich I discarded a spade, he switched to a trump and I tried to run ♠K with no success, In the end I had to guess clubs or find a black suit squeeze, neither happened.

[han]

I think passing 4H was really wrong (sorry Fluff), playing in the 4-3 with diamond ruffs in the 4-card suit seems a poor idea. I think that partner should correct to 5C. (1430 RKC would also get us to 5C)

[whereagles]

Our auction is clearly looking for the best game, not a slam try. If we were looking for slam in clubs we would never bid 3♠, we would have raised 3♣ to 4♣. It is important for responder to consider things like that.

Completely disagree and think it's very irresponsible to assume pard is thinking like that.

[jdonn]

Our auction is clearly looking for the best game, not a slam try. If we were looking for slam in clubs we would never bid 3♠, we would have raised 3♣ to 4♣. It is important for responder to consider things like that.

Completely disagree and think it's very irresponsible to assume pard is thinking like that.

If you disagree I won't argue it further since that's your right, but I don't think you know what irresponsible means :blink:

 

Why would being wrong (I'm not, but you think I am) and expecting partner to be on the same page be irresponsible?

[jtfanclub]

Another one I don't get....

 

It makes no sense to have 3♠ here be some kind of wishy-washy bid to me. It should mean either of...

 

1) I want to play in spades. I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit. If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

 

2) Game, schmame. I'm thinking big. You got some controls you'd like to tell me about?

 

The table-tennis match where 3♣ shows an invitational hand that can't decide whether it's strong enough to game followed by 3♠ showing an invitational hand which can't decide whether it's strong enough for game...bleah.

 

I'm going to assume it's case 1. Partner has made a non-system bid, which had better be a spade void or we're gonna have a talk after the round about trusting your partner. So 4♣ shouldn't be yet another runaway bride- it should be signoff. And then partner bids 4♥? The only meaning I can think of for that is "If you're 6-5-0-2, I want to play in hearts". Which, who knows, you could be. But you're not.

 

5♣

[Fluffy]

1)  I want to play in spades.  I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit.  If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

That is bid via 3♠ previous round, so can't be

 

2)  Game, schmame.  I'm thinking big.  You got some controls you'd like to tell me about?

 

And what's the fit? if its spades then see 1), if its clubs why wouldn't you bid 4♣?

 

The table-tennis match where 3♣ shows an invitational hand that can't decide whether it's strong enough to game followed by 3♠ showing an invitational hand which can't decide whether it's strong enough for game...bleah.

 

I agree, this is nonsense, partner already bid a playable suit, if there is no game stay at 3♣.

 

So 3♠ is not looking for slam, it is not looking for partnscore, so what is it?

 

Iin my opinion only, (but I have strong convition here :D) it is simply looking for the best game.

[Fluffy]

I think passing 4H was really wrong (sorry Fluff), playing in the 4-3 with diamond ruffs in the 4-card suit seems a poor idea. I think that partner should correct to 5C. (1430 RKC would also get us to 5C)

You can beleive I was really tempted to force the 6-0 fit aiming for 2 trump and a diamond loser, but I though this was aiming for only 1 target

 

4♥ would have much more posibilities, depending on partner's hand, it was much funnier to play as well, so it wasn't really a loss :D.

[jtfanclub]

1)  I want to play in spades.  I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit.  If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

That is bid via 3♠ previous round, so can't be

????

 

You play 1♠-2♣-3♠ as signoff?

 

 

So 3♠ is not looking for slam, it is not looking for partnscore, so what is it?

 

Iin my opinion only, (but I have strong convition here :D) it is simply looking for the best game.

 

Well, part of it is the question of what 3♣ actually shows. He has 6 clubs, but if his only choice to show 6 clubs and an invitational hand is 2♣ followed by 3♣, that could be a pretty ratty suit. If it's GF except suit rebid, then

 

1♠ 2♣

2♥ 2NT

 

is game forcing, right? So with a 6-4-2-1, I'd rather bid spades, 'cause...

-it's a major. Yay majors!

-Partner hasn't denied 2 spades.

-If I have a solid spade suit, that's probably better than partner's maybe-solid club suit.

 

I don't think a 4-way choice of games is necessary. 4♣ should be choice of games for the black suits, 4♥ for the majors. I think it's unlikely that I'm going to want one of the choices in my choice of games to be 3NT.

[han]

Another one I don't get....

 

It makes no sense to have 3♠ here be some kind of wishy-washy bid to me. 

This is not the B/I forum, there bidding 3S followed by 4C would probably not be the recommended auction. Here more subtle auctions are possible.

 

It should mean either of...

 

1)  I want to play in spades.  I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit.  If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

 

Playing 3S as non-forcing is aiming at too small a target. If you have a hand that's really only interested in playing spades at this point then you should just bid 4S. The actual type of hand is far more common.

 

2)  Game, schmame.  I'm thinking big.  You got some controls you'd like to tell me about?

 

It makes sense to search for a playable fit before you bid controls. There is no reason in the world why 3S should show slam interest. It's just a gameforcing 6-4 hand.

 

The rest of your post made even less sense to me so let me not react.

 

And as for Fluffy..

 

it was much funnier to play as well, so it wasn't really a loss.

 

Getting a delicate decision right is much more pleasing, isn't it? :D

[whereagles]

Why would being wrong (I'm not, but you think I am) and expecting partner to be on the same page be irresponsible?

You claim that

 

1♠ 2♣

2♥ 3♣

3♠ 3NT

4♣

 

and

 

1♠ 2♣

2♥ 3♣

4♣

 

are respectively 'looking for best game' and 'slam bound'. I don't think these interpretations are obvious at all (in fact, I even disagree with them) and because of that you cannot assume pard will interpret things the way you want him to.

 

If nonetheless you do that, you're risking a disaster and that is failing on a responsibility you have to your teammates: to avoid disasters. That's why I say it's irresponsible.

 

huh.. was that clear? :D

[jtfanclub]

Playing 3S as non-forcing is aiming at too small a target.

 

Gotta be a bigger target than a hand that STILL can't decide whether it wants to be in game or not.

 

I think I have better uses for 3S than choice of games, but it doesn't offend my delicate sensibilities like invitational does. That was the point of my post, and sorry if I didn't do a good job of explaining that.

[Fluffy]

1)  I want to play in spades.  I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit.  If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

That is bid via 3♠ previous round, so can't be

????

 

You play 1♠-2♣-3♠ as signoff?

 

Oops, I though you meant 3♠ set suit and wanted to play 6, sorry.

[Fluffy]

I don't think these interpretations are obvious at all

I do, but we are lucky that if we ever play together we will be playing 2/1 :D.

[whereagles]

huh.. probably, yes :D

[jdonn]

Why would being wrong (I'm not, but you think I am) and expecting partner to be on the same page be irresponsible?

You claim that

 

1♠ 2♣

2♥ 3♣

3♠ 3NT

4♣

 

and

 

1♠ 2♣

2♥ 3♣

4♣

 

are respectively 'looking for best game' and 'slam bound'. I don't think these interpretations are obvious at all (in fact, I even disagree with them) and because of that you cannot assume pard will interpret things the way you want him to.

 

If nonetheless you do that, you're risking a disaster and that is failing on a responsibility you have to your teammates: to avoid disasters. That's why I say it's irresponsible.

 

huh.. was that clear? :D

No matter how you interpret them partner might not be on the same page. So is just assuming the bids mean anything at all irresponsible? Ok if you pass and partner was trying for slam you are risking a disaster and therefore irresponsible, if you keep bidding and partner was trying to find the best game then likewise you are irresponsible. That's what you get for showing up to play bridge that day and assuming any of partner's bids mean anything. Very clear thanks!

[Impact]

I still note that no one else has commented on my note that 4D by Opener over 3NT is a better use for COG, which then allows 4C setting trumps and on-going (consider a hand with doubleton empty D which might has now found that responder has a D card allowing slam investigation etc).

 

Admittedly it also depends on your options over 3C (eg 4C sets C and asks for cues, 4D Kickback etc).