Signoff or looking for a magical slam?

[mikeh]

Responder now carries through with the identification of strain via 3♥. This is a MILDLY slammish move... but it does not promise a huge hand (nor does it deny one).

If this is MILDLY, what is 4♥?

The sequence of FSF then a jump to 4♥ over 2♠ seems to me to be not especially useful, so I would play it as a hand that has depreciated in value after 2♠. Maybe KJ10x Kxx QJx Kxx... willing to play 3N if partner bids 2N, but not once partner shows either 3=5=1=4 (or more pronounced shape) or a 2=5=2=4 with no ♦ card. So the sequence tends to show that the FSF bid was based on doubt about strain rather than certainty of strain and doubt about level.

[Stephen Tu]

I really don't understand all the people rebidding 2♣ on 3514 minimums. I believe the vast majority of better players would raise directly to 2♠ on such hands. After the 4SF 2♦, opener with a stiff diamond should be able to jump to 3♠. 2♠ should be awkward hands with a doubleton.

[david_c]

I really don't understand all the people rebidding 2♣ on 3514 minimums. I believe the vast majority of better players would raise directly to 2♠ on such hands. After the 4SF 2♦, opener with a stiff diamond should be able to jump to 3♠. 2♠ should be awkward hands with a doubleton.

Yep. I'm expecting a doubleton for 2♠.

[mikeh]

I really don't understand all the people rebidding 2♣ on 3514 minimums.  I believe the vast majority of better players would raise directly to 2♠ on such hands.  After the 4SF 2♦, opener with a stiff diamond should be able to jump to 3♠.  2♠ should be awkward hands with a doubleton.

Yep. I'm expecting a doubleton for 2♠.

I'm not, and I very, very much doubt that it is playable to require opener to jump to 3♠ to confirm 3 card support.

 

1. Assume responder has 5+♠s or is otherwise interested in ♠s despite only holding a 4 card suit. Just how is he to convey that ♠s are agreed, other than by bidding 4 (or more)♠ or by hauling out keycard.. none of which may make the slightest sense. If you suggest a cue bid...read...

 

2. Assume responder prefers either ♥s or ♣s as trump. How can he set ♥s? 4♥ is out, since that has to be passable....or is it forcing.... and bear in mind that both players are relatively unlimited in strength: opener could be minimum (in context) and so could responder or responder could be looking at 19+ hcp! And if you would like a bid, such as 4♣, to agree ♠s as trump... well, if you respond 2♣ on gf 4=4 blacks, as advocated on a recent thread, you may be able to play this...unless you are dealt 5=4 in the blacks, of course, in a situation where the 4=4 fit plays a trick better than the 5=3 (a common scenario). So you HAVE to play that responder's return to one of opener's suits over 3♠ sets trump....so how do you set ♠s below game?

 

No, the answer is that one either agrees that the 2♠ preference promises 3 (I reject this) or that it could be either 2 or 3...playable because we still have lots of bidding space in which to clarify the holding if it becomes important... and if responder fits neither of opener's suits and cannot commit to notrump, then the 5-2 fit we end up in may be the best spot anyway.

[Fluffy]

What I expect is partner bidding 3♠, not 2♠ over 2♦ with most of the hands that makes slam.

 

To david and Stephen: You might not believe, but there are some people out there who never ever raise with 3 cards.

[kenrexford]

...Imagining the worst possible LTC hand, perhaps he can have ♠AJx♥QJxxx♦Q ♣Jxxx? That's pretty lousy as an opener (not inconceivable for some partners)...

What a slice of Velveeta (it's not even real cheese).

 

Anyone who opens this opposite you deserves the name "Center Hand Opponent."

 

If your partners do this to you on a regular basis, either

a= you're a teacher playing with novices, or

b= you're a pro playing with clients who are weak players, or

c= you need a better partner.

C'mon! Don't you have a sense of humor? Haven't you seen some of the trash two supposedly competent world competitors claim to be openers in real auctions? LOL

 

You obviously forgot Option #4: My partners sometimes have a heightened opinion of their prowess as declarers.

[pbleighton]

What a slice of Velveeta (it's not even real cheese).

 

Anyone who opens this opposite you deserves the name "Center Hand Opponent."

 

If your partners do this to you on a regular basis, either

a= you're a teacher playing with novices, or

b= you're a pro playing with clients who are weak players, or

c= you need a better partner.

 

This depends entirely on the system you are playing. Pllaying a 2/1 or SA with *normal* openers, this isn't an opener.

 

Playing a light opening system, it is.

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

Well, you certainly would not cooperate in ANYTHING if partner started slamming and you opened up Velveeta. LOL

[jtfanclub]

This depends entirely on the system you are playing. Pllaying a 2/1 or SA with *normal* openers, this isn't an opener.

 

Playing a light opening system, it is.

 

Peter

It's awful close....

 

♠AJT♥QJT98♦Q ♣JT98

 

I'd open that any seat except 4th, any vul.

 

♠AJ9♥QJ982♦Q ♣JT52

 

I'd be seriously tempted.

 

♠AJ2♥QJ432♦Q ♣J432

 

I wouldn't be interested.

 

Do you disagree?

[mike777]

Well, you certainly would not cooperate in ANYTHING if partner started slamming and you opened up Velveeta. LOL

Maybe yes, maybe no. Keep in mind partner is slamming expecting you to have this piece of cheese.

[jdonn]

When I first read this problem then after

1♥ 1♠

2♣ 2♦

2♠ 3♥

3♠ 4♣

4♦

I said I would sign off, but then thought about it more and almost immediately decided that is wrong and I should proceed toward slam. My hand is HUGE opposite that bid, whatever it means (since it surely shows interest of some kind). 100% of my highcards are working, in fact there is not so much as a wasted jack, and in particular the club queen is gigantic. I challenge anyone to show me a hand partner could have consistent with that bidding (in particular, that would bid 4♦ instead of 4♥) where slam isn't good, keeping in mind that if we are off a diamond and the heart queen we will stop in 5 after blackwood. The only downside would be reaching 5♥ needing 3-2 hearts to make if partner lacks the queen, and most hands I could think of where he didn't have it involve 4♦ being a big overbid.

 

Let's put it another way. The 'perfect minimum' example for partner that people keep quoting is Axx AQxxx x KJxx. If partner has that, can he really do more over 4♣ than 4♦ followed by respecting our decision? It seems to me that obviously he can't.

[kenrexford]

I challenge anyone to show me a hand partner could have consistent with that bidding (in particular, that would bid 4♦ instead of 4♥) where slam isn't good, keeping in mind that if we are off a diamond and the heart queen we will stop in 5 after blackwood. The only downside would be reaching 5♥ needing 3-2 hearts to make if partner lacks the queen, and most hands I could think of where he didn't have it involve 4♦ being a big overbid.

♠AJx ♥Qxxxx ♦K ♣KJxx, if he'd cue 4♦ with that.

 

Or, ♠AJx ♥Axxxx ♦void ♣J109xx. That sucks, too.

 

A 4♠ cuebid might lead to a salvation auction.

 

Add in worse:

 

♠AJx ♥AQxxx ♦void ♣xxxxx.

 

Now, we need hearts 3-2 and the club hook working. Opener has a six-loser hand.

[cherdano]

I agree with Ken, if opener can't do hand evaluation and is counting losers then I will just bid 4♥ over 2♣.

[jdonn]

♠AJx ♥Qxxxx ♦K ♣KJxx, if he'd cue 4♦ with that.

Lol. He is barely if at all even worth the 3♠ bid.

 

Or, ♠AJx ♥Axxxx ♦void ♣J109xx.  That sucks, too.

Just how many cuebids should partner be making on a 10 count exactly? The 4♦ bid shouldn't be made on momentum, minimums can't just keep cuebidding ad infinitum, especially when they have shown the main features of their shape already.

 

Add in worse:

 

♠AJx ♥AQxxx ♦void ♣xxxxx.

 

Now, we need hearts 3-2 and the club hook working.  Opener has a six-loser hand.

Just give him the jack of clubs and slam is fine.

 

Meanwhile, your examples all range from possible to obvious raises to 2♠ as opener's rebid anyway.

[Fluffy]

I challenge anyone to show me a hand partner could have consistent with that bidding (in particular, that would bid 4♦ instead of 4♥) where slam isn't good

I had to take the challenge hehe, but I didn't come to any good answer, closest I found

 

♠AJ

♥QJxxx

♦Ax

♣Jxxx

 

Wich is a 1NT rebid sadly

 

 

There is actually one:

 

♠A(J)x

♥Q(10)xxx

♦A

♣K(J)xx

 

not like a good slam, but if you never move for slam because you might be losing 2 trump tricks when partner has the keycards outside trumps then you won't ever play slams.

[kenrexford]

[analysis]

These examples must be cuebid, opposite an unlimited partner, unless your style is different from mine.

 

The first you acknowledge to be "barely worth" the cuebid. So, you must cuebid that one as well.

 

The second is less obviously mandatory for me -- I'm allowed generally to sign off in this type of auction if my answer to RKCB would be less than two with the Queen, all other factors leaning toward signoff. However, that void makes an immediate signoff impossible because the "asnwer" to RKCB would be "higher" in the sense of "two with a void" being an answer above 5♥.

 

The third is a classic two plus the Ace, such that I cannot immediately sign off.

 

Of course, Serious 3NT and LTTC helps with these rules, and some might not use those conventons...

[cherdano]

[analysis]

These examples must be cuebid, opposite an unlimited partner, unless your style is different from mine.

From "your style"? Mandatory cuebids in this auction (without playing serious 3N etc.) with subminimal opening bids are a very weird style, if you play that I am sorry for you but please don't assume it in BBF in the same way as you don't assume that the OP is playing blue club unless he specifies so.

[jdonn]

All these examples of minimum hands with weak trumps are not worth 4♦. At some point a minimum just has to sign off!

[foo]

This depends entirely on the system you are playing. Playing a 2/1 or SA with *normal* openers, this isn't an opener.

 

Playing a light opening system, it is.

 

Peter

It's awful close....

 

♠AJT♥QJT98♦Q ♣JT98

I'd open that any seat except 4th, any vul.

 

♠AJ9♥QJ982♦Q ♣JT52

I'd be seriously tempted.

 

♠AJ2♥QJ432♦Q ♣J432

I wouldn't be interested.

 

Do you disagree?

Yes. None of these are Openings playing a mainstream SA or 2/1 GF system

 

They are all control poor, 8 loser hands, w/o 2 defensive tricks.

 

Even playing something like Precision, you still need the same amount of assets between the two hands to belong in game; and these hands are basically soft 10 counts (9 working HCP + good or nice intermediates), not good 11 or even good 10 counts.

 

3 things can go wrong if you open this stuff

a= GOP can take you seriously and We end up in a hopeless contract.

b= GOP can take you seriously and X for penalties when They can score it up.

c= The opponents are more likely to have hands that say "Double the final contract".

[foo]

All these examples of minimum hands with weak trumps are not worth 4♦. At some point a minimum just has to sign off!

What he said. Emphatically. In fact, some of them should not have cooperated as long as they did...

[Fluffy]

All these examples of minimum hands with weak trumps are not worth 4♦. At some point a minimum just has to sign off!

I think this dpends on your minimum for jumping to 3♠ instead of bidding 2, probably I shouldn't count my HCP on tis auction, but I do.

 

When I have 15 but could have 11 I won't sing off.

[mhais]

i will bid 3h & leave 2 pd even 4h may go dn informing pd by bidding 3h if slm is pd will make enquiry.

[han]

Didn't we all agree to start with 2C on hands like this?

[mikeh]

Didn't we all agree to start with 2C on hands like this?

No: and I am glad we don't. Consider how well the auction has gone to the point at which we cue 4♣. I am delighted to be able to bid this way. Compare what happens if we bid 2♣ instead. Firstly, there is the issue of what kind of hand he needs in order to raise clubs... but assume that he does, as seems probable. Now we have to bid 3♥, and we lack any inference about ♦ shortness, and partner is in the dark as to how well our hands mesh. While I am beginning to like responding 2♣ with 4=4 hands, I think doing so with this shape is carrying a good idea too far.

[kenrexford]

I do not understand the thinking here, frankly.

 

You open 1♥. Partner bids 1♠ (a bid I loath with the actual hand, but OK). You bid 2♣. Partner bids 2♦, forcing of some variety. You bid 2♠, which shows something in spades (we cannot agree whether 3 or 2, but OK). Partner then bids 3♥, clearly indicating slam interest, as he otherwise would have simply bid 4♥ after 2♣, or perhaps after 2♠ (I doubt you play 4♥ as a splinter here, but maybe so...).

 

So, you are looking to decide whether the following hands are "submininum" or otherwise bock beer, such that you will not cooperate at all with a partner who has suggested strongly to start cuebidding:

 

♠AJx ♥Qxxxx ♦K ♣KJxx

 

What is the value of this hand? By Milton's count, you have 14, a King higher than minimum (when 5-4). You have seven losers (average opening). You have four controls and the Queen of trumps. You have the right pattern, with a happy surprise in spades. This is a sub-minimum? Make the diamond King a deuce, and it is simply a normal minimum, not sub-minimum.

 

♠AJx ♥Axxxx ♦void ♣J109xx

 

Now, you have a 12-count. By Rule-of-Twenty, you have 22 (remove the two Jacks, and this is a minimum). You have four controls, with the spade Jack kicker again. Seven losers again. This is also a "sub-minimum?"

 

♠AJx ♥AQxxx ♦void ♣xxxxx

 

This time, your count is low (11), admittedly. You still have a 21 on a Rule-of-Twenty count, with the extra point in the right spot. You have four controls, plus the trump Queen. This time, you have a mere six-loser hand.

 

If these three hands are your "sub-minimums," such that cooperation with a slammish partner is out, your minimum openers are much different than mine.

 

My parallel (sub-)minimums look more like these:

 

♠AJx ♥Qxxxx ♦x ♣KJxx

♠Axx ♥Axxxx ♦void ♣J109xx

♠Kxx ♥AQxxx ♦void ♣xxxxx