Bidding problem

[goobers]

Um, I believe NMF is defined to be in the following sequence...

 

1m - 1M

1N - *NMF*

 

In your other auction, I would call it a FSF...

[kenrexford]

I hold Qxx xx AQxx KJxx.

 

I open 1♦ and LHO preempts my partner's 1♥ bid via 3♠....Pass Pass 4♣.

 

Not a problem.

 

Is 4♣ forcing?

 

If it isn't, well we've found a (bad) home.

 

If it is, then I have to raise... surely I don't bid 4 red suit here?

 

No problem... if partner has Ax AKQ10x 832 Axx, he can always safely correct to our ♦ fit.... oh... we don't really have a great ♦ fit.

 

Oh well, maybe opening leader, with x Jxxx KJ109x Qxx won't double :)

If Opener, after a fourth-suit forcing 4♣ call, cannot bid 4♥ (a call he might logically make on Hx in hearts), then he either has the same number in each minor or he has longer diamonds (duh, I suppose, but stay with me). If Responder has 3-3 in the minors (like on this hand) or even longer diamonds, what is the problem? He converts to diamonds.

 

Your creation of 3244 is a tad strained, as many would open 1♣ with that hand (I would). But, even if we go with that, where is the harm here? The problem is the by-pass of 3NT, but Responder should have appropriate strength to justify that. If we play 5♦ on a 4-3 because we have no spade stopper, at least we have a chance. Had Opener been xxx-Qx in the majors (what he will more often have), we will play 4♥ this way. With the actual hand, 4NT works -- "spade stopper here" -- but again a strained auction for me as I woudl open 1♣ with your hand.

[kenrexford]

Um, I believe NMF is defined to be in the following sequence...

 

1m - 1M

1N - *NMF*

 

In your other auction, I would call it a FSF...

"New Minor Forcing" means that a bid of a "new minor" is "forcing" and artificial.

 

"Fourth Suit Forcing" usually means that the bid of the "fourth suit" is forcing and artificial, but that implies that we bid three suits, not that we bid two and the opponents bid a third.

 

I doubt, for instance, that most people would take:

 

1♦-P-1♠-2♣

P-P-2♥

 

as a "Fourth Suit Forcing" auction. The hearts are expected to be real.

[cherdano]

I may not be an expert, but I seriously considered 4♣. A new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing in most circles, and a new minor is always suspect. Opener is likely to give a heart preference, even holding 5♣, when he holds 3♥.

A new minor bid as a free bid is never suspect, it always shows a suit.

[kenrexford]

I may not be an expert, but I seriously considered 4♣. A new suit by an unpassed responder is forcing in most circles, and a new minor is always suspect. Opener is likely to give a heart preference, even holding 5♣, when he holds 3♥.

A new minor bid as a free bid is never suspect, it always shows a suit.

Yeah -- I saw that on the third tablet.

 

Or, maybe it was something about not being a suspect who freed a minor from her suit. I cannot remember.

 

Actually, the more I think about it, I fairly certain that I've never heard that 4♣ is definitely natural as a result of the laws of physics and of the state of the universe. I think that 4♣ could be held to such high standards, if you so elected, and that more flexibility to handle diamond-heart hands might also be a theoretically logical approach.

[Apollo81]

55 posts and no deal

*yawn*

[jdonn]

I don't understand 4C. That shows hearts and clubs, while in fact you have a balanced hand with hearts. What are you going to do if partner raises 4C to 5C?

 

p.s. I do know what the full hand is - as do Roland and some other contributors - but Foxx started the thread, probably best for him to give the denouement

4♣ unambiguously shows a fifth heart. This could be good. This facilitates the most intelligent auctions when a heart fit exists.

 

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically. I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer. If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

 

And, no -- not kidding.

Perhaps when you have to try to start convincing us you aren't kidding before anyone has even said they think you are kidding, it could make you realize the absurdity of your claim :)

[foo]

So far 2 National Champions have now come up with 4♣ as their preferred alternative in this situation with the given hand when I gave them the problem w/o relating any of this discussion.

 

The assumption is that Opener will

a= raise ♥'s any time they have 3+♥'s

b= bid NT with ♣'s and ♠'s stopped

c= raise ♣'s with 5

d= rebid ♦'s with 5 or 6

 

Both of them agreed with josh that slam is way too likely to bid cautiously and both caustically described bidding 3N as "giving up". They were equally contemptuous of X.

 

Well, I can admit when I'm wrong. Advocating 3N was silly and 4♣ appears to be the master bid.

[kenrexford]

I don't understand 4C. That shows hearts and clubs, while in fact you have a balanced hand with hearts. What are you going to do if partner raises 4C to 5C?

 

p.s. I do know what the full hand is - as do Roland and some other contributors - but Foxx started the thread, probably best for him to give the denouement

4♣ unambiguously shows a fifth heart. This could be good. This facilitates the most intelligent auctions when a heart fit exists.

 

Second, although a very high version of it, 4♣ is technically new minor and unreliable as to length, technically. I don't mind using this, as I have diamond support and partner's diamonds are longer. If Partner bids 5, 6, or even 7♣, I can correct to diamonds without changing level.

 

And, no -- not kidding.

Perhaps when you have to try to start convincing us you aren't kidding before anyone has even said they think you are kidding, it could make you realize the absurdity of your claim :)

Perhaps you missed it, but someone did claim that I must have been kidding, so not exactly.

[gwnn]

Actually, one can read the poem as saying that remarks made "in fun" often contain a serious message, while those made "in earnest" often contain an element of dry wit, and that for someone to think otherwise is foolish. :)

That was my interpretation too of the text alone. The context made Roland's message clear, though.

 

And just because it rolls its eyes the smile on the face of the emoticon doesn't turn into "something different". It's still a smiley, only a little cheekier.

[han]

Now that we are discussing smillies, to me the :rolleyes: does not say that Roland was making a joke. It suggests that he thought someone has said something silly (by lack of a better word). In this case the rolleyes could easily have been meant for the ninth commentator.

 

I didn't think that Roland was joking until he posted the poem, and I don't think it is so clear for people who don't know him (which includes me). I'm glad that he was joking though.

[Walddk]

I find it hard to believe if anyone thinks that I would not invite a commentator back if he/she disagrees with the others. Commentators are not necessarily supposed to agree; they are supposed to analyse hands, express and exchange views, and entertain the audience.

 

So to make it clear once and for all (I thought that :rolleyes: would be enough to tell that I was joking):

 

The 9th commentator is definitely welcome back. Only commentators who are rude towards players, fellow commentators, organisers, specs, etc. will not be invited again. They are fortunately few and far between.

 

Roland

[dake50]

4C is best. Partner knows C control, maybe his D are good enough; his H-support okay. Slam is suggested. One too high, 4NT vs. 3NT is the downside.

[kenrexford]

Does anyone here know whence this hand was taken? We cannot seem to get the actual hand produced, and I lost my mind trying to find it on vugraph archives.

[jdonn]

I have to admit, I'm wondering what the actual hand was myself.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Finch]

This is from memory; the main thing I can't recall is the location of the J and 10 of spades.

 

[hv=d=n&n=sjxxhjdkqj10xxcqjx&w=skq10xxxxhxxdxc10xx&e=sxh9xxxxdaxxckxxx&s=saxhakq108dxxxcaxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1♦ p 1♥ 3♠

P P 3NT all pass[/hv]

 

6D is both a good contract and makes

 

At the other table North passed in first seat and they bid P P 1H 3S P P 3NT all pass. North must have felt very uncomfortable about that auction.

[Codo]

So all doublers - and all 4 ♣ bidders- may find their 6 ♦.

 

Maybe pd should just even bid 4 ♦ after 3 NT too?

If pd has just Axx, xxxxx,Ax, ATxx, Slam has some play. And he had promised a little more then this.

[kenrexford]

This is from memory; the main thing I can't recall is the location of the J and 10 of spades.

Yeah, I think the location of the Jack and 10 of spades is particularly critical for those folks doubling as penalty, as is vulnerability. As is the location of the club 9.

 

This layout is a tad unexpected, as North holds a "slow" single quick trick (very poor defense) and looks like a candidate for a 2♦ opening, or even 3♦, but perhaps the style was somewhat unorthodox.

[han]

I agree with Ken, that north hand doesn't look like a 1♦ opener to me.

 

I disagree with Codo that the 3NT bid promises a little more than 3 aces (and I think that trying for slam over 3NT with the north hand is nuts).

[Codo]

HI Han,

 

so after the bidding started with

1 ♦ (pass) 1 ♥ (3 SPade)

you would have less then 12 nice HCP to bid game?

So what is your minimum?

[Guest Jlall]

So all doublers - and all 4 ♣ bidders- may find their 6 ♦.

 

Maybe pd should just even bid 4 ♦ after 3 NT too?

If pd has just Axx, xxxxx,Ax, ATxx, Slam has some play. And he had promised a little more then this.

slam is horrific opposite that hand...

[jdonn]

This is from memory; the main thing I can't recall is the location of the J and 10 of spades.

Yeah, I think the location of the Jack and 10 of spades is particularly critical for those folks doubling as penalty, as is vulnerability. As is the location of the club 9.

Who doubled for penalty? Lots of people doubled, did any mean it as a penalty double? Maybe I missed that someone did, but definitely not most.

[foo]

This is from memory; the main thing I can't recall is the location of the J and 10 of spades.

Yeah, I think the location of the Jack and 10 of spades is particularly critical for those folks doubling as penalty, as is vulnerability. As is the location of the club 9.

Who doubled for penalty? Lots of people doubled, did any mean it as a penalty double? Maybe I missed that someone did, but definitely not most.

I think the point that was being made was that if you X, pd may feel endplayed into converting it to penalty on a wide variety of hands given that taking 11 tricks is considerably more difficult than taking 8.

 

Please note I'm not advocating a penalty pass, I'm just noting the potential problem Opener may have.

[jdonn]

I think the point that was being made was that if you X, pd may feel endplayed into converting it to penalty on a wide variety of hands given that taking 11 tricks is considerably more difficult than taking 8.

 

Please note I'm not advocating a penalty pass, I'm just noting the potential problem Opener may have.

That is neither the point Ken was making (and I quote, "for those folks doubling as penalty") nor one that I think is very valid. If partner is some balanced 13 with a spade honor and no particular suit, as I think you are implying, he can bid 3NT over the double.

 

Somehow I also find it easier to take 11 tricks in a very long trump suit than 8 in a very short one.

[kenrexford]

I think the point that was being made was that if you X, pd may feel endplayed into converting it to penalty on a wide variety of hands given that taking 11 tricks is considerably more difficult than taking 8.

 

Please note I'm not advocating a penalty pass, I'm just noting the potential problem Opener may have.

That is neither the point Ken was making (and I quote, "for those folks doubling as penalty") nor one that I think is very valid. If partner is some balanced 13 with a spade honor and no particular suit, as I think you are implying, he can bid 3NT over the double.

 

Somehow I also find it easier to take 11 tricks in a very long trump suit than 8 in a very short one.

I have no idea if anyone was or was not doubling as a penalty double. But, if you were (I was not, obviously), then you would want to know the spots. As well, if you converted for penalties (again, not sure if anyone would), you'd want to know those spots. Both, if only to win a post-mortem against the 3NT bidders and against those of us who bid 4♣.