Obvio

[han]

This hand may be too easy, but on the other hand, I believe that we have never had a unanimous panel on this forum.

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sjxhxxda10xcakqjxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1S - 2C

2D - 3C

3S - ??[/hv]

 

Do you agree with 3C? (2C was gameforcing)

 

Has partner shown extras?

 

What's your call now?

[mike777]

1) yes, 100% agree

2) NOT for me

3) 4s now

 

Partner can be:

 

KQxxxx...xxx....KQ9x...void

 

BTW Responder's hand is just about what partner expects, nice bidding.

[Apollo81]

1. Agree with 3♣.

 

2. I think partner has shown extras, but it doesn't matter on this hand.

 

3. 4♦. If partner can cue hearts then I'll bid 6♣ next.

[TimG]

1) yes, 100% agree

2) NOT for me

3) 4s now

 

Partner can be:

 

KQxxxx...xxx....KQ9x...void

 

BTW Responder's hand is just about what partner expects, nice bidding.

Wouldn't opener rebid a quiet 2♠ with that hand?

[kenrexford]

3♣ seems right. Solid six-card suits seem rebiddable.

 

3♠ does not show extras, but it does not deny them either.

 

The last question is really tough. I'm not sure which is right. If 4♦ is a belated diamond agreement, which seems terrible, then 4♥ LTTC agreeing spades seems right. If 4♦ is available, as a cue in agreement of spades, then that's my call; if partner bid 4♥, I'm out unless he can move further. If 4♣ is actually a cue here, then I'd bid 4♣, and over 4♦ I'd LTTC 4♥.

 

It seems to me that 4♣ should be reserved for a natural catch-all (possibly a strange delayed diamond raise, possibly an actual big club suit, and possibly big contextually balanced) but that 4♦ should be a cue in support of spades.

[jdonn]

3♣ seems right. Solid six-card suits seem rebiddable.

 

3♠ does not show extras, but it does not deny them either.

 

The last question is really tough. I'm not sure which is right. If 4♦ is a belated diamond agreement, which seems terrible, then 4♥ LTTC agreeing spades seems right. If 4♦ is available, as a cue in agreement of spades, then that's my call; if partner bid 4♥, I'm out unless he can move further. If 4♣ is actually a cue here, then I'd bid 4♣, and over 4♦ I'd LTTC 4♥.

 

It seems to me that 4♣ should be reserved for a natural catch-all (possibly a strange delayed diamond raise, possibly an actual big club suit, and possibly big contextually balanced) but that 4♦ should be a cue in support of spades.

I agree with everything you said, except the totally insane comments about what 4♣ might/should mean lol.

[han]

I wasn't playing with a regular partner, all we agreed was "2/1, udca". I decided that 4D was too ambiguous. 4H would at least be viewed as a slam try in spades, perhaps with heart control.

 

I agree that it would be good to play 4D as a cue for spades but I don't have that agreement with anybody so I wouldn't risk it.

[Impact]

Our auction shows a good C suit in 2/1 and must be very good given our failure to bid 3NT which implies a want of H cards.

 

4D should be a cue for S as:-

 

a) opener has not given us further information of additional D length (beyond 4 - which might occasionally be only 3!!!) and

 

:) we did not support D immediately (which should preclude 4+D given that we were in a GF auction) and

 

c) we have gone past 3NT, and

 

d) opener has implied a good S suit which can be raised on less than obvious support - or possibly denied any H stop eg worst hand along the lines of KQJxx xx KQxx xx

 

in combination.

 

If he bids 4S that will end the auction but he may be MUCH better

 

(eg AKQxxx x KQxx xx in which case he can only move if we do more than an immediate 4S or AKQxxx Ax KQxx x in which latter case we have a cold grand, but there again he would bid again with that latter hand....).

 

regards

[mike777]

Our auction shows a good C suit in 2/1 and must be very good given our failure to bid 3NT which implies a want of H cards.

 

4D should be a cue for S as:-

 

a) opener has not given us further information of additional D length (beyond 4 - which might occasionally be only 3!!!) and

 

:) we did not support D immediately (which should preclude 4+D given that we were in a GF auction) and

 

c) we have gone past 3NT, and

 

d) opener has implied a good S suit which can be raised on less than obvious support - or possibly denied any H stop eg worst hand along the lines of  KQJxx  xx   KQxx  xx 

 

in combination.

 

If he bids 4S that will end the auction but he may be MUCH better

 

(eg  AKQxxx  x  KQxx  xx in which case he can only move if we  do more than an immediate 4S  or   AKQxxx  Ax  KQxx  x  in which latter case we have a cold grand, but there again he would bid again with that latter hand....).

 

regards

If partner has that huge of an opener he has an easy rkc bid over 4s. IN fact he will be thinking about a grand maybe.

 

Responder hand is a minimum for me, nice minimum but nothing more than partner will expect.

 

Keep in mind responder did not bid 3nt or cue 4H.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 yes, the suit quality justifies 3C

#2 no, ..., but he may have in your partnership

#3 4D, which should be a cue for spades, showing

a top honor

Even if partner treats it as fit showing (why

should he?), he will read 4D as diamonds

values and forward going, and he will make

a move toward slam, if he has add. values

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I wasn't playing with a regular partner, all we agreed was "2/1, udca". I decided that 4D was too ambiguous. 4H would at least be viewed as a slam try in spades, perhaps with heart control.

<snip>

4D is ambiquous, but so is 4H.

Both calls are moves toward slam, unless you

play with a partner, who believes, that playing

4m is still possible in this auction.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

1) yes, 100% agree

2) NOT for me

3) 4s now

 

Partner can be:

 

KQxxxx...xxx....KQ9x...void

 

BTW Responder's hand is just about what partner expects, nice bidding.

Agree. I could have less but not much less. When opener is unlimited it's nice if at least my hand is limited so that we don't commit to some nonsense slam.

[kenrexford]

...

It seems to me that 4♣ should be reserved for a natural catch-all (possibly a strange delayed diamond raise, possibly an actual big club suit, and possibly big contextually balanced) but that 4♦ should be a cue in support of spades.

 

I agree with everything you said, except the totally insane comments about what 4♣ might/should mean lol.

Well, then what would 4♣ be for?

[Free]

5♥, Zia voidwood :)

[jdonn]

...

It seems to me that 4♣ should be reserved for a natural catch-all (possibly a strange delayed diamond raise, possibly an actual big club suit, and possibly big contextually balanced) but that 4♦ should be a cue in support of spades.

 

I agree with everything you said, except the totally insane comments about what 4♣ might/should mean lol.

Well, then what would 4♣ be for?

Hmmm, I bid a suit, rebid it, then bid it a third time. That might be natural!

[skjaeran]

1. Agree with 3♣ with the given methods.

2. Doesn't show or deny extra strenght.

3. 4♣ should be natural slam try now, showing a solid suit and forcing partner to cuebid. 4♦ is ambigous, I'd like to have it agreed as a cue supporting ♠'s. 4♥ "should" be unambigous, showing a good raise to 4♠, but many would take it as a cuebid, supporting ♠'s. Depending upon who I'm playing with I'd either risk 4♥ or simply raise to 4♠.

[kenrexford]

...

It seems to me that 4♣ should be reserved for a natural catch-all (possibly a strange delayed diamond raise, possibly an actual big club suit, and possibly big contextually balanced) but that 4♦ should be a cue in support of spades.

 

I agree with everything you said, except the totally insane comments about what 4♣ might/should mean lol.

Well, then what would 4♣ be for?

Hmmm, I bid a suit, rebid it, then bid it a third time. That might be natural!

OK, I'll try more slowly for you. :lol:

 

We are bidding exactly the same way here. All bids except 4♣ and 3NT agree spades, right?

 

3NT suggests a stop at 3NT, right?

 

So, 4♣ is the only natural call that can be made with slam aspirations not in spades. That means one of three things, or a blend of them:

 

1. I have a lot of clubs and I want to consider slam in clubs.

2. I have a lot of clubs and I also have diamonds. I did not mention the diamonds yet, for some reason. But I have them. Maybe we play that your initial 2♦ might be "funny" but that your spade rebid "proved" the diamond suit. Maybe I have a slam-swan hand. Whatever. I have a weird diamond-club canape.

3. I have already patterned out, but I want to consider 6NT perhaps. If 4NT would not be RKCB for spades, I would probably bid 4NT Quantitative. I cannot, so I'm doing the best that I can.

 

Natural, but covers more territory than simply showing a bazillion clubs.

[jdonn]

OK, I'll try more slowly for you. :lol:

 

We are bidding exactly the same way here. All bids except 4♣ and 3NT agree spades, right?

 

3NT suggests a stop at 3NT, right?

 

So, 4♣ is the only natural call that can be made with slam aspirations not in spades. That means one of three things, or a blend of them:

 

1. I have a lot of clubs and I want to consider slam in clubs.

2. I have a lot of clubs and I also have diamonds. I did not mention the diamonds yet, for some reason. But I have them. Maybe we play that your initial 2♦ might be "funny" but that your spade rebid "proved" the diamond suit. Maybe I have a slam-swan hand. Whatever. I have a weird diamond-club canape.

3. I have already patterned out, but I want to consider 6NT perhaps. If 4NT would not be RKCB for spades, I would probably bid 4NT Quantitative. I cannot, so I'm doing the best that I can.

 

Natural, but covers more territory than simply showing a bazillion clubs.

Saying it more slowly doesn't make it not-insane, it just makes it insane and slow :P

 

1. Good

2. Impossible, if you had diamond support you raised diamonds last round. If you personally are playing that 2♦ doesn't promise diamonds then don't look at me, I have no comments about nonstandard treatments here.

3. You didn't bid 2NT over 2♦. Think about it.

[SoTired]

2. I have a lot of clubs and I also have diamonds. I did not mention the diamonds yet, for some reason. But I have them. Maybe we play that your initial 2♦ might be "funny" but that your spade rebid "proved" the diamond suit. Maybe I have a slam-swan hand. Whatever. I have a weird diamond-club canape.

Not me. Slam bidding is difficult enough without a partner that makes cute, clever bids rather than raising and setting trump. So 4C does not include hands with 4♦ because those hands would bid 3D directly over 2D (or splinter). It also does not include hands with first round diam control and a dblton spade with dim slam thoughts.

 

Either I forget slam and bid 4S or I bid a 4D q-bid.

[pclayton]

I wasn't playing with a regular partner, all we agreed was "2/1, udca". I decided that 4D was too ambiguous. 4H would at least be viewed as a slam try in spades, perhaps with heart control.

<snip>

4D is ambiquous, but so is 4H.

Both calls are moves toward slam, unless you

play with a partner, who believes, that playing

4m is still possible in this auction.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Disagree. 4♥ is unambiguous as to its intentions (it shows spade support), but its doesn't guarantee a control.

 

4♦ - if we agree that we don't start looking for new strains at the 4 level (caveat inserted) shows a control and agrees spades. But if 4♦ can be misread, then 4♥ is wiser, especially if we are unsure about 4♦.

 

Still, 4♦ probably won't get us into trouble, and it may be what pard needs to hear. Imagine holding solid spades and the ♥A or K. A diamond control could be the difference.

 

If pard bids 4♥ we have an easy 4♠ call. If pard bids 4♠ we have an easy pass. I suppose if pard bids 5♦ we'll regret it.

[han]

So I bid 4H and partner had AK109xx AQJ J98xx -. Do you agree with 3S?

 

Given 3S, what would you bid over 4H?

[kenrexford]

Saying it more slowly doesn't make it not-insane, it just makes it insane and slow :)

 

1. Good

2. Impossible, if you had diamond support you raised diamonds last round. If you personally are playing that 2♦ doesn't promise diamonds then don't look at me, I have no comments about nonstandard treatments here.

3. You didn't bid 2NT over 2♦. Think about it.

1. We agree. (That's the easy one)

2. I'll agree that this situation requires a potentially-waiting 2♦ call. If you do not use this, then this would not be a problem. Even if you do, you probably would raise diamonds anyway, inferring extra club length. Maybe that one doesn't make any sense. It's why I called it "weird." So, I'll concede that one.

3. This one I don't get. Sure, you did not bid 2NT the first time. But, is there no 1336 hand that you'd want to make a Quantitative 4NT here if you could? Why does 4♣ need to show more clubs than already shown? Or, would you bid 2NT with any 1336 hand that would want to bid Quantitative?

[kenrexford]

2. I have a lot of clubs and I also have diamonds.  I did not mention the diamonds yet, for some reason.  But I have them.  Maybe we play that your initial 2♦ might be "funny" but that your spade rebid "proved" the diamond suit.  Maybe I have a slam-swan hand.  Whatever.  I have a weird diamond-club canape.

Not me. Slam bidding is difficult enough without a partner that makes cute, clever bids rather than raising and setting trump. So 4C does not include hands with 4♦ because those hands would bid 3D directly over 2D (or splinter). It also does not include hands with first round diam control and a dblton spade with dim slam thoughts.

 

Either I forget slam and bid 4S or I bid a 4D q-bid.

Yeah -- I agree about the diamond-club canape. Bid the diamond support.

[Fluffy]

3♠ doesn't show anything but a suit able to play opposite singleton.

 

4♠ no wis a huge underbid, we have extras and unexpected support

 

 

In my view 3♣ denied ♦ support, so 4[DI and 4♥ are both cues agreeing spades. 4♣ I'd take it as nat (but wouldn't be surprised if the contract gets rectified to spades later by the club bidder).

[kenrexford]

So I bid 4H and partner had AK109xx AQJ J98xx -. Do you agree with 3S?

 

Given 3S, what would you bid over 4H?

I'd sign off if bypassing 4♦ denied a diamond card.