2443, 8 points

[Poky]

IMP. All vul.

(not playing good-bad)

 

1♠ pass 1NT 2♥

3♦ pass ??

 

♠Kx

♥xxxx

♦Axxx

♣Jxx

 

What do you bid and why?

 

Give votes for every bid from the poll.

[rogerclee]

4♦ seems highly obvious to me.

[kenrexford]

4♦ seems to focus diamonds too much. I want to "snapdragon raise" both suits. But, I'm not sure whether 1NT was forcing or not.

 

In any event, I bid 3♥, expressing uncertainty about the final contract. If partner bids 3♠, I can raise to 4♠. If he bids anything else below 4♦, I can then bid 4♦. If he bids 4♦, I raise.

[awm]

I like 4♦. I have four of them and my location of values is pretty good. We could obviously belong in 4♠ but if partner has six of them (or five strong ones) he will probably try 4♠ over 4♦ in any case.

 

Bidding 3♥ is okay, but this should show a good hand with no clear direction (i.e. usually three diamonds only); four card support for partner's probable five-card minor doesn't strike me as a hand without clear direction. I'm concerned that partner rebids 4♦ and now we have to guess between bidding 4♠ (suppressing our huge diamond fit completely) or 5♦ (could miss a slam in diamonds, or simply miss a superior spade game) or bidding 4♥ (still not showing our hand, although clearly forcing).

 

I also want to give partner the chance to pass 4♦ in case he bid 3♦ with a shapely but minimum hand in an effort to compete. It is harder to sensibly determine whether to stop below game if we bid 3♥.

[maggieb]

4♦ seems highly obvious to me.

I agree that diamonds is very likely to be our best strain, but do you think this is enough? This hand is deceptively strong, and 5♦ is a very good contract opposite a lot of 5-5 minimums. For example, partner will never move with ♠Axxxx ♥x ♦KQxxx ♣Ax (I know this is a little contrived, but I'm sure you understand my point).

[cherdano]

4♦ seems highly obvious to me.

I agree that diamonds is very likely to be our best strain, but do you think this is enough? This hand is deceptively strong, and 5♦ is a very good contract opposite a lot of 5-5 minimums. For example, partner will never move with ♠Axxxx ♥x ♦KQxxx ♣Ax (I know this is a little contrived, but I'm sure you understand my point).

I don't know about contrived, but I surely wouldn't call it a minimum. More to the point, partner will bid 5♦ over 4♦.

[suokko]

This is huge hand and I'm going to bid a game here but who knows which game?

 

Because I'm used to playing MP (weak field) a lot more than IMP my natural instinct is to bid 4♠ . But with IMP scoring ♦ seems better because 6♦ is in picture and I should make slam try with 4♦.

[dake50]

I'm okay with 4S, but my first bid is not 1NT, but 2S and partner's 3D is help suit.

[benlessard]

Maybe im wrong but if you dont play good bad then 3D is forcing but not game forcing. 3D can be 15 pts and 5-5 if so maybe 3S/4D arent forcing.

 

Maybe some do play that 3D isnt forcing in wich case im not sure what is forcing and want isnt.

 

Anyaway over the board im pretty sure i would have bid 3H.

[han]

I think 3D is NF. I don't think 4D focusses on diamonds too much, partner can bid 4S as a suggestion to play there. I am slightly worried about missing game.

[gnasher]

Maybe im wrong but if you dont play good bad then 3D is forcing but not game forcing. 3D can be 15 pts and 5-5 if so maybe 3S/4D arent forcing.

I don 't play good-bad, and I play 3♦ as competitive and non-forcing. If opener wants it to be forcing, he has to double first, jump or cue bid.

 

Over 3♦, 3♠ is a non-forcing preference and 4♦ is invitational. Any other bid is game-forcing.

[mike777]

4♦ seems highly obvious to me.

ditto.

 

edit I guess not that obvious here, only 9 out of 22 votes for 4d.

[kenrexford]

4♦ seems highly obvious to me.

ditto.

 

edit I guess not that obvious here, only 9 out of 22 votes for 4d.

4♦ would be a tad less obvious if you expected this call to imply a stiff spade, as I would.

 

I mean, if 3♥ means what those of us who bid 3♥ thinkls it means, then 4♦ does not show a hand properly handled by bidding 3♥. Ergo, short spades.

[rogerclee]

4♦ seems highly obvious to me.

ditto.

 

edit I guess not that obvious here, only 9 out of 22 votes for 4d.

4♦ would be a tad less obvious if you expected this call to imply a stiff spade, as I would.

 

I mean, if 3♥ means what those of us who bid 3♥ thinkls it means, then 4♦ does not show a hand properly handled by bidding 3♥. Ergo, short spades.

3♥ does not show what you think it shows.

[kenrexford]

4♦ seems highly obvious to me.

ditto.

 

edit I guess not that obvious here, only 9 out of 22 votes for 4d.

4♦ would be a tad less obvious if you expected this call to imply a stiff spade, as I would.

 

I mean, if 3♥ means what those of us who bid 3♥ thinkls it means, then 4♦ does not show a hand properly handled by bidding 3♥. Ergo, short spades.

3♥ does not show what you think it shows.

3♥ does not "show" anything. However, it is forcing. It leaves the partnership better able to handle some holdings and less able to handle other holdings. 4♦ should cover holdings that are not enhanced by bidding 3♥ but instead that are more difficult after bidding 3♥.

 

This pattern is really easy to bid after starting with 3♥.

 

The pattern of a fifth diamond, one less spade, and the King in clubs instead of the spade King, is not very easy to bid by way of 3♥, which would be a stupid way to bid it.

[awm]

So... say you bid 3♥... partner bids:

 

(1) 3♠. I guess you are raising to four spades? But you could even miss a slam this way, give partner something like AQxxxx - KQxxx Kx and you look pretty cold for 6♦. Partner's hand is obviously huge opposite a fit, but you never really clearly showed a fit did you?

 

(2) 3NT. Now what? You can pass, but you're almost surely off the entire club suit. Or you can bid 4♦ now, but doesn't this sound like it might be a stronger hand (i.e. very serious slam try, rather than just choice of games)? You could bid 5♦ I guess, but 4♠ could easily be better.

 

(3) 4♣. I guess this is patterning out, partner has something like 5053. But it's not clear how much this information really helped you. You have no heart losers but maybe a problem in clubs.

 

(4) 4♦. What does this show? Probably just denies a heart control or a sixth spade. You could still belong in 4♠, 5♦, or 4♦ could even be the limit (i.e. AQxxx x KQJTx xx).

 

Basically you have found a bid that gives little to no information about your own hand, such that after partner's next rebid you will often have to guess the final contract without the necessary information about his hand to do so accurately.

 

Bidding 4♦ simply says: "I have a nice hand in context but not enough to force game, and it includes a fit for diamonds." Bidding 3♥ says: "I have a nice hand in context and I am not sure in which strain/level we should play." If anything, a 3♥ bid should deny holding a fit for diamonds unless you have very serious slam interest. I would take 3♥...4♦ as absolutely forcing and seriously interested in 6♦ or even 7♦, frequently five-card diamond support and a singleton spade with good values. In addition, over this sequence I would definitely take 4♠ by opener as a control-showing bid, not suggesting to play in 4♠.

[kenrexford]

So... say you bid 3♥... partner bids:

 

(1) 3♠. I guess you are raising to four spades? But you could even miss a slam this way, give partner something like AQxxxx - KQxxx Kx and you look pretty cold for 6♦. Partner's hand is obviously huge opposite a fit, but you never really clearly showed a fit did you?

 

(2) 3NT. Now what? You can pass, but you're almost surely off the entire club suit. Or you can bid 4♦ now, but doesn't this sound like it might be a stronger hand (i.e. very serious slam try, rather than just choice of games)? You could bid 5♦ I guess, but 4♠ could easily be better.

 

(3) 4♣. I guess this is patterning out, partner has something like 5053. But it's not clear how much this information really helped you. You have no heart losers but maybe a problem in clubs.

 

(4) 4♦. What does this show? Probably just denies a heart control or a sixth spade. You could still belong in 4♠, 5♦, or 4♦ could even be the limit (i.e. AQxxx x KQJTx xx).

 

Basically you have found a bid that gives little to no information about your own hand, such that after partner's next rebid you will often have to guess the final contract without the necessary information about his hand to do so accurately.

 

Bidding 4♦ simply says: "I have a nice hand in context but not enough to force game, and it includes a fit for diamonds." Bidding 3♥ says: "I have a nice hand in context and I am not sure in which strain/level we should play." If anything, a 3♥ bid should deny holding a fit for diamonds unless you have very serious slam interest. I would take 3♥...4♦ as absolutely forcing and seriously interested in 6♦ or even 7♦, frequently five-card diamond support and a singleton spade with good values. In addition, over this sequence I would definitely take 4♠ by opener as a control-showing bid, not suggesting to play in 4♠.

So many responses, so little space...

 

1. Strange to type this, but my first thought is "game before slam." That said, 3♥...4♠ has to be a better way to explore a spade slam than 4♦...P.

 

2. 3♥-3NT-4♦ does not sound liike a diamond slam try. 3♥-3NT-4♣ sounds like a diamond slam try. Or, 3♥-3NT-4♥; or 3♥-3NT-4NT; or 3♥-3NT-5♣. But, not 3♥-3NT-4♦. That sounds like diamonds with a good doubleton in spades, like I have.

 

3. 4♣ -- doesn't help me much? Well, I'm not concerned about how little 4♣ helps me out, as I don't even get to hear 4♣ if I bid 4♦ rather than 3♥. You learn a lot more from a bid you actually hear than you do from a bid that you do not hear. Strange that way.

 

4. 4♦ -- what does this show? Could this be the limit? Is the sky falling? Does partner maybe have nothing resembling his first bid and then his second bid? Will I be in a game that fails for the first time in my life?

 

5. Have I found a bid that says little or nothing about my hand? No. You have, because 4♦ by you shows anything from what a 4♦ call should show to a hand where you should bid 3♥, all to enable some sort of amorphous slam try by way of a 3♥ cue, apparently. I have more information after partner's next bid, because he has four (4) likely options, than partner has over my one (1) bid if I lump all diamond-positive hands into one bid.

 

6. I find this humorous to again reiterate, but "game before slam" seems to make sense here, especially if you have options after 3♥ for slam moves (some of which I described) and options right now for other slam moves (like a 4♥ or 5♣ call).