Your bid....

[jdonn]

THis is simple?

 

Obviously 4 ♣ did not agree spades but asked for further describtion.

 

At least for south. And maybe there is even more then one player out there who is not use to Forum Standard. ;)

 

SO  I guess for South, 4 Diamond confirms Diamonds, and 4 NT is RCKB for Diamonds.

 

And I think that this is really obvious and simple.

Is that player who is not used to forum standard also not used to bridge?

Do you think that using 4 Club for something else then "strong Spade raise" is non bridge?

Correct

 

Or when we accept that 4 Club was a kind of asking bid, is 4 Diamond as showing support for Diamond "non-bridge"?

Why would I accept something so ridiculous?

 

Or is the use of cuebids after a fit is found or the use of RCKB "non-bridge"?

Correct when those cuebids are in a Jxx suit.

 

Obviously all of this is not "Jdonn bridge" in this sequence,

Correct

 

so what do you think is bridge here?

4♣ as a stronger spade raise than 4♠.

 

4 Diamond as last train and anything else is non-bridge?

When did I say anything about last train?

[mike777]

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> KJxxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> x </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> Jxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> AJx </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

 

You are playing 2/1. The auction so far:

 

1♥ - 1♠

3♦ - 3♠

4♣ - 4♦

4♥ - 4♠

4NT - ???

 

What is going on? What would you bid next?

 

If you think 4NT is keycard (for what suit?) then your agreement is 1430.

I agree with the posts that inferred that 4c is the confusing bid for most of us nonexperts.

 

Having seen this issue alot in the bbo forums my first thought now is 4c agrees spades

 

If I am 0=5=4=4 I got to find another bid. Perhaps 3c and not 3d, I am not sure. Since 3c can often be a fake suit.

If I am 1=5=4=3 without a club stopper I got to find another bid.

If I am 1=6=4=2 I got to find someother bid.

If I am 2=6=4-=1 I may have to find someother bid.

[Codo]

Do you think that using 4 Club for something else then "strong Spade raise" is non bridge?

Correct

I think this view is a little limited.

I guess that you need 4 Club as a spade raise because you have no semiforcing openings and you frequently have to jump into fake suits. I guess that in another style, you have a strong spade raise via 4 Spade, 4 NT or 5 Club, so you can use 4 Club for hands with no support.

 

Or when we accept that 4 Club was a kind of asking bid, is 4 Diamond as showing support for Diamond "non-bridge"?

Why would I accept something so ridiculous?

 

It is not ridiculous to find a 5-3 fit in a minor while looking for a slam. I don't claim that this is the best use for a 4 Club bid, but it is surely playable. Espacially again in the context of a system, where a jump in a suit promises 4 or more cards. I know, this is not the popular style among american experts (maybe it is not popular among experts anywhere), but it is still a style of millions of players.

 

Or is the use of cuebids after a fit is found or the use of RCKB "non-bridge"?

Correct when those cuebids are in a Jxx suit.

 

4 Diamond as last train and anything else is non-bridge?

When did I say anything about last train?

 

So, for you 4 Diamond is no cuebid and it is not length showing and not last train.

Okay, what is it? After all the player did bid it on exactly Jxx.

 

Do you belive that Zia was the responder and tried one of his famous fake cuebids? Or do you claim that north does not play bridge and 4 Diamond was just silly and Adam should not ask questions about so stupid players?

[helene_t]

I think Roland (Codo) has a fair point. As much as 4♣ should agree spades, our 4♦ bid suggests that we didn't take it that way.

[OleBerg]

So, for you  4 Diamond is no cuebid and it is not length showing and not last train.

Okay, what is it? After all the player did bid it on exactly Jxx.

 

Some players have the agreement, that you do not cuebid a singleton in a partners primary suit, on the first round of of cuebids.

 

If North believes his hand is not worth 4NT (RKCB), but too strong for 4♠, then 4♦ is the only available bid.

 

I would want to have, and be sure of, a quite firm agreement, if I should take 4♣ to be anything but a strong spade raise.

 

So 4NT is RKCB with spades as thrumphs.

[RichMor]

Using 4♣ is a better 4♠ raise. For example, ATx AKQxx AKxx x would bid 4♣, but Qx KQJxx AKQx Kx would bid 4♠.

Quote above in response to what's the difference between

1♥ - 1♠

3♦ - 3♠

4♣

 

and

 

1♥ - 1♠

3♦ - 3♠

4♠

 

OK thanks for the examples jdonn. The first example is clear; lots of controls and the Spade 10. Nearly a 2♣ opening.

 

But the second example ?

 

A raise to 4♠ with Qx support implies that responder's 3♠ rebid shows a 6-card suit or a strong 5-card suit and weak Clubs. I see that this thread continues with some discussion about that question.

 

So if we expect responder's 3♠ to deliver a good suit, then responder has to make a false preference to 3♥ with 5-1-3-4 and no Club values.

 

Seem right ?

 

thanks,

RichM

[keylime]

At the table, I may pass 4NT. Scary.

 

Here, I have no idea what I'd do. I would take 4C as hedging with possible spade support to cater to 0643 shape or 2524 shapes (and variants), but when it comes back to me with a 4H call as responder, there is a fear that my hand devalues itself in terms of "what if pard doesn't have but one spade..." and "this could be a train wreck".

[jdonn]

OK thanks for the examples jdonn. The first example is clear; lots of controls and the Spade 10. Nearly a 2♣ opening.

 

But the second example ?

My second example was not particularly good, but I think it showed what I meant.

[RichMor]

OK thanks for the examples jdonn. The first example is clear; lots of controls and the Spade 10. Nearly a 2♣ opening.

 

But the second example ?

My second example was not particularly good, but I think it showed what I meant.

Agree. Maybe a better second example(raise 3♠ to 4) is:

KQx KQJxx AKQx x

 

Same shape and HCP but fewer total controls.

 

RichM

[pclayton]

Maybe a better second example(raise 3♠ to 4) is:

KQx KQJxx AKQx x

That's too good as well.

 

4♠ looks more like Kxx KQJxx AKJx x. 3♦ can be a little shaded with support.

 

I wouldn't object to a doubleton spade here, by the way.

 

Has anyone pulled up that old thread where 3♠ is allegedly a five bagger?

[jdonn]

I guess that you need 4 Club as a spade raise because you have no semiforcing openings and you frequently have to jump into fake suits. I guess that in another style,  you have a strong spade raise via 4 Spade, 4 NT or 5 Club, so you can use 4 Club for hands with no support.

If 4♠ is a "strong spade raise" how do you show a non-strong spade raise? Remember, strong is in context. Meanwhile the entire point of 4♣ is to have a slam try LOWER THAN THE TRUMP SUIT. What you are saying is either opener has to bid blackwood opposite a responder that might be completely not interested in slam, or he must risk the 5 level while bypassing blackwood altogether. Great system!

 

Or when we accept that 4 Club was a kind of asking bid, is 4 Diamond as showing support for Diamond "non-bridge"?

Why would I accept something so ridiculous?

 

It is not ridiculous to find a 5-3 fit in a minor while looking for a slam.

If only there was a way to do that without making up a bid...oh yeah, opener can bid 4♦ to show 5-5!

 

Or is the use of cuebids after a fit is found or the use of RCKB "non-bridge"?

Correct when those cuebids are in a Jxx suit.

 

4 Diamond as last train and anything else is non-bridge?

When did I say anything about last train?

 

So, for you 4 Diamond is no cuebid and it is not length showing and not last train.

Okay, what is it? After all the player did bid it on exactly Jxx.

Codo: Is cuebidding bad bridge?

Jdonn: It is when it's in a suit like Jxx, such as the 4♦ here.

Codo: You don't think 4♦ is a cuebid then.

 

Seriously, where do you get this from? I'll say it again, in smaller words. 4♦ is a cuebid. Cuebids are bad bridge when they are made in suits like Jxx. The 4♦ bid on the actual hand was a bad bid.

 

Do you belive that  Zia was the responder and tried one of his famous fake cuebids? Or do you claim that north does not play bridge and 4 Diamond was just silly and Adam should not ask questions about so stupid players?

The first part of the second sentence. The second part of that sentence is your usual habit of putting words in my mouth.

[TimG]

Adam should not ask questions about so stupid players?

One of the poll options was:

 

"One of the previous bids was too terrible to contemplate"

 

It sounds to me like jdonn might have made some campaign contributions to this candidate.

[RichMor]

Maybe a better second example(raise 3♠ to 4) is:

KQx KQJxx AKQx x

That's too good as well.

 

4♠ looks more like Kxx KQJxx AKJx x. 3♦ can be a little shaded with support.

 

I wouldn't object to a doubleton spade here, by the way.

 

Has anyone pulled up that old thread where 3♠ is allegedly a five bagger?

OK your example is fine. I might rebid a wimpy 2♦ with that.

 

But I am still unconvinced that raising to 4♠ with a doubleton honor is the long-run winning action.

[kenrexford]

Codo: Is cuebidding bad bridge?

Jdonn: It is when it's in a suit like Jxx, such as the 4♦ here.

Codo: You don't think 4♦ is a cuebid then.

 

Seriously, where do you get this from? I'll say it again, in smaller words. 4♦ is a cuebid. Cuebids are bad bridge when they are made in suits like Jxx. The 4♦ bid on the actual hand was a bad bid.

Just a slight matter of semantics, but perhaps not so slight.

 

Control bids are bad when made with Jxx.

Cuebids are not necessarily bad when made with Jxx.

 

If over 4♣ Responder believes that 4♥ would be a control bid but 4♦ would be a cuebid that is not necessarily also a control bid, then bidding 4♦ with Jxx is not bad.

 

Consider that 4♣ by Opener should obviously be a cuebid in support of spades but is likewise not a control bid in support of spades. 4♣ says nothing about club controls; 4♣ simply shows a "power" raise of spades, right? So, you could in theory make a 4♣ cuebid without the Ace or King or shortness in clubs, right? Some cuebids (Last Train being an example) do not also operate as control bids. There is nothing illogical about treating 4♥ in this sequence as assuredly a control bid but 4♦ as not so assured in that control-bid aspect of the expressed interest.

 

Defaults or specific agreements may prohibit this interpretation unless this specific sequence is deemed an exception, but bridge theory may actually support an exception in this or perhaps a different type of similar auction.