What should this show?

[TylerE]

Playing in a fairly strong game (at least one BBO star at the table), playing partner (a self-ranked Expert, and play on the first few boards has shown him to at least not be a complete bozo), you have the following auction:

 

You hold:

 

♠Axxx ♥AKx ♦ AKx ♣ Qxx

 

You open 2NT, partner puppets, you bid 3♦, partner bids 4♥. What is 4♥?

[rbforster]

I dont think I've ever heard of a meaning for given to that 4♥ bid. Maybe he's trying to show some weird hand with 54 majors, Smolen-style? Just a guess.

[rogerclee]

Fred always says if a bid could be natural it is, I don't see why this couldn't show 4S and 6H and offer a choice of games.

 

Honestly my first intuitive reaction was that this is a splinter and shows 3 of the other major (looking for the 5-3 fit, when not finding it splintering). I was thinking 3055, or perhaps 31(54). With 31(54) I cannot decide if it's right to bid your 5 card suit so that partner knows what it is, or to bid this to pinpoint your shortness and make it easier to get to your side 4 card minor. I could see it happening that after 2N 3C 3D 4D partner has a negative hand for diamonds and bids 4N while 6C was good in the club fit, or that partner needs to know your shortness to evaluate. I could see after 2N 3C 3D 4H partner needing to know your 5 card suit in order to decide what to do...

 

The other thing is maybe it's just better to bid 2N 3S, however you play that, with these 31(54) and 3055 hands, depending on your structure, rather than starting with stayman, so these hands are probably impossible. After thinking about it I decided that the way I play 3S it is better to start with that on those hands, so I guess this is moot, and we go back to my first sentence anwyays. This is a good example of all your conventions fitting into a coherent system, rather than just being hodge podge stuff.

[CSGibson]

4 hearts is a strong desire to confuse partner.

 

It cannot be Smolen, because smolen is not applicable over 2N (and if you believe it is, then try showing 4 spades and 5 hearts playing puppet, I dare you).

 

It can't be 4-6, because partner's actions are inconsistent; if he wanted to play in the 6 card major, he should transfer at the appropriate level; once he finds a 4 card major in partner's hand, his bid that is consistent with the auction so far is 4 diamonds. (I suppose he could have been looking for that magic 5-4 fit, but I still hate the bid).

 

I suppose it could be the 3-0-5-5 hand, depending on your agreements, but it sounds like this is a pick-up partnership, so fancy agreements are out.

 

If my partner pulled this crap, I'm just bidding 4 spades. At the very least, it right sides the contract (If this guy can't bid, he probably can't play the hand, either), so you have that going for you.

[rogerclee]

It can't be 4-6, because partner's actions are inconsistent; if he wanted to play in the 6 card major, he should transfer at the appropriate level; once he finds a 4 card major in partner's hand, his bid that is consistent with the auction so far is 4 diamonds.

Sorry, but your train of logic is the thing that is inconsistent in this. You want partner to either choose unilaterally to play in hearts without investigating the spade fit, or to choose unilaterally to play in a 4-4 spade fit without investigating the heart fit. What would be inconsistent about trying to investigate both possible fits, and letting partner choose which is the right one? If you have a way to involve partner it is not inconsistent to do so.

 

Partner could have five spades for his 2N in which case spades is almost certainly right with your 4-6, he could have 4 spades and 3 hearts in which case hearts is probably the right spot, he could have 4 spades and 2 hearts in which case it will depend on his hand, but spades will often be right (and he will be able to tell the difference). By bidding 3C and then 4H you cater to everything.

[hotShot]

If partner had 6+♥'s he could have transfered, if partner had 4-5♥ he could have bid 3♥ over openers 3♦. Over 3♥ opener can show a 4c[CP] bidding 3♠.

Partner could have transfered to ♠ with (5)6 cards or bid 3♠ to show 4-5♠.

So 4♥ does not show ♥'s.

But if you did not agree how to transfer to minors, and you fear that 4♣ over 2NT could be misunderstood as Gerber, responder has no good bid to show minors.

Opening and Puppet took away a lot of bidding space, rising ♦ (note that opener could have only 2♦) to 4♦ is not a move towards slam, 5♦ is likely to end the auction. A direct 4NT over 3♦ is undefined.

Responder holds the minors, he could bid that way without having a 3cM. ♥ should be single or void. Opener has the choice to bid and play NT or ♣ with only 2♦, cue-bid ♠ for the ♦ slam, sign of in 5♦.

[jdonn]

4-6 in the majors is the only thing that makes any sense at all. If partner is 3055 he should just bid 3♠ or otherwise show minors to begin with, and not confuse things by starting with 3♣ in hopes of a 5-3 spade fit. And please spare me some layout where a spade fit makes more than a minor suit fit...

 

Geez why does everyone think partner is an idiot, he probably made you the only player in the room who has a chance to choose intelligently between the majors, instead of just guessing one way or the other. He has almost surely made a great bid. I pass, hands like Qxxx Qxxxxx Qx x or Kxxx Qxxxxx x xx or many other examples with mediocre spades are obviously better in hearts.

[kenrexford]

Playing with a pickup, who knows.

 

However, playing with an actual partner, having discussed things, this should have an obvious answer, IMO. I'm surprised that Roger and everyone else seems to have missed it. I at first thought this was standard, but then I quickly realized that the "kenrexford standard" is sometimes not so much.

 

If 3♦ shows a 4-card (or both) major(s), then the usual meaning of 4♣ and 4♦ at this point, by Responder, is 4-4 in the majors, asking Opener to pick, one of them showing slam interest. Hence, this is the trouble auction where Responder cannot show a minor naturally.

 

Hence, the logical solution is to use flags here. 4♥=clubs, 4♠=diamonds.

 

If this was in play, I have a rock-crusher. Five unquestionable covers on the outside, and a Queen that is the trump Queen for a club contract? Wow!

[helene_t]

As usual, what Ken describes is standard (at least in the Netherlands. 4♥ showing clubs is part of the Niemeijer convention).

[rogerclee]

Hence, the logical solution is to use flags here.  4♥=clubs, 4♠=diamonds.

Again, I suppose it depends on the rest of your system, but I am used to playing a system that does not start with 3C with 1 suited minor hands, thus a 1 suited minor hand with no 4 card major would be impossible. A hand with a minor is possible with a 4 card major but that hand would look for the major suit fit and then bid 4m if they didn't find it.

[fred]

Fred always says if a bid could be natural it is, I don't see why this couldn't show 4S and 6H and offer a choice of games.

Fred agrees with himself here. The one thing I would be sure of is partner is suggesting 4H as a final contract.

 

That suggests that he has a 6-card heart suit. I suppose it makes sense to infer that he has 4 spades as well - otherwise why bid Stayman? The only answer to this question I can think of is since you (foolishly) agreed to play Puppet Stayman, maybe partner has 3 spades and 6 weak hearts (and an overactive imagination).

 

The reason for the "foolishly" in the above paragraph is that Puppet Stayman is not the sort of convention you should agree to play with a pickup partner (unless you don't care about having misunderstandings in auctions like this one). I don't play Puppet Stayman even in my regular partnerships, but as far as I can tell this convention comes in several flavors and there is no clear standard about what happens next (or even what the 3D and 3NT responses to 3C mean for that matter).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[CSGibson]

It can't be 4-6, because partner's actions are inconsistent; if he wanted to play in the 6 card major, he should transfer at the appropriate level; once he finds a 4 card major in partner's hand, his bid that is consistent with the auction so far is 4 diamonds.

Sorry, but your train of logic is the thing that is inconsistent in this. You want partner to either choose unilaterally to play in hearts without investigating the spade fit, or to choose unilaterally to play in a 4-4 spade fit without investigating the heart fit. What would be inconsistent about trying to investigate both possible fits, and letting partner choose which is the right one? If you have a way to involve partner it is not inconsistent to do so.

 

Partner could have five spades for his 2N in which case spades is almost certainly right with your 4-6, he could have 4 spades and 3 hearts in which case hearts is probably the right spot, he could have 4 spades and 2 hearts in which case it will depend on his hand, but spades will often be right (and he will be able to tell the difference). By bidding 3C and then 4H you cater to everything.

probably right, but again, would you bid 4 spades with 6 spades and 4 hearts? it's inconsistent, and with a pick-up partner I wouldn't dare trot it out.

[jdonn]

It can't be 4-6, because partner's actions are inconsistent; if he wanted to play in the 6 card major, he should transfer at the appropriate level; once he finds a 4 card major in partner's hand, his bid that is consistent with the auction so far is 4 diamonds.

Sorry, but your train of logic is the thing that is inconsistent in this. You want partner to either choose unilaterally to play in hearts without investigating the spade fit, or to choose unilaterally to play in a 4-4 spade fit without investigating the heart fit. What would be inconsistent about trying to investigate both possible fits, and letting partner choose which is the right one? If you have a way to involve partner it is not inconsistent to do so.

 

Partner could have five spades for his 2N in which case spades is almost certainly right with your 4-6, he could have 4 spades and 3 hearts in which case hearts is probably the right spot, he could have 4 spades and 2 hearts in which case it will depend on his hand, but spades will often be right (and he will be able to tell the difference). By bidding 3C and then 4H you cater to everything.

probably right, but again, would you bid 4 spades with 6 spades and 4 hearts? it's inconsistent, and with a pick-up partner I wouldn't dare trot it out.

It's not inconsistent even if you can't do it with spades, consistency and symmetry are not synonyms! As for doing it undiscussed, that applies no matter what it means, but partner has done it so here we are.

[TylerE]

Well, say opener now bids 4♠, and partner bids 5♥. NOW what?

[655321]

Well, say opener now bids 4♠, and partner bids 5♥. NOW what?

Pass?

[gnasher]

I would never bid this without discussion, but that's partly a matter of philosophy: I'm unwilling to risk a misunderstanding for the sake of a small increase in accuracy. If someone bid this opposite me, I'd pass, because he must be prepared for me to do that.

 

I agree with Ken that any half-serious partnership should use this sequence for something. After a 2NT opening there isn't exactly an abundance of sequences, so you should make use of whatever is available.

 

In different partnerships at different times I have played this as:

- five clubs in a 5332 slam try

- 5-5 in the majors, a different strength from 2NT-3H; 3S-4H

- balanced with 4-4 in the minors

[TylerE]

shouldn't this be some sort of slam move though? Partner has serveral paths to 4♥ that take over captaincy.

[kenrexford]

Well, say opener now bids 4♠, and partner bids 5♥. NOW what?

Pass?

Yeah, are we a glutton for punishment here? I mean, let's assume that 4♥ shows hearts and was a slam move. We just showed slam interest inadvertently and partner just denied a club control. What if, instead, 4♥ showed spades? Now, partner has made a call that appears to be a slam move also denying club control. What, I'm supposed to take 5♥ as Exclusion RKCB with spades as the focus suit?!?!?