2NT

[kgr]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=st9hqj764da9cat63&s=sak42hkt9dqt652c7]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1♦-1♥

1♠-2NT

All Pass

 

Should North have bid 2♣ (4th suit GF) iso 2NT or should South have bid 3♥ iso Pass. ...Or is this unlucky (not able to find the fit without forcing to high if there would be no fit).

[Hanoi5]

I agree with 2NT but I'd prefer 3♥ by South instead of Pass. If North is awake s/he'll bid 4.

[whereagles]

A commercial for 4th suit not being GAME forcing.

 

If it is, I guess I'll have to agree 2NT and now bid 3♥.

[hatchett]

A commercial for 4th suit not being GAME forcing.

 

Actually it's a commercial for raising 1♥ to 2 with 3 card support.

[mcphee]

This sort of bidding problem is for partnership chat. Some consider that had the N hand bid 1NT after 1S that the opening hand now bidding 2H shows some extra values, others are bidding out the shape of the hand. Both methods hold problems.

 

Naturally the issue for the opening hand is does partner have 4 or 5 H. My feelings are, who cares, I am not passing 2N with this. 3H just makes sense, that is why we have a partner who then has an easy 4H call.

[kgr]

Additionel question:

If South bids 3♥ is this forcing (give partner choice between 3NT and 4♥)?

Maybe it shouldn't be forcing because South can go via 3C 4SF if he wants to force to game.

[ArtK78]

South should either bid 2♥ over 1♥ or 3♥ over 2NT.

 

The one thing that South should not do is pass 2NT. If South does not intend to raise hearts later in the auction South should not bid 1♠ over 1♥. After bidding 1♠, the only bids South should pass are 3NT and 4♠.

 

That is not to say that it is wrong to bid 1♠. In fact, I believe it is the right call. But one cannot pass 2NT.

[Apollo81]

If you're playing 4th suit GF, then opener has to be prepared to bid 3♥ over 2NT on hands like this.

[MickyB]

Supporting with support will solve all of your problems. By rebidding 1S South has endplayed himself, he now has to either pass 2NT when 4H may be cold or force to game with 3H when you may have a misfitting combined 22-count.

[gnasher]

Supporting with support will solve all of your problems. By rebidding 1S South has endplayed himself, he now has to either pass 2NT when 4H may be cold or force to game with 3H when you may have a misfitting combined 22-count.

Me too.

[jdonn]

I think it's an advertisement for 4th suit not gf, not for raising on three card support. If you raise hearts and partner invites you have a similar choice to what you face here. Overbid in search of a better strain that may or may not be there, or miss it.

[hanp]

Good hand for XYZ as well.

[gnasher]

After

  1♦-1♥

  2♥

playing the style where 2♥ might be 43xx, responder will bid 2♠ with 4-4 in the majors and invitational values (or more). Thus

  1♦-1♥

  2♥-2NT

denies four spades, and the only problem is which partscore to play in.

 

The only problem with this style is that when responder is weak with 4-4 in the majors you play in the wrong one.

Edited March 19, 2009 by gnasher

[Codo]

To raise partner with a 3 card suit is not the holy grail. It had helped here where you have 5 hearts.

 

Your style brought you to a partial which makes. So the problem was not the wrong partial, it was that you had not been in game.

 

So where did you missed it?

 

I think with the given methods, both bid reasonable. North could have been a little more enterprising with 11 HCPS (including two aces) and a good 5 card suit, but 2 NT was fine.

 

South could have bid 3 HEart, but when you had a 2425 hand instead of a 2524, he may had looked silly.

 

So it is again a matter of methods.

I think the easiest way out is to bid 4sf as inivitational+ Here, you could have find out the exact shape from opener and played 4 Heart with confidence.

 

But on BBF a direct raise with 3 cards is more en vogue. If you want to adopt that style, you need to sort out whether you have a 4/3 or 4/4 fit, or a 4/4 fit in the other major and enough strength for game or not.

 

 

Change your hand to QTxx,Jxxx,Ax,Axx and try to find all this out. I couldn't.

[jdonn]

After

  1♦-1♥

  2♥

playing the style where 2♥ might be 43xx, responder will bid 2♠ with 4-4 in the majors and invitational values (or more).  Thus

  1♦-1♥

  2♥-2NT

denies four spades, and the only problem is which partscore to play in.

 

The only problem with this style is that when responder is weak with 4-4 in the majors you play in the wrong one.

The only other (far larger) problem is it's much more valuable to use the cheapest bid as an ask about opener's hand.

 

But I take it back, because it's also a problem to force responder to bid a natural 2♠ on any four card spade holding he might want to play in, since some of those can be fairly bad and hurt opener's evaluation.

 

Sounds like at least three problems to me.

[keylime]

Without 4th suit forcing, I still bid 2♣. If pard finds a 2♦ rebid, I might swish it here due to lack of fit.

[whereagles]

If South bids 3♥ is this forcing (give partner choice between 3NT and 4♥)?

Of course it's forcing. Or... it's supposed to be.

 

With a bare min, you pass.

[gnasher]

The only other (far larger) problem is it's much more valuable to use the cheapest bid as an ask about opener's hand.

Playing 2♠ as a relay, I use 1♦-1♥;2♥-2NT as exactly 4-4 in the majors and exactly invitational. Game-forcing 4-4s can start with 2S. You lose whatever else you would use 2NT for, of course.

 

But I take it back, because it's also a problem to force responder to bid a natural 2♠ on any four card spade holding he might want to play in, since some of those can be fairly bad and hurt opener's evaluation.

Equally, requiring opener to bid 1♦-1♥;1♠ on any four-card spade holding might adversely affect responder's ability to evaluate his hand.

[Echognome]

I have discussed the 4=3=(15) hand only with Phil. We agreed that when you have a minimum opening, you raise partner's hearts. If you have about a K extra than minimum, you bid 1♠, intending to bid hearts at your next turn. I believe this is useful in clarifying these hands.

 

As Andy, we play the cheapest bid as the ask and have 2NT show 4♠'s.

[skjaeran]

Additionel question:

If South bids 3♥ is this forcing (give partner choice between 3NT and 4♥)?

Maybe it shouldn't be forcing because South can go via 3C 4SF if he wants to force to game.

3♥ is forcing. You don't try to play in a possible 4-3 fit now. If you can't accept the invite you either pass 2NT or sign off in 3♦. (I've had three different partners passing 3M in similar auctions over the years - really incredible, since they were all very sane players.)

[jdonn]

But I take it back, because it's also a problem to force responder to bid a natural 2♠ on any four card spade holding he might want to play in, since some of those can be fairly bad and hurt opener's evaluation.

Equally, requiring opener to bid 1♦-1♥;1♠ on any four-card spade holding might adversely affect responder's ability to evaluate his hand.

I agree if you remove the word "equally". The situations are not equivalent because you have located a fit in one but not the other.

[H_KARLUK]

Dealer: South Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ T9 ♥ QJ764 ♦ A9 ♣ AT63 ♠ AK42 ♥ KT9 ♦ QT652 ♣ 7

1♦-1♥

1♠-2NT

All Pass

 

Should North have bid 2♣ (4th suit GF) iso 2NT or should South have bid 3♥ iso Pass. ...Or is this unlucky (not able to find the fit without forcing to high if there would be no fit).

Just curiosity. For one moment please forget abt given layout.

 

Can anyone give a fine sample "if" there's a room for 3♣?

1♦-1♥

1♠-

[gnasher]

Equally, requiring opener to bid 1♦-1♥;1♠ on any four-card spade holding might adversely affect responder's ability to evaluate his hand.

I agree if you remove the word "equally". The situations are not equivalent because you have located a fit in one but not the other.

When responder is 4-4 in the majors and opener has four hearts, my responder has to show spades unnecessarily, because he doesn't yet know that there is a 4-4 heart fit.

 

When opener is 4-3 in the majors and responder has five hearts, your opener has to show spades unnecessarily, because he doesn't yet know that there is a 5-3 heart fit.

 

What's unequal about that?

[jdonn]

Equally, requiring opener to bid 1♦-1♥;1♠ on any four-card spade holding might adversely affect responder's ability to evaluate his hand.

I agree if you remove the word "equally". The situations are not equivalent because you have located a fit in one but not the other.

When responder is 4-4 in the majors and opener has four hearts, my responder has to show spades unnecessarily, because he doesn't yet know that there is a 4-4 heart fit.

 

When opener is 4-3 in the majors and responder has five hearts, your opener has to show spades unnecessarily, because he doesn't yet know that there is a 5-3 heart fit.

 

What's unequal about that?

In one case a suit has been raised. In one case a suit has not been raised. Further, 1♠ on the second auction is already bid on essentially any four card spade holding since opener may be many shapes like 4153, so not much would change.

[gnasher]

In one case a suit has been raised. In one case a suit has not been raised. Further, 1♠ on the second auction is already bid on essentially any four card spade holding since opener may be many shapes like 4153, so not much would change.

We have two auctions where a player knows of a heart fit which might be either seven or eight cards, and knows that there might be a 4-4 spade fit. In each case he is obliged by his methods to show his spade suit, regardless of quality.

 

In my methods, opener knows that responder's hand-type is exactly 4-4 in the majors with exactly invitational values, and that this was the only way to show that hand-type. If opener is considering bidding game in hearts or notrumps, the spade bid may cause opener to misvalue his spade holding.

 

In your methods, responder will, in due course, learn that opener is exactly 4-3 in the majors, and will know that this was the only way to show that hand-type. He may also know how strong opener is. If responder is considering bidding game in hearts or notrumps, the spade bid may cause responder to misvalue his spade holding.

 

The fact that responder might also misvalue his spade holding when opener has some other shape seems to me completely irrelevant.

 

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I can't see why you think that this is less of a problem in your methods than in mine. If you were to change from rebidding 1♠ with a 43xx minimum to rebidding 2♥, you would lose a little accuracy in evaluation when responder is 4-4 in the majors, and gain a little accuracy in evaluation when opener is 4-3 in the majors. I haven't done any sums, it seems to me that the two situations are similar in frequency, and the sizes of the gain and loss are equivalent.

Edited March 20, 2009 by gnasher