atb lol

[gwnn]

KQxx

Ax

AKJxxx

J

 

opp

 

xx

KJ9xx

xx

T97x

 

1♦-1♥

1♠-2♦ 1♠ showed 5-4

3♣-pass

 

despite the relatively good interior strength of the trump suit, we got a bad result for this.

 

how would you bid it after 1♦-1♥? I know pass from south is an alternative, but please assume you do respond on the S hand.

[helene_t]

If North found himself too strong for 3♦ as his 3rd bid, he should have bid 2♠ at his 2nd turn.

 

South bid fine. I would probably have passed at my first turn but I suppose 1♥ is in accordance with the partnership style.

[Jlall]

As helene said. I would jumpshift with the north hand 100 % though.

[peachy]

The N hand is bolstered by Ax in partner's heart suit and a very strong two-suiter. I'm wondering why N did not rebid 2S (instead of 1S).

[Hanoi5]

3♣ is terrible, but Pass is worse.

[andy_h]

1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♦; 3♦-Pass.

It's a maximum 1♠ for me, and change the Jack of clubs to Jack of spades and I would JS.

[MickyB]

Two Qs. The first -

 

AKxx

Kx

AQJxx

xx

 

You open, and bid uncontested -

 

1♦:1♥

1♠:2♦

What now?

 

The second -

 

I hear that fitting hands play better than misfits. Can't the discovery of a 6-2 diamond fit improve a hand to being worthy of forcing to game?

[nige1]

North ♠ KQxx ♥ Ax ♦ AKJxxx ♣ J: 1♦ 1♠ 3♣

South ♠ xx ♥ KJ9xx ♦ xx ♣ T97x: 1♥ 2♦ _P

1♠ shows 5-4

 

Despite the relatively good interior strength of the trump suit, we got a bad result for this. How would you bid it after 1♦-1♥? I know pass from south is an alternative, but please assume you do respond on the S hand.

IMO, North's bidding is acceptable and his 3♣ is FSF. South may pass 1♦ but may not pass 3♣. South has a difficult bid over 3♣. Perhaps 3♥ = 10, 3♦ = 9.

[gnasher]

3♣ is FSF

Me too. It's not very useful as a natural bid - a strong 4153 would bid 2NT over 2♦, so the only shape which might want to bid 3♣ is 4054.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if I assume, that I would have bid 1H, that the auction

until 2D looks fine, or systemic, the alternative to 2D

would be 1NT, but 2D sounds less encouraging to my

ears.

 

I would guess, that 3C was FSF, given that opener has

18HCP, and is certain to have a 5-3 fit in diamonds, the

bid looks also reasonable, although 3D would ask the same

question and tell partner abouth the 6th diamonds, i.e.

3D is a lot better.

 

I dont like pass after 3C, because you are playing partner

for 5440, I think if you respond 1H, you should now bid 3D.

 

So I give it 50-50.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

I am with the English and to me it looks like south just passed a 4sf bid.

 

And in my style, he should have passed 1 diamond.

[MFA]

For me, 3♣ would surely be 4th suit forcing.

Agree with a jumpshift. Would surely respond 1♥, not close for me.

[jdonn]

1♦ 1♥ was a good start. I don't believe a single correct bid was made after that.

[Jlall]

1♦ 1♥ was a good start. I don't believe a single correct bid was made after that.

huh? What else but 2D when partner has shown 4-5?

[mikeh]

The idea that 3♣ was FSF is risible.

 

3♣ is natural in standard methods, and while there may be arguments why it ought not to be, I am at a loss to see how those arguments should prevail in this simple auction.

 

[i also suspect that the info in the original post was mistaken... that 1♠ did not promise 4=5+... I suspect that it might also include 4=1=4=4 and some players would go further and say it might be 4=0=4=5 with weak clubs, but maybe not this partnership. In any event, it clearly includes 4=0=5=4, and while those are low frequency hands, are they so low frequency that we decide to remove them from our bidding dictionary? Why?]

 

And why would we use FSF here? I fail to see what purpose is served by such a usage. Consider:

 

We cannot have a gf hand... we just rebid a non-forcing 1♠ and partner's 2♦ call did not show an iota of previously undisclosed strength, nor a real diamond fit, so we cannot NOW re-evaluate the hand to gf strength... so we don't need 3♣ as gf..

 

We cannot have a hand invitational to 3N... we'd bid 2N

 

We cannot have a hand with 4=6 in the suits and wanting partner to bid 3N when possible... we'd have an easy 3♦ bid (as we clearly did, having (reasonably if conservatively) chosen 1♠ as our second call)

 

We cannot have a good hand with 3 hearts: we'd bid 2♥ now

 

And so on... we can eliminate any meaning for 3♣ that does not involve.... drum roll, please....clubs!

 

And, on the flip side, we cannot show clubs in any manner other than by.... you guessed it... bidding the suit!!

 

So, 3♣ shows clubs... and why not? it shows clubs with extra values... still interested in game after partner's limited and non-fitting bids.

 

Edit: i should anticipate all the FSF bidders' response... with a 4=1=5=3 or some 4=2=5=2s with extra values and no club guard, there may be some value to 3♣ as FSF... not much, given that partner bid 2♦ rather than a modest 1N, but not zero value. So my rant was an overbid :o But I still stand by my basic view.

[mike777]

KQxx

Ax

AKJxxx

J

 

opp

 

xx

KJ9xx

xx

T97x

 

1♦-1♥

1♠-2♦ 1♠ showed 5-4

3♣-pass

 

despite the relatively good interior strength of the trump suit, we got a bad result for this.

 

how would you bid it after 1♦-1♥? I know pass from south is an alternative, but please assume you do respond on the S hand.

prefer 2s not 1s.

[gnasher]

The idea that 3♣ was FSF is risible.

 

3♣ is natural in standard methods

One of the few unattractive features of these forums is the way that some people insist that what is standard for them is the only standard.

 

It seems clear from the comments that 3♣ has different meanings to different people, and that this difference depends partly upon their location. Personally I find that quite interesting, and am pleased that a discussion involving players from all over the world has unearthed this difference. In contrast, I find the comments quoted above quite uninteresting.

 

I also suspect that the info in the original post was mistaken... that 1♠ did not promise 4=5+... I suspect that it might also include 4=1=4=4

Yes, you must be right: it's almost impossible that anyone would have agreed to open 1♣ with 4144 shapes. That wouldn't be standard.

We cannot have a gf hand... we just rebid a non-forcing 1♠ and partner's 2♦ call did not show an iota of previously undisclosed strength, nor a real diamond fit, so we cannot NOW re-evaluate the hand to gf strength

Of course we can. Three of the things that partner's 2♦ tells us are:

- He has at least two diamonds

- If he has only two diamonds, he probably doesn't have a club stop.

- He probably doesn't have a very bad hand with 3=2 in the pointed suits

This hand is improved by all of these.

[jdonn]

If someone has a hand very much like this one that they didn't think was a game force until partner bid 2♦ (I agree they exist, and I would have jump shifted on the actual hand) then why not bid 4♣ next? The odds of missing a good 3NT for a bad 5♦ pale in comparison to the benefits of describing the hand in case of slam, IMO. That being due to the 1♥ bid and the non-1NT rebid.

[Codo]

Of course you can waste your bidding space with 4 ♣. But why should you?

 

To catter for the hands where you have 4054 and partner has 4 clubs but still no NT rebid and your 4-4 club fit plays so much better then the 5-2 diamond fit ?

 

Or do you frequently rebid 2 ♦ with say Kx, Kxxx,xx,8xxxx? If you do, you may need 3 ♣ as a natural and nonforcing bid.

[jdonn]

Lol that is exactly why. You have shown you understand perfectly Codo. Well done.

[the hog]

I am Roland and Uwe on this one. I would also have passed instead of bidding 1H and rebid 1S after the 1H bid.

[cherdanno]

I sympathize with gnasher's sentiments but also it would not have occurred to me that 3♣ is FSF for anyone. For one thing I would never bid 1D-1S-2N with 4153 shapes. For another thing, the purpose of bidding out your shape with 3♣ with 4153 or 4054 is not only to find a club fit, but also to possible find out when to avoid 3NT when partner's hearts are too weak.

Btw, if I played 3♣ as artificial here, I would just take it as a game try (AKA "please bid 3N if you have a club stop, or something higher than 3♦ if you think we should play 5♦), not as a game force.

[mikeh]

The idea that 3♣ was FSF is risible.

 

3♣ is natural in standard methods

One of the few unattractive features of these forums is the way that some people insist that what is standard for them is the only standard.

 

It seems clear from the comments that 3♣ has different meanings to different people, and that this difference depends partly upon their location. Personally I find that quite interesting, and am pleased that a discussion involving players from all over the world has unearthed this difference. In contrast, I find the comments quoted above quite uninteresting.

 

I'd prefer not to get into an exchange of personal insults, but if I do, it won't be by way of a reference to 'some people' when I am slagging one particular person :D

 

I don't claim to be 'the' expert on what standard bidding is, anywhere. But I have read very widely. My reading leads me to suggest that even in the UK, the standard meaning, amongst the broad bridge-playing population, for 3♣ is natural.

 

I would not for a moment suggest that I know what the common expert treatment is in the UK, or even in NA since I don't travel to tournaments any more...

 

I happen to think that 'natural' is the sensible, optimal treatment. I can see why some would disagree. But that is a different argument: only a fool would argue that 'optimal' and 'standard' address the same issue. It is perfectly appropriate, in some cases, to argue that a treatment is standard and sub-optimal. Thus, many players adopt minority usages because they see them as better than standard, and, over time, some of these usages become the new standard.

 

Maybe that has happened in the UK... I don't pretend to be an expert on standard UK methods.... but from the reading I have done over many years, I am confident that the artificial usage advocated by gnasher didn't form standard until recently, if at all. BTW, I don't equate usage by the top 10% of any area's players as 'standard'. Standard is what the majority of reasonably competent players understand to be the 'normal' usage... and that, in turn, is not always the same as what they consider to be 'best' usage.

 

If gnasher can demonstrate that currently accepted bridge texts in the UK recommend this FSF usage, than I will have learned something, and will be grateful. If he can't then he is guilty of precisely what he accuses me of... conflating his view of what is best with standard.

[Fluffy]

I will sum with you Mike :D.

 

People tend to extend the scope of conventions, I don't really understand why. 4SF is a convention used by RESPONDER, on the 4th bid on the auction. it happens ONLY on uncontested auctions.

 

Anything else than that is a special agreement :P.

 

 

Keep your conventions under contol, you will win a lot more by avoiding missunderstandings than what you win by the use of conventions.

[gnasher]

I'd prefer not to get into an exchange of personal insults, but if I do, it won't be by way of a reference to 'some people' when I am slagging one particular person :)

There is much to be said for assuming that what someone has written is what they actually meant. I wasn't referring to you alone - there are other posters who sometimes display a similar attitude, and that part of my comments related to them too.

 

And if you want a discussion to remain civilised, you would do well to avoid using a wordier equivalent of "LOL" as part of your argument.