Cast the first stone

[kenrexford]

If the partnership has any auction, using any style, where the bidding goes something like...

 

blah-blah-blah-3NT-?

 

...and a minor suit slam is being considered, then the best advertisement for the partnership approach is not to have the rest of the auction be a jumbled mess of goo.

 

Opener bids 4♦. We have no idea what this shows, as no one seems to have said what this shows.

 

Responder bids 5♣. We also have no idea what this shows, as no one seems to have said what this shows.

 

Opener then takes this non-information and blasts 6♦, for unknown reasons.

 

Auctions, and analyses of auction after the fact, seem enhanced when tools exist and bids have meanings.

 

So, I'd really like to know:

 

1. What is RKCB, if anything?

2. What kind of cuebidding style is used here, if any, or is pattern bidding used?

[dburn]

4♦ was reasonable , though minimum for bypassing 3NT. (4♣ might be a better bid, using the space to show control "on the way").

5♣ was ok. I agree with showing 1st round controls below game, especially by an already limited hand. (limited by bidding 3NT).

6♦ was way too much. 4♦ was already a move towards slam, and the West hand surely does not hold additional values.

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

 

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx.

 

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

 

As to sarcasm, I will say only that passing 3NT is a call that contains vast hidden merits that my humble and unworthy eyes cannot perceive. But if East had held

 

♠xx ♥AQx ♦KJxxx ♣Qxx

 

then I would rather - well, I would almost rather play an entire session with hanp than play these cards in 3NT and not 5♦.

[cherdanno]

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

 

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx.

 

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

I guess I will never understand English bidding then. Why would this hand not bid 4♦ to show he has good diamond cards? One of the advantages of 2/1 is, you know, that you are forced to game, and so 4♦ is forcing. If you aren't aware of such advantages, I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.

[phil_20686]

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx.

 

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

If 4c is a cue bid, then bidding 4d means west has a forward going hand with no club control and neither of the AK of trumps. If he also didn't have a heart control i think i would find a new partner.

 

Presumeably 3d already showed extras, so he is showing more extras, he must have at least, say

 

AKxxx

AK

QJxx

xx

 

Probably the Q of spades as well.

 

The short answer is,

 

xx Qxx AKxxx Axx

 

can bid 6d over 4d 100% sure it will be a good spot, although you might be slightly worried that you are missing grand.

[awm]

In general there is a problem that it's important in game auctions to be able to show or deny extra values. Playing methods where a 2/1 is not necessarily game forcing, you need this in order to determine when to stop in a partial and when to bid game. But it's extremely valuable when 2/1 is game forcing also, to evaluate slam prospects. Some (not necessarily all) 2/1 players do take such an approach. So on this hand:

 

1♠ - 2♦

3♦(1) - 3NT(2)

Pass(3)

 

(1) 4+♦; if only four diamonds then will have extra values (like a good 14+)

(2) Suggests playing 3NT despite partner's extras

(3) This hand is kind of shoddy for 16 points; having already shown extras it's a pass.

 

If responder has one of the control-rich thirteen-counts people are suggesting, he can make a slam try rather than bidding 3NT since he knows that partner has extras. Playing in 5♦ or 4NT will be safe, and sometimes you can still get out in 3NT anyway. Not to mention that some of the hands include ace-empty in a round suit, when 5♦ could easily be the right game.

 

So I think the key here is having a 3♦ call that shows extras. Stylistically, 2/1 GF has a lot of issues if you have no way to show/deny extras in game-forcing auctions, because you often get these decisions where you have a bit more than a minimum and need to decide whether to push past game. But there's no reason you can't play a version of 2/1 GF where you do show and deny extras, and in fact many 2/1 players do have such agreements.

 

It would also help to have a way to bid keycard without partner's response carrying you beyond 5♦, but I think this is a secondary issue (and I also think that "minorwood" is a horrible convention; I would play kickback here and someone would be bidding 4♥=RKC if we got past 3NT).

[phil_20686]

also, agree with chrdano that xx Qxx AKxxx Axx probably doesnt want to play in 3N opposite a hand that is 5-4 in the pointy suits, as its quite likely that partner has a rounded suit singleton and netierh of these suits ant to play in 3N opposite a singleton.

[dburn]

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

 

♠xx  ♥Qxx  ♦AKxxx  ♣Axx.

 

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

I guess I will never understand English bidding then. Why would this hand not bid 4♦ to show he has good diamond cards? One of the advantages of 2/1 is, you know, that you are forced to game, and so 4♦ is forcing. If you aren't aware of such advantages, I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.

Because if opener has:

 

♠QJ10xx ♥Ax ♦QJxx ♣Kx

 

which would presumably open 1♠ and raise 2♦ to 3♦, you do not want to be in other than 3NT, which is a rather difficult contract to reach when East has bid 4♦. If it is American bidding to perpetrate 4♦ to "show good diamond cards", then I think I will stay in England where balanced hands bid no trumps and unbalanced hands bid suits.

[Jlall]

lol dburn you are such a huge troll, I can't believe anyone even takes any of your posts seriously. They are great unintentional comedy though, kepp it up.

 

Edit: Also try having a game with Cascade some time I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

[phil_20686]

I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.

Because if opener has:

 

♠QJ10xx ♥Ax ♦QJxx ♣Kx

 

which would presumably open 1♠ and raise 2♦ to 3♦, you do not want to be in other than 3NT, which is a rather difficult contract to reach when East has bid 4♦. If it is American bidding to perpetrate 4♦ to "show good diamond cards", then I think I will stay in England where balanced hands bid no trumps and unbalanced hands bid suits.

This is not a 3d bid.

 

2/1 is not like sayc, it requires a totally different frame of mind. If you have a 2/1 structure you just bid 2s on this hand, then partner can bid 2n (some kind of relay/enquiry) and then you can show a minimum hand with 5-4.

 

Making any bid past 2s in a 2/1 auction should show extras, including raising partners suit, otherwise you would have the aforementioned problem. Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF and you might just want to play in your best partscore 3d.

[cherdanno]

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

 

♠xx  ♥Qxx  ♦AKxxx  ♣Axx.

 

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

I guess I will never understand English bidding then. Why would this hand not bid 4♦ to show he has good diamond cards? One of the advantages of 2/1 is, you know, that you are forced to game, and so 4♦ is forcing. If you aren't aware of such advantages, I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.

Because if opener has:

 

♠QJ10xx ♥Ax ♦QJxx ♣Kx

 

which would presumably open 1♠ and raise 2♦ to 3♦, you do not want to be in other than 3NT, which is a rather difficult contract to reach when East has bid 4♦. If it is American bidding to perpetrate 4♦ to "show good diamond cards", then I think I will stay in England where balanced hands bid no trumps and unbalanced hands bid suits.

Come on, unless you consider me an idiot it was obvious that I meant that this hand would bid 4♦ over 4♣, not 4♦ over 3♦.

[jdonn]

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

 

♠xx  ♥Qxx  ♦AKxxx  ♣Axx.

 

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

I guess I will never understand English bidding then. Why would this hand not bid 4♦ to show he has good diamond cards? One of the advantages of 2/1 is, you know, that you are forced to game, and so 4♦ is forcing. If you aren't aware of such advantages, I agree it is a mistake to play 2/1 GF.

Because if opener has:

 

♠QJ10xx ♥Ax ♦QJxx ♣Kx

 

which would presumably open 1♠ and raise 2♦ to 3♦, you do not want to be in other than 3NT, which is a rather difficult contract to reach when East has bid 4♦. If it is American bidding to perpetrate 4♦ to "show good diamond cards", then I think I will stay in England where balanced hands bid no trumps and unbalanced hands bid suits.

Come on, unless you consider me an idiot it was obvious that I meant that this hand would bid 4♦ over 4♣, not 4♦ over 3♦.

His comment could justifiably be based on the idiocy coming from either direction. You only considered one possibility.

[phil_20686]

I reckon nyou were right the first time cherdanno.

 

With a hand that is 5422 15-17 which is heavy in teh short suits, most people will open 1N. With xx Qxx AKxxx Axx oppsite a hand with 5s4d extras which was unsuitable for a 1N openening, 5d will virtually always be better than 3N un,less you happen to have 9 cashers opposite say AKQxx Jx QJxx Qx, But still 5d has good play. Needs a heart lead and then spades to not break when a club lead seems just as likely.

[fred]

Because if opener has:

 

♠QJ10xx  ♥Ax  ♦QJxx  ♣Kx

 

This is not a 3d bid.

 

2/1 is not like sayc, it requires a totally different frame of mind. If you have a 2/1 structure you just bid 2s on this hand, then partner can bid 2n (some kind of relay/enquiry) and then you can show a minimum hand with 5-4.

 

Making any bid past 2s in a 2/1 auction should show extras, including raising partners suit, otherwise you would have the aforementioned problem. Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF and you might just want to play in your best partscore 3d.

Some excellent players would agree with you, but I for one could not stomach the notion of failing to raise to 3D with just about any hand containing 4-card support. Perhaps it should be noted that I tend not to open the bidding with complete garbage.

 

IMO this thread is a good reminder that sometimes even experts forget this obvious truth:

 

No matter what system you play, even if nobody makes a terrible bid, you will sometimes get to the wrong contract!

 

(Which is not to say that I agree with all the bids in the original auction that was presented)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[phil_20686]

Because if opener has:

 

♠QJ10xx  ♥Ax  ♦QJxx  ♣Kx

 

This is not a 3d bid.

 

2/1 is not like sayc, it requires a totally different frame of mind. If you have a 2/1 structure you just bid 2s on this hand, then partner can bid 2n (some kind of relay/enquiry) and then you can show a minimum hand with 5-4.

 

Making any bid past 2s in a 2/1 auction should show extras, including raising partners suit, otherwise you would have the aforementioned problem. Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF and you might just want to play in your best partscore 3d.

Some excellent players would agree with you, but I for one could not stomach the notion of failing to raise to 3D with just about any hand containing 4-card support. Perhaps it should be noted that I tend not to open the bidding with complete garbage.

 

IMO this thread is a good reminder that sometimes even experts forget this obvious truth:

 

No matter what system you play, even if nobody makes a terrible bid, you will sometimes get to the wrong contract!

 

(Which is not to say that I agree with all the bids in the original auction that was presented)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I'm interested in what type of system you would play here fred, surely differentiating hands is at least as important as showing immeadeate support in this situation? Do you play 2d as 5+ and commonly raise on 3, such that the 4th diamond itself constitutes an extra worth showing?

 

I can't see what the gain is in bidding 3d immeadeately, when i could bid 2s-2n-3d to show the same hand with better limits on strength. I assume there is some hidden gain here that I am missing?

[Jlall]

Because if opener has:

 

♠QJ10xx  ♥Ax  ♦QJxx  ♣Kx

 

This is not a 3d bid.

 

2/1 is not like sayc, it requires a totally different frame of mind. If you have a 2/1 structure you just bid 2s on this hand, then partner can bid 2n (some kind of relay/enquiry) and then you can show a minimum hand with 5-4.

 

Making any bid past 2s in a 2/1 auction should show extras, including raising partners suit, otherwise you would have the aforementioned problem. Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF and you might just want to play in your best partscore 3d.

Some excellent players would agree with you, but I for one could not stomach the notion of failing to raise to 3D with just about any hand containing 4-card support. Perhaps it should be noted that I tend not to open the bidding with complete garbage.

 

IMO this thread is a good reminder that sometimes even experts forget this obvious truth:

 

No matter what system you play, even if nobody makes a terrible bid, you will sometimes get to the wrong contract!

 

(Which is not to say that I agree with all the bids in the original auction that was presented)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

So you mean the whole concept of constructing specific hands where if you take an action it won't work out well is stupid?

 

For instance, saying "You pass 3N? Then what happens when partner has THIS HAND" or "You don't bid 6D? Then what happens if partner has THIS hand" might be silly?

 

What a concept!

 

Seriously bridge is a game of percentages. Nobody is claiming if they take an action it will work out whenever partner has any hand in his possible set of hands. So refuting someones bid based on one cherry picked hand is pretty silly.

 

The silliest thing in this thread is by far dbrn saying that you KNOW one common system is inferior to another common system. The second silliest thing is dburn going off on hanp for giving his input in a thread where dburn asked for advice.

 

But the joke is on all of us for thinking dburn actually cares what anyone has to say, he knows it all and would like to make not-so-clever jokes and not-so-clever references to obscure things to show us how smart he is.

 

Oh and did I mention he likes to troll Americans?

[gnasher]

With a hand that is 5422 15-17 which is heavy in teh short suits, most people will open 1N.

Do they? How horrible.

[fred]

I'm interested in what type of system you would play here fred, surely differentiating hands is at least as important as showing immeadeate support in this situation? Do you play 2d as 5+ and commonly raise on 3, such that the 4th diamond itself constitutes an extra worth showing?

 

I can't see what the gain is in bidding 3d immeadeately, when i could bid 2s-2n-3d to show the same hand with better limits on strength. I assume there is some hidden gain here that I am missing?

For me 2D would almost always be a 5-card suit (because I would bid 1S-2NT with a balanced game force and I could actually see making that call with the hand for responder that was the subject of this thread).

 

I would occasionally raise 2D to 3D with 3-card support in a hand that "looked good for diamonds" and for which I could foresee later problems by not raising immediately, but I would guess that 3D would deliver 4-card support at least 80% of the time.

 

For me 1S-2D-2S doesn't really mean that much in terms of either spade length or overall strength. 2S basically means "I don't want to bid anything else". Resolving this ambiguity is already hard enough - that is one of the reasons I would not want to further overload this bid by including bad hands with 4-card support. Another reason is that one of the few popular bridge maxims I believe in is "support with support" :(

 

A final reason is that, for me, 1S-2D-2S-2NT and subsequent auctions are used for resolving important and frequent issues like:

 

- finding out if we have a 6-2 spade fit

- finding out the extent of our fit (or lack thereof) in diamonds in the context of opener basically having denied 4-card support

- choice of games decisions (4S with 6-2, 6-1, or 5-2 fit vs. 3NT with any of these possible spade fits vs. 5D on occasion)

 

So I could imagine bidding 3D in this auction with something like:

 

AQJxxx

?x

KQ

xxx

 

Regardless of whether the ? of hearts is the Ace or the deuce.

 

And, if bidding 3D with a doubleton is a possibility almost regardless of the strength of opener's hand, I can't see making the same bid with 4-card support and a minimum hand and expecting partner to *know* that is what I have. If that is what the delayed 3D means for you then you will usually be better off than me if opener has 4-card diamond support, but I will be better off than you in several other scenarios. If you could also bid 3D on a lot of different types of hands then I don't see what you are gaining since you will often never be able to get the "4-card support" message across anyways. I would rather just get it over with and raise right away.

 

In general I don't worry too much about limiting either hand early in the bidding. I prefer to adopt a heavy "games before slams" approach (another of those rare maxims that rings true for me). For sure some hands slip through the cracks, but like I said in my previous post: all systems will get you to the wrong spot some of the time.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

Very interesting thread. As a nonexpert I found it brought up several thoughtful ideas. Thanks.

 

For me in the OP I play 2/1 promises alot so I start with 1nt, not a game forcing bid.

 

 

xx....Qxx....AKxxx...Axx would fall in that gray borderline area. I guess I would call this a dead minimum 2/1 for me. So:

 

 

1s=2d(?)

3d=(4c?) (3nt?)

4h(kickback) ( as a nonexpert I tend to overuse rkc)

--------

 

 

I also noted this conversation:

 

 

"Question #2 is always a problem. We try to make the most logical, information-exchanging rebid. If 3D is that bid, then so be it.

 

 

 

The problem comes when you have 4-card support and no shortness. There should be something different between 1S----2D-----3D when one can be AKxxx,xx,Kxx,xxx and another can be Axxxx,Kx,AQxx,xx. Tough to differentiate, especially when opener doesn’t know if responder was looking for 3N,4M, or something else. Also, with shortness, a club splinter would take you past 3NT. So, Axxxx,KQx,Qxxx,x should splinter IN THEORY, but 3D might be best…..then fully cooperate if partner starts cue-bidding. With AKxxx,Axx,Qxxx.x, I think a splinter is in order."

[dake50]

Do any bids in this auction promise 'good'/'bad' controls for previous?

Rant back to G.Rozenkrants(sp) c1975: big bids promise good controls. When neither partner is constrained to have good controls isn't overheating guaranteed often?

[aguahombre]

for me in the OP I play 2/1 promises alot so I start with 1nt, not a game forcing  bid.

I guess only us non experts believe that to be right.

[Codo]

Seriously bridge is a game of percentages. Nobody is claiming if they take an action it will work out whenever partner has any hand in his possible set of hands. So refuting someones bid based on one cherry picked hand is pretty silly.

 

The silliest thing in this thread is by far dbrn saying that you KNOW one common system is inferior to another common system. The second silliest thing is dburn going off on hanp for giving his input in a thread where dburn asked for advice.

 

But the joke is on all of us for thinking dburn actually cares what anyone has to say, he knows it all and would like to make not-so-clever jokes and not-so-clever references to obscure things to show us how smart he is.

 

Oh and did I mention he likes to troll Americans?

Justin,

 

I love the way you think about Bridge and your insightful threads about this.

 

But can you please stop to insult people just because they have a different style to write and think?

[jdonn]

Justin,

 

I love the way you think about Bridge and your insightful threads about this.

 

But can you please stop to insult people just because they have a different style to write and think?

Write... think.... insult.... belittle.... demean.... whatever.

[gordontd]

Since you are in a GF auction you can bid 2s confidednt that partner will not pass, this is different from sayc where 2s is NF

While 2S might be non-forcing in some versions of Std Am, it is forcing in sayc because a 2/1 promises a rebid.

[mich-b]

4♦ was reasonable , though minimum for bypassing 3NT. (4♣ might be a better bid, using the space to show control "on the way").

5♣ was ok. I agree with showing 1st round controls below game, especially by an already limited hand. (limited by bidding 3NT).

6♦ was way too much. 4♦ was already a move towards slam, and the West hand surely does not hold additional values.

Certainly 4♣ would have been a better bid, and doubtless it would have avoided the disaster that actually occurred. But I am still curious to know what this East hand is supposed to do:

 

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx.

 

Presumably it would respond 2♦ to 1♠. Presumably also it would bid 3NT over 3♦. Presumably also it would bid 5♣ over 4♦. In that case, West had better bid 6♦, because this is a good contract and East won't bid it over 5♦ because West might not have a heart control.

 

If opener would have bid 4♣ (and not 4♦) they would be able to sort out both posession of controls in all suits , and having (or not) enough extras , until they reached 5♦.

 

After opener bid 4♦, the auction effectively turned to kind of quantitative one

(Opener's 4♦ meaning - I have extras, let's not worry about ♣/♥ controls, do you generally like your hand ?) , so with your hand (♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx) responder should bid slam because his hand is good, control rich, and has a 5th ♦.

You ask what about the ♥ control ? When the auction got quantitative, rather than control seeking, responder should IMHO ignore control issues , trusting opener to have a ♥ control for his forward going 4♦.

[billw55]

for me in the OP I play 2/1 promises alot so I start with 1nt, not a game forcing  bid.

I guess only us non experts believe that to be right.

Perhaps. But from my observations, those experts have a greater tendency to open very light. In which case, should the expert's partner really force to game with an average 12-count (good spots, but scattered honors)?

 

Maybe those experts routinely make their 23 point games, even when they have forced to them without knowledge of any fit. I wonder.