kfay Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 [hv=d=n&v=b&s=sak95hak10976d9ckj]133|100|Scoring: MP3♣-(P)-? You don't play anything special.[/hv] [hv=d=n&v=b&s=sak95hak10976d9ckj]133|100|Scoring: MP3♣-(P)-? You don't play anything special.[/hv] [hv=d=n&v=b&s=sak95hak10976d9ckj]133|100|Scoring: MP3♣-(P)-? You don't play anything special.[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 First one. I play "nothing special." Does that include Blackwood? If I play absolutely nothing, I suppose partner promises two of the top three clubs, so I'd blast 6♣. Otherwise, I'd ask questions. Second one. 4♥, if that is to play. 3♥...4♥ otherwise. Third one. 3♠. I need partner to have the diamond Ace to make this an odds-on slam, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trumpace Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Agree with rexford on 1 & 3. On 2, if 3H is passable I bid that, else pass 2S planning to run to 3H if doubled. If opps come in, I am ok with defending this hand. 4H on this seems a bit too much to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 3♥, 4♥, 3♦. 3♠ on the third one should be "natural", like 3505, as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trumpace Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 On 1, If 3♥ is forcing, it is a good bid. 6C or 4NT makes it impossible to find the better scoring heart slam. Not sure why 3S should be natural on 3. The frequency of a ♦ void is probably low enough... Sorry if I have polluted this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 3♠ is definitely 3505 imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manudude03 Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 3♥, 4♥, 4♠ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Not sure why 3S should be natural on 3. The frequency of a ♦ void is probably low enough... That you would want to use the higher off-suit bid to show it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trumpace Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Not sure why 3S should be natural on 3. The frequency of a ♦ void is probably low enough... That you would want to use the higher off-suit bid to show it? Well, it depends on what you can show with 3S and what you lose with having 3S show a ♦ void, what 3♦ means etc. I have no clue... If someone were to pull 3S (without agreement) on me on that sequence, I would take it as a cue, though. Probably not ideal, but keeps the memory load low I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 I would also assume natural. I would start by bidding 3D which would just show a strong hand imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old York Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 1. 3♥ Forcing2. maybe pass would work3. The hand seems too strong for UNT, maybe start with a double. 4♣ may work after partner's 3♣ shows nothing Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 More analysis: On the first one, 3♥ would be more appealing IF we played something special. We don't. As a result, it seems to me that bidding 3♥ risks making it difficult to use RKCB for clubs. Playing something special, this is not a problem as much. If partner raises hearts, 4NT is RKCB for hearts. If partner does not raise hearts, then for me 4♠ is RKCB for clubs. That works wonders. On the third one, the reason that I bid 3♠ is that I play that anything new is a cue. Not playing that, I suppose that 4♠ makes sense. But, I don't like that with a worthless doubleton in diamonds. 3♦ suffers from that same problem, as partner cannot really tell whether I have xx or KQx or AKx in diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 First: 3♥. We're certainly bidding game, and we're likely bidding a club slam. Let's get some more information before we take any more decisive action. Second: 4♥. Even if partner provides zero help, we'll likely make 3♥. I don't think it's right to play partner for zero help. Third: 3♦, by process of elimination. We can't bid 3♥ (that shows a 6th heart), 3♠ (that shows spades), or 3NT (that shows a diamond stopper). The only other call we could make is 4♣, and there's no reason to bypass 3NT or take up that much space when we've got a cheap 3♦ call available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 3H and 4H are obvious, the last one the question is whether to bid 3D or 4S I think. Since 4H and 3N are possible contracts, I'll go with 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 yes 3♥ and 4 ♥ are clear. For the last one: I have never heard that 3 spade is natural, so I can bid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 What is going on here, how many people have been talking to Rexford in private? Since when do you need to hear about a bid being natural before you assume it is natural? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 3♥, 4♥ weren't too hard. On (3), playing "nothing special" I assume to mean a casual partner. In which case I would worry that 3♦ might be interpreted as a control. Ergo I bid 4♠. Admitedly, I would not think of 3♠ as natural. But why allow room for doubt when I can be 100% clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 What is going on here, how many people have been talking to Rexford in private? Since when do you need to hear about a bid being natural before you assume it is natural? Actually, you don't have to talk to me on that. It seems that a corollary to Eric Kokish applies. Kokish says that the third suit call is often shortness. If one call shows two suits, then a corollary would suggest that the next call is shortness. In fact, this is a relatively common theme. Transfer, show second suit, then show shortness, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 The auction 1NT - 2D - 2H - 3C - 3H is extremely different. In that auction, there is a heart fit. Showing shortness is a very good idea. Also, since you are already in a GF you don't need a bid to say "I am strong, where should we play?". In our auction, we haven't found a fit yet. We might want to play in clubs, hearts, spades or notrump. Having 3D as a probe is important, and if we can't bid spades naturally, we can't find our spade fit. In a sense the auction is more similar to 1S - 1NT - 2D - 2NT - 3H, which everybody I know plays naturally, not as a cuebid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 The auction 1NT - 2D - 2H - 3C - 3H is extremely different. In that auction, there is a heart fit. Showing shortness is a very good idea. Also, since you are already in a GF you don't need a bid to say "I am strong, where should we play?". In our auction, we haven't found a fit yet. We might want to play in clubs, hearts, spades or notrump. Having 3D as a probe is important, and if we can't bid spades naturally, we can't find our spade fit. In a sense the auction is more similar to 1S - 1NT - 2D - 2NT - 3H, which everybody I know plays naturally, not as a cuebid. Actually, showing shortness makes finding a spade fit easier, in the sense of more flexibility where you need it, and a more natural follow-up. Let me explain. If calls are natural, then overcaller can only bid 3♠ with a three-card suit, right? 3♦, presumably, can be a two-card suit, either for patterning purposes or for a notrump probe, as actual pure length in the minor is less important. This creates a pinch if overcaller has 2-0 or 2-1 with longer spades and wants to probe or pattern. If calls are shortness, this is solved. 3♠ shows shortness in spades and suiggests either notrump probe or pattern, where technical length in diamonds is less important. 3♦ shows shortness in diamonds, and hence infers some length in spades, whether for strain, pattern, or probe. Advancer can cater to this more easily because he now has a 3♠ call to suggest strain interest. In the "bid length" scenario, artificiality kicks in at this point. If 3♦ showed diamonds, and hence shortness in spades, Advancer's 3♠ repkly cannot make sense as natural and must therefore have some surrogate meaning (offering diamonds as a strain?). This becomes convoluted. Plus, in the end, shortness seems to allow spades to be focused as a possible strain more easily, whereas natural focuses diamonds as a strain more easily. I think I'd rather focus spades, personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Actually, showing shortness makes finding a spade fit easier, in the sense of more flexibility where you need it, and a more natural follow-up. That happens to be true in this sequence. It wouldn't be true in this very similar sequence (1♣) 2NT (pass) 3♦ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 [hv=d=n&v=b&s=sak95hak10976d9ckj]133|100|Scoring: MP3♣-(P)-? You don't play anything special.[/hv] Dealer: West Vul: E/W Scoring: MP ♠ [space] ♥ AQ1097643 ♦ K10 ♣ AJ3 (P)-2♠-(P)-? Dealer: East Vul: None Scoring: MP ♠ [space] ♥ AQJ107 ♦ 43 ♣ AKQJ87 (1♦)-2NT-(P)-3♣(P)-? Plan? 1) 3♥ is forcing right2) 4♥3) 3♠ should be a qbid right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
movingon Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 1. 3 ♥ forcing2. 4♥3. I overcall 1 heart intending to bid 4 (or 5 clubs when it comes back to me) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted December 16, 2009 Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 Plus, in the end, shortness seems to allow spades to be focused as a possible strain more easily, whereas natural focuses diamonds as a strain more easily. I think I'd rather focus spades, personally. Maybe I'm silly to assume there is about a 50% chance the 4th suit is higher than the opponent's suit, and a 50% chance it is lower. Also, to your earlier post, if we had KQx or AKx of diamonds and were good enough to bid again we would probably rebid 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted December 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2009 If you bid 3♦, partner bids 3♠. Is 4♣ forcing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.