Assign the Blame

[jdulmage]

3♠ was where the bidding took a bump. He should take 2♠ has the Fourth Suit Forcing saying nothing about spades, a 2NT bid should follow by your partner indicating that he has spade stoppers.

[jtfanclub]

3♠ was where the bidding took a bump. He should take 2♠ has the Fourth Suit Forcing saying nothing about spades, a 2NT bid should follow by your partner indicating that he has spade stoppers.

Wow. I really understand Standard even less than I thought.

 

Does everybody who plays SA respond 1S over 1D with 5 of each major AND 5 spades and 4 hearts? Why can it be assumed that the 2S bidder doesn't have spades?

 

If the 2S bid is completely artificial, I still don't understand the point of it. Why do you care about whether your partner has a spade stop or not? If the bidding goes:

 

1D 1H

2C 2S!

2N 3N

 

You've now told the opponents not to lead spades, which probably cost you a trick. In fact, it's entirely possible that your partner has a singleton small heart and they'll take the first 5 tricks in hearts now, whereas if you'd just jumped to 3NT they'd never have found that lead.

 

I feel the 2C bid showed a hand with 11-14 hcp and the minors. Therefore, 3NT should show 13-16 hcp, a balanced hand, and at least a half stop in spades. That's exactly what you have.

 

Let me ask the question in the reverse way: how would a 3NT bid over 2C be incorrect or inferior? What hand would it show that you don't have, or not show that you do have?

[Antoine Fourrière]

I think 3♠ is wrong.

With 3=1=4=5 and less than 16HCP. opener should always rebid 2N. With 1=3=4=5 and less than 16HCP, he should raise hearts directly. With 2=2=4=5 and less than 16HCP, he should either rebid 1N before or rebid 2N or 3♣ now.

Responder nearly has his bids opposite 3=1=5=4, if that is what opener has shown. (Maybe it shows 16+ with 2=2=5=4 with all the points in the minors, but it cannot show 16+ with four diamonds and five clubs with all the values in the minors, because with that hand type, opener would have opened 1♣ and reversed into diamonds.)

[cherdano]

As pretty much always in "assign the blame" questions, I would put most of the blame on missing parthnership understanding about style questions:

 

1. I guess responder was not aware that openers sequence could be bid with longer clubs than diamonds. If opener has a 5th diamond, slam isn't great, but ok.

 

2. Does 3♠ promise extra values, or is it just bidding out the shape?

 

If it does show extra values, and a 3=1=5=4 shape, then I think both 4♦ and 6♦ are ok.

[cherdano]

 

Thinking more closelly to the bidding I started to think the real blame is gone to the 4♥ bid, wich looks like showing a ♥ void.

 

Funny. my thinking about 4♥ is exactly the opposite:

 

1. I don't cuebid shortness in partners suit.

2. Since responder has raised diamonds in the strongest possible sequence, I would assume the cuebid by opener to be mandatory.

3. Knowing it shows a heart honor, it should rather slow responder down.

[1eyedjack]

1. I don't cuebid shortness in partners suit.

I think that this raises an interesting point.

 

If it is a general cue bid, that could be a shortage or a high card control, then I agree. But if responder is entitled to make a 1-level response of 1H on 96xx then a shortage opposite that holding is something worth knowing about.

 

I have been thinking about this in a different context - splintering in partner's suit. Provided there is no ambiguity about the nature of the control (or what is the trump suit!), in some cases there is room (and merit) in getting this across. Even if the natural bid is based on Axxx(x..) the shortage is good news, but bad opposite KQxx(x..) Few pairs that I encounter have any mechanism for showing shortage in a suit bid naturally by partner. Relay methods get the message across, given a free reign and a natural bid to start.

[Trpltrbl]

I think 3♠ is where it got out of hand, expecting a better hand.

I think 2NT is a better bid with that hand.

 

Mike B)