You bid 4H, 4D or 3NT?

[kgr]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjhkqtxxxdktxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Bidding goes:

1♠-2♥

3♠

You play 5 card Majors. 2 ♥ did promise 5 card ♥ and 10+HCP. 3♠ promises 6 card ♠ and 15-17 HCP.

(You also play control bids).

What do you bid now and is it obvious?

[whereagles]

The hand lacks aces. I'm kinda endplayed into bidding 3NT now, with 4H a close contender to be bid when in need of a swing.

[flytoox]

Yes, 4S, tell pd you have no interest in slam.

[Fluffy]

I would bid 1NT first round.

 

4♦ is a cuebid bid

4♥ is cuebib bid

4♠ & 3NT are the only choices, I pick 4♠.

[luke warm]

1) 4♠

2) pass

[kgr]

4♦ is a cuebid bid

4♥ is cuebib bid

Suppose you only agreed you play cue bids without much more discussion.

I can't imagine that 4♥ is a cue bid.

Also is 4♦ a cue bid or is it only looking for best fit?

[Flame]

4♦ is a cuebid bid

4♥ is cuebib bid

Suppose you only agreed you play cue bids without much more discussion.

I can't imagine that 4♥ is a cue bid.

Also is 4♦ a cue bid or is it only looking for best fit?

4D is clear cue bid to me, but i wouldnt try a 4h cue bid unless we discueesed this specific bid. my choices are 4sp, 3nt, (i think i would pass at mp, but not at imp)

[han]

I'd bid 4S, certainly not 3NT.

 

I would play 4D as a cuebid, but not 4H.

[pclayton]

Presumably you upgraded this hand because of the fine heart suit, so I think I would trot out 4♥. If pard has zero tolerance for hearts and a great spade suit, he can still try 4♠.

 

I'd rather guess a major than bid 3N on this layout. This hand is very oriented to suit play.

 

4♦ is a cue bid for spades, period. As for pass; 3♠ really should forcing if you think about it in SAYC.

[kgr]

The bidding actually went:

1S-2H

3S-4D

4NT- Pass

I didn't want to bid 3NT and thought I couls as well bid 4D as 4H. Partner can now support H with a doubleton.

But my partner did take 4D as a cue bid and did bid 4NT RKC. I passed this out for -3.

4H did make at the other table. (Not sure if 4S could make).

After the game I convinced partner that 4D. It could not be a cue bid because we did not yet have a fit. He agreed with this.

Do I have to go back to him now to tell him we was right anyway. :)

And: Any rules to avoid this misunderstanding. Or a url about this (when is it cue)?

[keylime]

3NT has to be tossed out the window. Bridge is a game of suits.

 

Pard doesn't have three hearts either. Why are we punishing them for being void? I'm bidding 4!s - the Jack of spades will help partner's trump suit more than my KQJxxx of hearts. That, and if pard's missing the heart ace we might be going down.

[cherdano]

The bidding actually went:

1S-2H

3S-4D

4NT- Pass

 

After the game I convinced partner that 4D. It could not be a cue bid because we did not yet have a fit. He agreed with this.

Do I have to go back to him now to tell him we was right anyway.  :ph34r:

And: Any rules to avoid this misunderstanding. Or a url about this (when is it cue)?

I think the key misunderstanding is about the 3♠ bid. This should show much more than extras in HCP. It should show a very good suit, that can play opposite a singleton. (I assume that 2♠ would be forcing, as in SAYC.) This means your that ♠J is very good support (in context). And that opener should only bid this when he is not interested in playing in another suit.

That's why it makes sense to play 4♦ etc. as a cue-bid here. Then the only way to communicate "I don't want to play in spades" would be a 3NT bid.

I think the closest to a general rule for this situation is: a jump rebid in a forcing auction sets trumps.

[Chamaco]

I think the key misunderstanding is about the 3♠ bid. This should show much more than extras in HCP. It should show a very good suit, that can play opposite a singleton. (I assume that 2♠ would be forcing, as in SAYC.) This means your that ♠J is very good support (in context). And that opener should only bid this when he is not interested in playing in another suit.

That's why it makes sense to play 4♦ etc. as a cue-bid here. Then the only way to communicate "I don't want to play in spades" would be a 3NT bid.

I think the closest to a general rule for this situation is: a jump rebid in a forcing auction sets trumps.

Agree 100%.

[han]

After the game I convinced partner that 4D. It could not be a cue bid because we did not yet have a fit. He agreed with this.

Do I have to go back to him now to tell him we was right anyway.  :ph34r:

And: Any rules to avoid this misunderstanding. Or a url about this (when is it cue)?

A good rule is: a new suit at the 4-level is a cue.

 

An exception is when you haven't had the chance to bid the suit naturally.

[kgr]

I think the key misunderstanding is about the 3♠ bid. This should show much more than extras in HCP. It should show a very good suit, that can play opposite a singleton. (I assume that 2♠ would be forcing, as in SAYC.)

2♠ would not be forcing for us. This shows 6 card and minimal. Is it forcing in SAYC?

[the hog]

2H is an overbid. I would bid 1N. After 3S there are only 2 possibilities 4S and 3N. 3N is the poorer bid with this C holding. 4S for me.

 

(4D IS a cue bid, kqr)

[bearmum]

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ J ♥ KQTxxx ♦ KTxx ♣ xx

Bidding goes:

1♠-2♥

3♠

You play 5 card Majors. 2 ♥ did promise 5 card ♥ and 10+HCP. 3♠ promises 6 card ♠ and 15-17 HCP.

(You also play control bids).

What do you bid now and is it obvious?

wow - I would not have bid 2♥ first time round ( I really think one NEEDS the right point count for this bid)

 

SO I would bid 1NT - and THEN does partner still jump to 3S with MAX 17 points??

 

 

But answering the question --- assuming the bidding I guess I will bid 4♠ and hopefully P will PASS :)

[EricK]

I think the key misunderstanding is about the 3♠ bid. This should show much more than extras in HCP. It should show a very good suit, that can play opposite a singleton. (I assume that 2♠ would be forcing, as in SAYC.)

2♠ would not be forcing for us. This shows 6 card and minimal. Is it forcing in SAYC?

It is forcing in SAYC because a 2/1 bid in SAYC promises a rebid unless opener bids game.

 

Thus SAYC is a halfway-house between "old-fashioned" systems in which opener can make a minimum non-forcing rebid and 2/1 GF systems.

 

This does mean that the 2/1 bids in SAYC must be kept up to strength, but it also means that opener doesn't have to jump unless he has a definite message to send.

 

Eric

[Flame]

It is forcing in SAYC because a 2/1 bid in SAYC promises a rebid unless opener bids game.

 

Thus SAYC is a halfway-house between "old-fashioned" systems in which opener can make a minimum non-forcing rebid and 2/1 GF systems.

I believe you know what you are saying but i wonder how many of those who play sayc know about this, i think people play 2sp as 12-14 NF 3sp as 15-17.

I remember a similar problem with 1S-2C-3C which i thought is a weak bid but people said in sayc it shows extra (actually it make sense).

[EricK]

It is forcing in SAYC because a 2/1 bid in SAYC promises a rebid unless opener bids game.

 

Thus SAYC is a halfway-house between "old-fashioned" systems in which opener can make a minimum non-forcing rebid and 2/1 GF systems.

I believe you know what you are saying but i wonder how many of those who play sayc know about this, i think people play 2sp as 12-14 NF 3sp as 15-17.

I remember a similar problem with 1S-2C-3C which i thought is a weak bid but people said in sayc it shows extra (actually it make sense).

I imagine that most people who say they play SAYC haven't read the system description.

 

I imagine that most of them don't even realise there is a system description.

 

I imagine most of them think it just means "5 card majors, Strong NT, not many conventions", so they take the natural bidding which they are used to and change it (if necessary) to fit that mould.

 

In the other example you gave, the raise of a minor shows extras because it is forcing on partner as does a rebid of 2NT. This means that with a minimum hand opener must temporise with 2M.

 

Eric

[HeartA]

I believe you know what you are saying but i wonder how many of those who play sayc know about this, i think people play 2sp as 12-14 NF 3sp as 15-17.

I remember a similar problem with 1S-2C-3C which i thought is a weak bid but people said in sayc it shows extra (actually it make sense).

If (s)he doesn't know 2S is forcing (any rebid over 2/1 response, except a passed hand), (s)he is not really playing SAYC.

 

4D over 3S is certainly a cue-bid, with the last bid suit, which is ♠ here, as agreed trump. 4H is not cue-bid.

 

However, I don't agree that 2H is over-bid. Maybe most players here are used to 2/1GF. In SAYC, 1NT is not forcing and Partner may pass. Over opener's non-jump rebid, I would bid 3H which is not forcing. Bid 4H if pd rebid 3H. I'd rather land on a shaky 3H or 4H (if pd rebid 2N and then 3N, for example), than to stop at 1NT. Without SJ, I will still bid 2H.

[ritong]

4♠ looks pretty obvious to me, and , to make things consistent, let's admit i am apassed hand. this way, 2♥ makes more sense.

[xx1943]

Playing 2♥ as 11+ you had to bid 1NT b4.

Now only 4♠ is logical. 3NT without ♣ is a great gamble.

[HeartA]

Playing 2♥ as 11+ you had to bid 1NT b4.

Now only 4♠ is logical. 3NT without ♣ is a great gamble.

points, points, they are for beginners. This hand has Bergen count of 20, qualifying for opening. If you discard SJ, you still have 19. A hand that is (almost) qualified for opening is not qualified for 2/1 response? If you insist on 1NT with this kind of hands, you will miss a lot of games/slams or good partials.

[jtfanclub]

It is forcing in SAYC because a 2/1 bid in SAYC promises a rebid unless opener bids game.

Bull.

 

In SAYC, a minimum rebid by opener does NOT force responder.

Promising that you have a rebid is not the same as being forcing for two rounds.

 

Here's a couple links for you to start with...

http://www.annam.co.uk/sayc.pdf

http://www.bridge-forum.com/Archives/sayc_...-1_systems.html

 

1♠ 2♥ 2♠ shows a minimum count for opener. Find me any source, anywhere, that says that's forcing. And furthermore, if it were forcing, what would be the point of it being minimum?

 

Forcing for one round means forcing your PARTNER to bid. It doesn't force YOU to bid as well.

 

I know Fred didn't describe it well. But then, he's here, so we could ask him, huh?