Agreeing with partner or not?

[Phil352]

[hv=pc=n&n=sk7ha64dakqj97c98&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1d1s2c3s4sp5cp5dp5hp6dppp]133|200[/hv]

 

The wheels came off in this auction and the opps duly cashed their two aces - a veritable disaster.

 

There was disagreement over the meaning of 4♠ - I can see why partner thought it agreed clubs but I felt when we're squeezed by opps then I run out of options for showing strong hands/slam tries. From my thinking 4D would just be competitive and 4H some sort of natural bid. Do you think 4S agrees clubs and therefore 5D is forcing? How else would you bid this hand (if it helps we were playing weak NT although I think you're too good for a strong nt opener)

[dkham]

I would also have taken 4♠ as agreeing clubs. But anyway looking for slam opposite a passed hand with only a small doubleton in partner's suit is quite optimistic.

 

At the table I would have bid 5♦ instead of 4♠. Though looking again 3NT looks like a good bet, makeing whenever partner can provide one trick to go with your probable eight.

[Zelandakh]

I think all of 3NT, X and 4♦ are better than 4♠ here. The latter has to be forcing when the opps are preempting us - there is simply not enough upside or space to try and stop on a dime in a suit that partner has not even supported.

[ahydra]

I'd agree you're too strong for 4D, but 4S would normally agree clubs. You have a point - how does one show a slam try in diamonds here? I guess maybe you have to X and then pull it later (should you get the chance)?

 

I'd have bid 3NT, since as dkham said you've got 8 tricks on top.

 

ahydra

[ArtK78]

How can you be too strong for 4♦? There is no way that partner can pass 4♦ - it has to be forcing. Aiming to play in 4♦ in a compressed auction like this one is just too small a target. If 4♦ is not forcing, you almost have to just bid a slam (which is, essentially, what the 4♠ bid accomplished).

 

You have 2 real choices: 3NT and 4♦. At matchpoints, 3NT, while somewhat wimpy, is not unreasonable. At IMPs, I think 4♦ is clear.

[ahydra]

1D-(1S)-2C-(3S)

4D

 

Not sure this a GF auction (unless you have an agreement as such)?

 

I'd agree, if it was, that 4D is the correct bid, but...

 

ahydra

[dkham]

I wouldn't take 4♦ as forcing there (though maybe it should be).

[aguahombre]

Best I could do to fix this post was to delete it. Can't shine sh...

[mikeh]

We seem to pretty much agree 4S was the culprit. That leaves, for all you reasonable folks with normal methods a decision between 3NT and 4D..and yes 4D must be forcing; if anyone really believes 4D might not be taken as forcing, they only have 3NT or an ugly quantitative 4NT. Would 4NT show a solid source in diamonds, or suggest the need for a filler?

 

Then, there are we less-normal/less-reasonable? folks for whom 2C already established a game force. We have other options that the OP did not have, such as setting clubs then later converting at the appropriate level to Diamonds or NT to protect the spade king.

I agree with all you wrote except I don't understand why double is not an option? I would have bid 3N, fwiw. Oh...maybe, on rereading I misunderstood your second paragraph...are you seriously suggesting that a passed hand 2♣ established a gf opposite a 3rd seat opening bid? That seems truly weird and I don't think that's what you meant to suggest when you wrote 'we less-normal....'

[aguahombre]

Oops, I keep missing that passed hand thing.......my bad, will fix my post.

 

However, doesn't double blow 3NT from my side out of the water unless it goes xx p p back to me?

[phil_20686]

Ok, so it seems to me there are lots of things that are bad with this auction.

 

Firstly, I think it makes sense to play both 4c and 4d as forcing. While it would be great to have a competitive 4m and a slam try, i know which one I would rather give up. This type of hand is virtually an advert for the methods, it can be very hard to even know what strain you are playing, never mind make a slam try. I would play 4c/4d = GF and 4S=don't know which strain. 4H is also natural and strong, and basically geared to wards biding your values in a minor slam.

 

Secondly, it does not appear clear to me that the north hand given should be looking for a slam at all. 17 opposite a passed hand without a useful shortage(partner cannot be short hearts, and a short spade barely helps you) is surely pushing it. I would have just bid 3N. If I give partner a typical hand like xx Kxxx xx AKxxx, which are all useful cards, I will still need clubs 3-3, and partners hand can easily be bad enough that 5d is just cold off when 3N was cold, xx Qxx xx AQJxxx for example, may go several off in 5d despite being a perfectly reasonable hand.

 

Also, if you bid 3N, Partner can still bid on when he has AKJ-seventh clubs, and tbh, its the hands where partner has great clubs where slam is likely to be good, and its likely to be 6c that is good rather than 6d because of entry issues. On these hands partner can bid a nice forcing 4c over 3N, and now you are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Just to reiterate: I strongly suggest that you play that 4m is forcing whenever it is bid by an unlimited hand. While you can argue all day that it is not best, in practice it is a simple meta rule that makes lots of high level competitive auctions much easier.

[lalldonn]

I don't understand the criticisms of 3NT over 3S. It seems like the only reasonable action to me.

[Finch]

I shudder at the idea of playing 4m as forcing in this auction.

It's not unreasonable (although not perfect) to agree that you can't stop in 4m in an uncontested auction, but once the opponents have jammed the bidding to the 3-level, you want to be able to bid your long suit without partner being forced to raise.

 

Just to reiterate: I strongly suggest that you play a non-jump 4m in competition always as non-forcing.

 

On the actual hand 3NT looks obvious. Much harder if partner isn't a passed hand.