Unusual vs Unusual

[humilities]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt82hq2daj2cq652&n=saq93haj83d3cak83&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1c2n]266|200[/hv]

 

Your thoughts about North's decision;

 

- He can show spades (which we play promises 5) but partner will bid 3S with a 3-2-3-5 hand (or possibly with 3-3-3-4, etc)

- He can show a club raise but may catch partner with a 4-3-3-3 hand or similar

 

(obviously on this hand North can't get it wrong, but this is the hand that spurred the conversation)

 

We have no specific agreements regarding doubling and then pulling to a suit ... are there any common agreements there that would help find the right 4-4 fit?

[mgoetze]

I guess South in the text is North in the diagram and vice versa?

[humilities]

I guess South in the text is North in the diagram and vice versa?

 

Sorry, the diagram is correct my comment was not (I have fixed it). I am asking about North's decision, he has to find a bid over 2NT and I'm trying to figure out how he gets to the correct black suit fit (if there is only one).

[gnasher]

If your spade-showing bid promises five, the club raise has to include hands with four spades and club support. Hence North could show a club raise, expecting South to bid 3♠ with four. That would get us to a 4-4 spade fit if one existed.

 

If you're worried about missing 3NT by going that way, you could start with double. Double followed by 3♠ is presumably a 4-card suit, and would get us to 3NT when it's right.

 

Anyway, as North I wouldn't be worried about 3NT, because the slam potential is so good. Kxx xx AJx QJxxx isn't much to hope for. I'd show a club raise.

[cherdano]

...are there any common agreements there that would help find the right 4-4 fit?

Finding 4-4 fits over unusual 2NT is a small concern for two reasons:

- It's more important to find big fits immediately in case advancer makes a preemptive raise.

- Playing in a 4-4 fit isn't that attractive when you are facing the certainty of either a bad trump break, or the

threat of ruffs in your side suit. Doubling them, or playing in 3NT is often the better alternative.

 

Nevertheless, you can find 4-4 fits, after an initial raise or double.

[plum_tree]

We have no specific agreements regarding doubling and then pulling to a suit ... are there any common agreements there that would help find the right 4-4 fit?

I am asking about North's decision, he has to find a bid over 2NT and I'm trying to figure out how he gets to the correct black suit fit (if there is only one).

WTP? The 2NT overcall has given away the hand layout. Finding South with the “right cards” should see a ♠ slam home. Therefore assuming that 2NT overcall shows 5/5 in the red suits, then

1. X always shows 4-cards in the unbid major and a hand willing to compete to the 3-level

2. 3♣ is a hopeless underbid on that hand strength

3. 3♠ will show a 5-card suit (which you don’t have)

 

Without any prior agreements as to what to bid in a situation like this, as North my first choice would be to make a GF cue-bid. What would that be? How about 3♥ showing values in the suit, leaving the door open for 3NT? Another option would be 4♦ as a splinter bid, showing a 3-suited hand, short in ♦. 4♠ now from South will show 4-cards in the suit. 4NT will be to play, only 3-card ♠ suit, ♦ stopped.

[RSClyde]

WTP? The 2NT overcall has given away the hand layout. Finding South with the “right cards” should see a ♠ slam home. Therefore assuming that 2NT overcall shows 5/5 in the red suits, then

1. X always shows 4-cards in the unbid major and a hand willing to compete to the 3-level

2. 3♣ is a hopeless underbid on that hand strength

3. 3♠ will show a 5-card suit (which you don’t have)

 

Without any prior agreements as to what to bid in a situation like this, as North my first choice would be to make a GF cue-bid. What would that be? How about 3♥ showing values in the suit, leaving the door open for 3NT? Another option would be 4♦ as a splinter bid, showing a 3-suited hand, short in ♦. 4♠ now from South will show 4-cards in the suit. 4NT will be to play, only 3-card ♠ suit, ♦ stopped.

Double isn't negative, it says that I want to saw off one of the red suits, you could play it as negative but that's not so with discussion. And 4♦ is a splinter in support of clubs not 3 suits. What value would it be for it to promise hearts since you'd never want to play there?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

If 3S = 5+ cards ♠ ( and I think most sources say this is forcing ) , how about 3H! showing 4 cards ♠ . At least one source says 3H! = invitational with ♠ but doesn't give suit quantity . Even if ostensibly "invitational" , it will force partner ( Opener ) to bid .

[SteveMoe]

This one seems a bit tricky. There are 2 good paths forward...

 

1) Start with a fit showing Unusual/Unusual bid - whichever approach you use.

Assume 3♥ shows a LR+ with a fit in ♣.

South now has the responsibility to introduce the 4 card ♠ suit after which you can develop the auction toward slam...

Without a 4-card Major, South will tend toward 3N though blind here about which red suits are really covered. So,

 

2) A double would show the ability to penalize one of the 2 red suits and invitational+ values - but not as much as North holds.

This approach caters to when partner does not hold 4 ♠s and you can explore whether 3N or 6♣ is possible.

 

In either case we have to contend with East who can make our lives difficult by bidding 4 or 5 of either red suit.

 

So I lean toward the LR+ bid because partner will have more confidence when they show ♦s knowing er have a ♣fit and will bid 4♠ on the way to 5+♣.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

This one seems a bit tricky. There are 2 good paths forward...

 

1) Start with a fit showing Unusual/Unusual bid - whichever approach you use.

Assume 3♥ shows a LR+ with a fit in ♣.

South now has the responsibility to introduce the 4 card ♠ suit after which you

Over 1 Club - 2 NT :

3C - Competitive in Clubs, should hold 5 clubs, 4 good is ok too!

3D - Club support, limit or better. Should hold 5 clubs or 4 good.

3H - Invitational with spades.

3S - 100% forcing with spades.

[SteveMoe]

Over 1 Club - 2 NT :

3C - Competitive in Clubs, should hold 5 clubs, 4 good is ok too!

3D - Club support, limit or better. Should hold 5 clubs or 4 good.

3H - Invitational with spades.

3S - 100% forcing with spades.

Interesting alternative. I take it we don't want to stop in 3♠? Am accustomed to play 3 theirs as artificial Inv +/GF and 3 others to play.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Interesting alternative. I take it we don't want to stop in 3♠? Am accustomed to play 3 theirs as artificial Inv +/GF and 3 others to play.

I suppose you could reverse the meanings of 3H and 3S... but BOTH say spades.

 

I mainly wanted to point out that 3H! is NOT clubs..... 3D! is clubs ( "their" lower suit means "our" lower suit ) .

[SteveMoe]

I suppose you could reverse the meanings of 3H and 3S... but BOTH say spades.

 

I mainly wanted to point out that 3H! is NOT clubs..... 3D! is clubs ( "their" lower suit means "our" lower suit ) .

That's a matter of choice. I like higher shows fit with partner's suit because we need more bidding room to explore game opposite GF bid in responder's suit.

[ArtK78]

Both 3♥ and 3♠ show 5+ spades if you play unusual/unusual. My preference is that 3♥ is the stronger bid on this auction (partner can pass the direct 3♠ bid).

 

On this hand, I would double. I would be willing to play in 3♥x. Over the expected run to 3♦ I would bid 3♥ and see what partner can do.

[plum_tree]

Double isn't negative, it says that I want to saw off one of the red suits, you could play it as negative but that's not so with discussion. And 4♦ is a splinter in support of clubs not 3 suits. What value would it be for it to promise hearts since you'd never want to play there?

Who decided that? You? Someone else? Why can’t the double be negative and saw off one of the red suits? Look at the vulnerability. Missing out on a ♠ slam versus playing the opponents down whatever number of tricks scores badly for your side. The 2NT overcall has given away the hand layout.

[gnasher]

Who decided that? You? Someone else?

The original poster, who told us that he was playing "Unusual versus Unusual", and then implied in the text that double wasn't negative.

 

I prefer to play this double as negative, but that's definitely not the default meaning.