Assign the blame (2)

[HeartA]

Familiar partnership (I was a kibitzer).

 

West's hand: ♠AQJxx, ♥Kx, ♦A10, ♣AKxx

East's hand: ♠108xx, ♥Axx, ♦Jxx, ♣xxx

 

The bidding went without opp's interference:

1♠ - 1NT - 3♣ - 4♠ - 4NT - 5♣* - 6♠.

 

Who is more responsible for the overbid?

 

*14-30

[Cyberyeti]

Unsure of what the bids mean, is 4♠ weaker than 3♠ for example ?

 

We'd bid 1♠-2♠-3♣-3♠-4♠ and be prepared to miss the slam opposite 109xx, AQx, xxxx, xx

[billw55]

To me 4♠ sounds like fast arrival and hence a weak action, in which case opener should pass.

 

Either way, a familiar partnership should know their methods here.

[ArtK78]

If 4♠ was fast arrival, then North is entirely to blame.

 

If 4♠ showed a limit raise (or something more than a mere spade preference which would be shown by bidding 3♠), then South is entirely to blame.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

The classic question about 3S or 4S for this SJS auction .

[ See my by-line re Justin's comment on this type of SJS auction ] .

 

4S should be a 3 card limit raise -- a hand that would have jumped to 3S over a minimum rebid such as 2C .

3S is the weakest action and could be as few as 2 cards ♠ .

 

But Responder here has 4 cards ♠ ... with 5 hcp and the ugly 4 3 3 3 .

 

Since I play Bergen raises it would have gone 1S - 3S .

 

1S - 2S = 8,9 hcp exact w/ 3 card support ... so that is out .

[HeartA]

The classic question about 3S or 4S for this SJS auction .

[ See my by-line re Justin's comment on this type of SJS auctions ]

 

4S should be a 3 card limit raise -- a hand that would have jumped to 3S over a minimum rebid such as 2C .

3S is the weakest action and could be as few as 2 cards ♠ .

 

But Responder here has 4 cards ♠ ... with 5 hcp and the ugly 4 3 3 3 .

 

Since I play Bergen raises it would have gone 1S - 3S .

 

1S - 2S = 8,9 hcp exact ... so that is out .

With 4-3-3-3 shape, I don't feel comfortable to raise to 3 level. But if responder bid 1NT, after opener's 2m rebid, it would be awful to bid 2♠. 3♠ doesn't sound right either.

As in the real case, after opener's rebid of 3♣, either 3♠ or 4♠ doesn't sound right.

[Free]

Seriously? After 3♣ GF, responder uses fast arrival to show an absolute minimum. For some reason opener thinks that he has a slam force opposite a minimum (which can be a 5-point 3334) just because he has 2 extra HCP. :blink:

[PhilKing]

100% 0% or 0% 100%. Impossible to tell which without knowing whether they play fast arrival. I don't, for a couple of reasons, but obviously most people do.

 

If they had no agreement, I blame them both - not just for having no agreement, but for their choice of actions.

[HeartA]

Seriously? After 3♣ GF, responder uses fast arrival to show an absolute minimum. For some reason opener thinks that he has a slam force opposite a minimum (which can be a 5-point 3334) just because he has 2 extra HCP. :blink:

3♣ game forcing? in what system?

[billw55]

3♣ game forcing? in what system?

In most common north american systems, as far as I know.

[neilkaz]

In most common north american systems, as far as I know.

Yes this is the natural bidding forum so we should assume not playing a forcing ♣ limited opening system where 3♣

would just show a max and good distribution.

 

As for the OP problem, it seems the pair was playing forcing NT and that the intent of 1NT was to slow down the action with 2♠ next to show junk. Sometimes mixing that with also showing a limit raise via 1NT forcing can lead to problems if the pair doesn't have their agreements down as seems to be the case here.

[HeartA]

In most common north american systems, as far as I know.

3♣ is forcing (one round), but not game forcing.

[keylime]

Pard's 4333 on a five count, but they hold an extra trump and an ace. I'd bid 2♠ and not a forcing NT. Of course they'd reject most game tries.

[billw55]

3♣ is forcing (one round), but not game forcing.

wikipedia example

 

"3 of a new suit (jump shift) is natural, normally agreed to be game-forcing, and shows about 19 points or more"

 

There may be more than one way to play it of course, but GF is what I would expect undiscussed.

[inquiry]

I agree that 3♣ (opener;s jump shift) is GAME FORCING... If it is not game forcing, then it should have been stated somewhere in the original post (in natural systems, it is game force).

 

I am with if 4♠ is fast arrival, then all the blame is on opener. If it is not fast arrival, then the blame is split between them, as north surel showed every ounce of his hand with the jump shift. As far as authority on the jump shift, look no further than MikeH fine post on reverse bidding where he says something like while jump shifts are game force, reverses are not game forcing....

[wank]

heartA 3C is GF in all modern methods.

 

if 1NT could include a 3 card limit raise as is normally the case in 2/1, the jump to 4S should show this. a hand too weak to raise spades originally (i.e. what responder valued his hand to be) should bid 3♠ and revert to 4♠. as there's a lot of shite written above, i'll make it clear, fast arrival doesn't work in this sequence.

 

for the benefit of the people above who think 4♠ should be fast arrival, think what happens if you bid 3♠ on a good hand - unless opener is helpful and continues with 3NT, you'll be pre-empted out of showing your extra values, e.g. 1S-1NT-3C-3S-4C-4S is also what you would do with a hand such as Qx xxxx Axxxx xx. As 3♠ includes weak hands unsure of strain, you would be overloading it by putting your 3 card limit raises in there as well.

[the hog]

Clearly west. 4S shows a weak hand; opener had no right to bid on. By the way, this shows how silly is the method of bidding 1NT with 4 card!! support.

[Zelandakh]

3♣ is forcing (one round), but not game forcing.

You self-rate as expert, right? It is not GF playing limited openers, and may not be GF playing artificial follow-ups to the 1NT response, but you must surely be aware that this is a GF in natural methods(?)

[fromageGB]

3♣ is forcing (one round), but not game forcing.

Taking the above as a given*, then a weak hand such as East, that was intending to show weak support by rebidding 2♠, must here bid 3♠ as a weak hand. 4♠ therefore implies extra strength so East is to blame.

 

* but how is a kibitzer certain of this?

[fromageGB]

By the way, this shows how silly is the method of bidding 1NT with 4 card!! support.

If East would have bid 3♠ as a weak hand, but thought he had to bid 4♠ because of the undisclosed length, then the consequences endorse the hog's comment. So this perhaps implies a share of the blame, for agreeing bad methods.

[P_Marlowe]

West?

 

Sry - West forced to game, East showed the fit and simply did bid game,

why should East has made an overbid?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikl_plkcc]

Clearly West.

 

Given this bidding, they are supposedly playing the idiotic constructive raise treatment, which confuses matter by putting both 5-7 and 11-12 3-card supports into forcing 1NT. The responding hand contains 5 HCPs, 4333 and an unsupported jack, and I evaluate it as only 5, which I would pass using standard methods. In this case, responder has 4 ♠s! This shows how silly they are, by agreeing on a method which can't show a 4-card raise directly!

 

After the 3♣ game forcing rebid, East wants to stop the bidding immediately by bidding 4♠, which shows 5-7 in this case (3♠ would be 11-12 limit raise). I evaluate West hand as 22 (21 HCPs plus 1 length point, the ♠s are a plus but the honours in short suits are minuses). Given East has only 5 to 7 points, the total is only 27 to 29, which is not enough for a 50% slam. (I believe that 29 to 31 is enough) Therefore, West should stop immediately.

 

In my system, the auction would go:

2♣ (20+)

- 2♥! (2 controls, GF)

2♠

- 3♠

4♠

[cherdano]

3♣ is forcing (one round), but not game forcing.

If you are this misinformed about basic bidding questions, the least you could do is not to lecture others about them.

[ArtK78]

3♣ is forcing (one round), but not game forcing.

 

I play conventional rebids at the 3 level after a forcing 1NT response to one of a major. But even in my methods, 1♠-1NT-3♣ is game forcing (showing either 5-4 or better in spades and an unspecified second suit or a one-suited spade hand).

 

The next time I see this auction in a purportedly standard system and it turns out that 3♣ is not game forcing will be the first time.

[PhilKing]

You self-rate as expert, right? It is not GF playing limited openers, and may not be GF playing artificial follow-ups to the 1NT response, but you must surely be aware that this is a GF in natural methods(?)

 

I suspect the truth is far worse - op may be a bridge teacher. :ph34r: