How'd you Bid This?

[cargobeep]

[hv=pc=n&s=sathjt987dq98cq54&n=s9852hadakjt65ca9&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1dp]266|200[/hv]

 

SAYC/IMPS/ALL NV. Opponents are fairly weak.

[mgoetze]

1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-3NT. North's 3rd bid is pretty difficult though and I would not fault 2NT or 3♦, either of which South should raise to 3NT.

[Endymion77]

1♦ - 1♥

3♦ - 3NT

 

Keep it simple and bid your hand, 9852 is not a suit

[Zelandakh]

I like Michael's start but think North should check back on the club stopper, since 1NT does not promise much:

 

1♦ - 1♥;

1♠ - 1NT;

2♣ - 2♦;

3♦ - 3NT

 

So 2♣ shows extras and asks if South's club stopper is solid. 2♦ denies a solid club stopper and shows delayed diamond support. Now 3♦ is invitational with goood diamonds and 3NT is max with a half stopper in clubs.

 

Incidentally, it looks to me like 6♦ is going to make a decent portion of the time but I doubt anyone is getting there. If that was the point of your question then I think you are trusting DD/par contract results too much even though the North hand is a classic type for a low hcp slam (strong suit + side aces).

[rmnka447]

+1 for mgoetze's sequences.

[louisg]

 

1♦ - 1♥;

1♠ - 1NT;

2♣ - 2♦;

3♦ - 3NT

 

So 2♣ shows extras and asks if South's club stopper is solid.

 

This is highly non-standard. The standard interpretation of 2♣ here would be natural, with something like 4=0=5=4 distribution, expecting that 2♣ or 2♦ will be a better contract than 1NT.

[mike777]

This is highly non-standard. The standard interpretation of 2♣ here would be natural, with something like 4=0=5=4 distribution, expecting that 2♣ or 2♦ will be a better contract than 1NT.

 

 

you miss the point that 3d shows extras now

 

in fact 2c shows more than junk. 3 suited hands are very often poor.

 

in a world that most if us open on junk.

 

otoh if roth stone which I love...opener has a pretty great hand.

[EricK]

1♦ - 1♥

3♦ - 3NT

 

Keep it simple and bid your hand, 9852 is not a suit

The trouble with this approach is that partner might have a good 4 card spade suit. However he might also have a good 3 card spade suit and club weakness. With the latter hand he will want to bid 3♠ over 3♦ to see if you can bid NT. And since you probably daren't raise the ♠ on this latter sequence, you can never find your 4/4 spade fit if you bypass the suit now.

 

Note that is is slightly different if your hand is weaker and the choice is between 2♦ on a great 6 card suit and 2♠ on a trashy 4 carder. There if you bid 2♦ and partner probes with 2♠ (possibly length; possibly strength), you can afford to raise - and partner will have a good idea of your assets while you are still below game level.

[ahydra]

1♦ - 1♥

3♦ - 3NT

 

Keep it simple and bid your hand, 9852 is not a suit

 

But it is a major. "Always" mention a major! (I use quotes because there are times when it makes sense not to, e.g. 1H-1NT; you have a strong 4504. Here the correct bid is 2C or 3C because partner can't have four spades)

 

My sequence: 1D-1H; 1S-1NT; 3D-3NT

 

ahydra

[the hog]

1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-3NT. North's 3rd bid is pretty difficult though and I would not fault 2NT or 3♦, either of which South should raise to 3NT.

 

Agree with this.

[louisg]

you miss the point that 3d shows extras now

 

in fact 2c shows more than junk. 3 suited hands are very often poor.

 

in a world that most if us open on junk.

 

otoh if roth stone which I love...opener has a pretty great hand.

 

No, you miss the point that 2♣ is nonforcing. You will play your 4-2 fit, not to mention not get the chance to show your extras, when partner leaves you in 2♣ (as he should) with something like a 2=5=2=4 7 count.

[fromageGB]

I think in this forum we are not playing checkback, XYZ, or other uses of 2♣, so if 2♣ can be interpreted as natural (4144, 4054, so it can be) and is not 4th suit (it isn't), then it is natural. Being natural, it is weak, as a strong version can bid 3♣.

 

That being the case, as North my choice of 3rd bid is 3♦.

[Zelandakh]

and is not 4th suit (it isn't)

The auction being discussed was 1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣. That's 4 suits and 5 strains.

[fromageGB]

The auction being discussed was 1♦ - 1♥; 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣. That's 4 suits and 5 strains.

Whoops - sorry, I take it all back. I wasn't having one of my better days! I would hope the forum does take a bid of the fourth suit as forcing, and therefore both stronger than it might otherwise be, and possibly uncertain of direction. Over 1NT, 2♣ therefore asks for clarification and further description of responder's hand.

 

Thanks for the correction, and my apologies for misleading anyone.

[PhilKing]

It's pretty standard to play 2♣ as natural in expert bridge, but the default beginner or intermediate interpretation is 4th suit (at least from the point one is taught that the fourth suit is an artificial force). The rationale for the expert consensus is that partner has already described and limited their hand, so there is no need for 4th suit. However, the 1NT bidder frequently has four or five clubs, so opener should be able to bid clubs naturally here.

[louisg]

It's pretty standard to play 2♣ as natural in expert bridge, but the default beginner or intermediate interpretation is 4th suit (at least from the point one is taught that the fourth suit is an artificial force). The rationale for the expert consensus is that partner has already described and limited their hand, so there is no need for 4th suit. However, the 1NT bidder frequently has four or five clubs, so opener should be able to bid clubs naturally here.

 

I suspect that the "default beginner or intermediate interpretation" is different in different parts of the world. I certainly don't believe that most Americans would agree with you about this.

[PhilKing]

I suspect that the "default beginner or intermediate interpretation" is different in different parts of the world. I certainly don't believe that most Americans would agree with you about this.

 

It's difficult teaching beginners exceptions, so when you teach them 4SF, you don't give them any imo, wherever you come from. I don't doubt you are right about how thing are taught on your side of the pond, but I am surprised.