ATB

[miamijd]

I don't like Pass as single negative, either. I think pass ought to be a game force that denies any long, strong suit.

 

But given the methods, I think South in particular might have done better. When East bids spades, South can be pretty confident his side has a 9-card fit somewhere (his partner probably doesn't have 5 spades). He needs to find that fit. In that vein, 3H isn't awful, but I think 3S shows the hand much better. 3S shouldn't be specifically 1444. It ought to be short spades and a pretty good, semi-balanced hand outside spades. That's what South has. 3H wastes a lot of bidding room on a cruddy suit.

 

Cheers,

Mike

[rmnka447]

I guess I've been schooled to believe that you need very solid values in any positive suit response you make.

 

So, for me, the calls of DBL and pass over an intervention in a 2 ♣ auction ought to represent between them an unspecified positive response and a weak response. Your choice of which is which should be a matter of partnership agreement. There seems to be a variety of opinion about that here, but bear with me. By using such an artifice, you don't increase the level of bidding.

It plays into what over the years has shown itself to me to be a very important principle of good bidding --

 

"In an auction between a very strong hand and a weaker responding hand, it's often important for the weaker hand to get out of the way of the stronger hand and let the stronger hand tell its story."

 

Here, if responder makes the appropriate positive call whichever of the two it is, the big hand probably bids 3 ♣ and the auction gets a whole lot simpler. If 3 ♣ is bid, responder with a 4 card ♣ fit and controls in the outside suits ought to be seriously thinking about slam.

 

 

With the actual agreements in place, I'd opt for 3 ♠ which suggests support for all 3 unbid suits. I'd like to show ♥ at some point, but bidding them tends to direct opener to ♥ and precludes revealing support for the other suits.

[msjennifer]

I do not wish to make any comments on the bidding since I am far from being an expert.However I have my doubts.

1) If a 2 C opening is 100% forcing to game how can the eligibility be brought down when the hand is not fit for giving 8 or more winners.

2) If the 2C bid was based on the club suit then when positive bid of 3H was heard why he did not bid 4C instead of 3NT ?

3) Aftter a 3NT bid showing a balanced or semi balanced hand with no heart fit is it not too much to expect ( or ask) a 4C bid on 4 tram tickets? It is easy to say yes when one knows all 26 cards.If this responding hand with the given auction is given to many players how many will bid 4C and not 4D?.Suppose there was no intervention and responder had bid 2H won't he have bid 3C? Why not 4C now?

 

 

4)Is 4NT a sign off or simple /RKC (in diamond)Blackwood considering the strong "almost slam ambitioned" bidding that has taken place so far?

[Cyberyeti]

I do not wish to make any comments on the bidding since I am far from being an expert.However I have my doubts.

1) If a 2 C opening is 100% forcing to game how can the eligibility be brought down when the hand is not fit for giving 8 or more winners.

2) If the 2C bid was based on the club suit then when positive bid of 3H was heard why he did not bid 4C instead of 3NT ?

3) Aftter a 3NT bid showing a balanced or semi balanced hand with no heart fit is it not too much to expect ( or ask) a 4C bid on 4 tram tickets? It is easy to say yes when one knows all 26 cards.If this responding hand with the given auction is given to many players how many will bid 4C and not 4D?.Suppose there was no intervention and responder had bid 2H won't he have bid 3C? Why not 4C now?

 

 

4)Is 4NT a sign off or simple /RKC (in diamond)Blackwood considering the strong "almost slam ambitioned" bidding that has taken place so far?

 

1: it's 100% forcing to game unless 22+ bal

2: he decided to treat the hand as balanced when partner showed 5 hearts.

3: I think both decisions are not clear cut here

4: 4N is natural quantitative ish, nothing more to say, 4♠ would be blackwood in diamonds here for us

[marklaf]

Given the constraints on the system--you have end played partner into 3nt--you should bid 4 spades over 3nt--you are too strong to pass let partner describe his hand

[Cyberyeti]

Given the constraints on the system--you have end played partner into 3nt--you should bid 4 spades over 3nt--you are too strong to pass let partner describe his hand

 

3N was forcing as far as 4N, does 4♠ show extras ? this hand is basically minimum for the bidding so far

[MrAce]

3N was forcing as far as 4N, does 4♠ show extras ? this hand is basically minimum for the bidding so far

 

I do not like the idea of 4♠ showing extras when both opener and responder made only 1 bid regarding their strain and they are already at 3 NT. Imo opener should assume the responder is minimum and trying to find the best strain for slam rather than telling opener he has extras or not at that level of auction. So I kinda like the suggestion by Marklaf.

[Cyberyeti]

I do not like the idea of 4♠ showing extras when both opener and responder made only 1 bid regarding their strain and they are already at 3 NT. Imo opener should assume the responder is minimum and trying to find the best strain for slam rather than telling opener he has extras or not at that level of auction. So I kinda like the suggestion by Marklaf.

 

It's also complicated for us in that I'm wondering whether 4♠ would be interpreted as this hand type, we play kickback in most auctions, so not sure what I'd bid with a hand with a long heart suit that just wants to ask aces, I suppose I can bid a forcing 4♥, but I wouldn't be surprised if we got this wrong.