Christmas Bridge

[Tramticket]

[hv=pc=n&n=sqXXXXXhkXXXXdtXc&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1sp4cd]133|200[/hv]

 

You are playing an Individual at your club's Christmas party, with aggregate scoring. There is a tendency for players to take these events less seriously, but this can be shown to be based on false logic: there are real (alcoholic) prizes for winning the Christmas Bridge session. All you get for winning a normal session is a few pointless master points. The true connoisseur knows that we are now faced with a crucial decision in a strange auction!

 

Bid or pass?

[pescetom]

A Christmas party is supposed to be enjoyed, not analysed :)

But what is 4♣ here, natural non-forcing and sober?

[Tramticket]

It is an individual. No agreements other than very basic.

 

The bid was sober, if not the player :)

[pescetom]

It is an individual. No agreements other than very basic.

 

The bid was sober, if not the player :)

 

In that case I would trust the bid, not the player. So pass, especially if aggregate is some kind of total points and you want to survive the post-mortem.

I would probably have bid 2♠ if that is weak.

Good luck now :)

[ggwhiz]

This has the makings of a disaster. Why would I want to declare it?

 

Besides, someone can turn the dummy for me while I go to the bar.

[The_Badger]

4♣. Ah, it's Key Card Gerberwood at Xmas. XX says I have a void in the suit and less controls than Turbo :)

 

Btw who wants a bottle of Blue Nun wine anyway?

[smerriman]

Without the double I would have bid 4♠ since the only definition I know of 4♣ includes spade support.

 

With the double, it seems I can just pass and find out what partner thought it meant.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=sqXXXXXhkXXXXdtXc&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1sp4cd]133|200| Tramticket writes "You are playing an Individual at your club's Christmas party, with aggregate scoring. There is a tendency for players to take these events less seriously, but this can be shown to be based on false logic: there are real (alcoholic) prizes for winning the Christmas Bridge session. All you get for winning a normal session is a few pointless master points. The true connoisseur knows that we are now faced with a crucial decision in a strange auction! Bid or pass?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I rank

1. 4♥ = CUE (or NAT)

2. 4♠ = NAT 4♣ must show a ♠ fit.

3. Pass = NAT. Partner might assume you have some ♣s so this might be a disaster.

He probably has something like ♠ A K J x x ♥ x x ♦ - ♣ K Q x x x x x

And your RHO has the remaining ♣s

4. Pass slowly would probably work but might not be an ethical option.[/hv]

[Tramticket]

Without the double I would have bid 4♠ since the only definition I know of 4♣ includes spade support.

 

This is the key to why I asked the question. If you are playing with an unfamiliar (but competent) partner and the rules are "no conventions except those listed" (including: Stayman, Red Suit Transfers, Blackwood)", can you assume spade support?

[P_Marlowe]

This is the key to why I asked the question. If you are playing with an unfamiliar (but competent) partner and the rules are "no conventions except those listed" (including: Stayman, Red Suit Transfers, Blackwood)", can you assume spade support?

The question is, is this is a convention? The meaning may predate all of your given examples.

Partner is competent, but unfamiliar, ..., I would go with 4S.

[sfi]

This is the key to why I asked the question. If you are playing with an unfamiliar (but competent) partner and the rules are "no conventions except those listed" (including: Stayman, Red Suit Transfers, Blackwood)", can you assume spade support?

 

In my experience, that depends on where you are. In the US I would assume spade support; in Australia not so much.

[Tramticket]

In my experience, that depends on where you are. In the US I would assume spade support; in Australia not so much.

 

I suspect that Britain is closer to Australia on this - I only came across the concept a few years ago.

[pescetom]

The question is, is this is a convention? The meaning may predate all of your given examples.

 

A fit showing jump is unquestionably a convention and not even a particularly well known one (don't try it at our Christmas Party). Google says it was first documented in 1993 by Andrew Robson. I wouldn't be surprised if it was played before that, but it would certainly have raised a few eyebrows back in 1933 when Blackwood was published.

[The_Badger]

A fit showing jump is unquestionably a convention and not even a particularly well known one (don't try it at our Christmas Party). Google says it was first documented in 1993 by Andrew Robson. I wouldn't be surprised if it was played before that, but it would certainly have raised a few eyebrows back in 1933 when Blackwood was published.

 

Well known to ol' Badgerzone here. Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal: Partnership Bidding at Bridge, The Contested Auction. Published in 1993 by Faber and Faber. Undoubtedly, in my opinion, one of the top ten bridge books ever published. Was quite difficult to get a few years back, but there are now copies available on Amazon.

[P_Marlowe]

A fit showing jump is unquestionably a convention and not even a particularly well known one (don't try it at our Christmas Party). Google says it was first documented in 1993 by Andrew Robson. I wouldn't be surprised if it was played before that, but it would certainly have raised a few eyebrows back in 1933 when Blackwood was published.

I agree, that fit jumps are a convention, but the meaning of the auction

 

1m - 1M

4m

 

is quite old, the question was always, opener was not able to open a strong 2

and now gets crazy, why? because he found a fit. My guess is, that this is a

meaning S.J. Simon would have known, the given reasoning may even be his.

[pescetom]

4♣. Ah, it's Key Card Gerberwood at Xmas. XX says I have a void in the suit and less controls than Turbo :)

Badgerzone humour is less surreal than it may seem... change the 1♠ to 1♦ and we play that 4♣ is Key Card Crosswood and XX says I have an an odd number without the Queen :)

[pescetom]

I agree, that fit jumps are a convention, but the meaning of the auction

 

1m - 1M

4m

 

is quite old, the question was always, opener was not able to open a strong 2

and now gets crazy, why? because he found a fit. My guess is, that this is a

meaning S.J. Simon would have known, the given reasoning may even be his.

 

I think the natural meaning is still highly invitational in the minor - by inference 7+ cards with no fit in the major and no interest in NT. I agree that this is so unlikely to be useful that it is tempting to assign a conventional meaning, and promising 3-card support or showing a fit too important for a non-forcing jump raise are obvious candidates. Simon was one of the most imaginative players of his day (playing "Stayman" before Sam knew of it) so who knows (unless he actually wrote about it, of course).

[gszes]

chances of slam seem too remote with our void opposite the club suit now if the bidding had been 1d 1s 4d I would bid 4h as a cue but as it is I see little alternative to 4s.

[Tramticket]

South's hand was ♠A ♥- ♦KQ8X ♣AT9XXXXX

 

10 tricks was the limit of the hand - and that needed sub-optimal defence.

[pescetom]

South's hand was ♠A ♥- ♦KQ8X ♣AT9XXXXX

 

10 tricks doubled should have helped towards the booze prizes.

 

I would have sympathy with a 2♦ rebid.

[gszes]

South's hand was ♠A ♥- ♦KQ8X ♣AT9XXXXX

 

10 tricks was the limit of the hand - and that needed sub-optimal defence.

we can see why 4c natural (vs a spade raise) is not helpful. There is little to no way responder can judge well what to do and it takes up a huge amount of space while bypassing a (possibly) vastly more lucrative 3n for no good reason. I am closer to a 2c bid than a natural 4c bid and do not have too much heartache for 3c bidders. 2d is interesting but can lead to disastrous results if responder has a decent hand and will not keep quiet.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&&wn=Ian Morrison&en=David Liggat&w=sqj32hakqj32dcQ32&e=sakt4h54d5432ca54&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp1sp4h(FIT)p5c(CUE)p5n(GSF must be for !S)P7h(2 tops)p7s(Correction)ppp]266|200|

More than 50 years, ago, on a hand like this, 2 top Scottish players produced this succinct sequence.

The Sharples brothers had already established that a 4-level jump rebid promised a fit in responder's suit.

Ian and David probably didn't have that agreement but arrived at that useful understanding, by Bridge logic.[/hv]