[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

---

How would you and your partner bid these in either SAYC or 2/1?

[matmat]

fortunately for me, hands like this are systemically forbidden in all my partnerships.

[hotShot]

How about something like that:
1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4♣
4♦ - 5♣
6♣

[ArtK78]

These are both possible sequences:

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4♣ (has to be natural - already in a game forcing auction)
4♦ - 4♥
5♣ - 6♣

Or

1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - 4♣
4♦ - 5♣
6♣

Of course, there are plenty of places along the way where one of the partners might chicken out. I really don't see any reason why anyone would ever mention notrump.

[gnasher]

1♠-2♥
3♦-3♥
4♦-4♥
pass

Sorry, was I supposed to work out what the best contract was before deciding how to bid it?

[Free]

gnasher, on May 22 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

1♠-2♥
3♦-3♥
4♦-4♥
pass

Sorry, was I supposed to work out what the best contract was before deciding how to bid it?

Are you kidding??? After partner shows extra's you're going to settle for 4♥ with North's hand and not even try for slam?

[Simplicity]

Maybe:

1♠-2♥
3♦-3♥
4♦-6♣

first 5 bids seem fairly reasonable to me, the last is a big guess and i'm unsure of my table action

[neilkaz]

Free, on May 22 2008, 02:45 AM, said:

gnasher, on May 22 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

1♠-2♥
3♦-3♥
4♦-4♥
pass

Sorry, was I supposed to work out what the best contract was before deciding how to bid it?

Are you kidding??? After partner shows extra's you're going to settle for 4♥ with North's hand and not even try for slam?

Yes, but this looks like a huge missfit and not everyone who plays 2/1 GF plays the 3♦ rebid as showing extra values. (ie I have an expert friend's notes open in front of me right now..he and his pd play in some reasonably high level events, but aren't top strata and he just bids out opener's shape). I don't agree with his method and don't rebid 2NT when 5332 with not even an inkling of a stop in an unbid suit (worse yet ♣) but some players bid 2/1 this way.

I applaude gnasher for his courage in making sure not to be lured into even slightly resulting the hand based upon seeing his pd's cards, and for showing how he'd bid it at the table !

[Free]

neilkaz, on May 22 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

Free, on May 22 2008, 02:45 AM, said:

gnasher, on May 22 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

1♠-2♥
3♦-3♥
4♦-4♥
pass

Sorry, was I supposed to work out what the best contract was before deciding how to bid it?

Are you kidding??? After partner shows extra's you're going to settle for 4♥ with North's hand and not even try for slam?

Yes, but this looks like a huge missfit and not everyone who plays 2/1 GF plays the 3♦ rebid as showing extra values. (ie I have an expert friend's notes open in front of me right now..he and his pd play in some reasonably high level events, but aren't top strata and he just bids out opener's shape). I don't agree with his method and don't rebid 2NT when 5332 with not even an inkling of a stop in an unbid suit (worse yet ♣) but some players bid 2/1 this way.

I applaude gnasher for his courage in making sure not to be lured into even slightly resulting the hand based upon seeing his pd's cards, and for showing how he'd bid it at the table !

Yes some people play 3♦ as not showing extra's, but that's not standard, and also not expert standard. So I guess we may assume that 3♦ shows extra's...

[neilkaz]

Simplicity, on May 22 2008, 05:56 AM, said:

Maybe:

1♠-2♥
3♦-3♥
4♦-6♣

first 5 bids seem fairly reasonable to me, the last is a big guess and i'm unsure of my table action

Big guess indeed ? Pardon me, but how can you be sure that PD has even 2 ♣ on this sequence ? Yes he'd have raise ♥ with two and perhaps even with a stiff K here, but are you certain he isn't 6-6 ? Would you stake your life on the fact the he'd open 1♦ with 6 ♦ and a super 5 carder in ♠ ?

Why not 5♣ ? Is that a Q for ♦ ? Some might play it as such, noting the difficulty of continuing after some likely responses to RKCB for ♦ using 4NT.

Tough hand here, huge missfit, but I couldn't gamble on 6♣ on this sequence.

[Free]

Hehe 6♣ is deep indeed. But I think it's fair to say that partner has 3 cards in ♥ and ♣. With a 6-5 or 6-6, p would've bid 3♠ instead of 4♦, while with a 5♠-6♦ he would've opened 1♦. So basically only 5-5 is left.

[neilkaz]

Free, on May 22 2008, 09:39 AM, said:

neilkaz, on May 22 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

Free, on May 22 2008, 02:45 AM, said:

gnasher, on May 22 2008, 08:41 AM, said:

1♠-2♥
3♦-3♥
4♦-4♥
pass

Sorry, was I supposed to work out what the best contract was before deciding how to bid it?

Are you kidding??? After partner shows extra's you're going to settle for 4♥ with North's hand and not even try for slam?

Yes, but this looks like a huge missfit and not everyone who plays 2/1 GF plays the 3♦ rebid as showing extra values. (ie I have an expert friend's notes open in front of me right now..he and his pd play in some reasonably high level events, but aren't top strata and he just bids out opener's shape). I don't agree with his method and don't rebid 2NT when 5332 with not even an inkling of a stop in an unbid suit (worse yet ♣) but some players bid 2/1 this way.

I applaude gnasher for his courage in making sure not to be lured into even slightly resulting the hand based upon seeing his pd's cards, and for showing how he'd bid it at the table !

Yes some people play 3♦ as not showing extra's, but that's not standard, and also not expert standard. So I guess we may assume that 3♦ shows extra's...

Good , Free, we agree on expert standard and 3♦ is extras, so what's your call on gnasher's given auction after 4♦ ?

Never mind that you might not have bid 3♥ on the second turn, can your partnership safely unwind and get to 6♣ is his given sequence where you can no longer bid 4♣ ?

[Free]

neilkaz, on May 22 2008, 03:44 PM, said:

Good , Free, we agree on expert standard and 3♦ is extras, so what's your call on gnasher's given auction after 4♦ ?

Never mind that you might not have bid 3♥ on the second turn, can your partnership safely unwind and get to 6♣ is his given sequence where you can no longer bid 4♣ ?

Safely? No

[Simplicity]

neilkaz, on May 22 2008, 09:40 AM, said:

Simplicity, on May 22 2008, 05:56 AM, said:

Maybe:

1♠-2♥
3♦-3♥
4♦-6♣

first 5 bids seem fairly reasonable to me, the last is a big guess and i'm unsure of my table action

Big guess indeed ? Pardon me, but how can you be sure that PD has even 2 ♣ on this sequence ? Yes he'd have raise ♥ with two and perhaps even with a stiff K here, but are you certain he isn't 6-6 ? Would you stake your life on the fact the he'd open 1♦ with 6 ♦ and a super 5 carder in ♠ ?

Why not 5♣ ? Is that a Q for ♦ ? Some might play it as such, noting the difficulty of continuing after some likely responses to RKCB for ♦ using 4NT.

Tough hand here, huge missfit, but I couldn't gamble on 6♣ on this sequence.

With a 6-6 partner will remove to 6♦ and i'll correct to 6♠ where we'll play and i'll hope for the best. And yes in my partnerships i'd be 100% confident my man had spades at least at long as diamonds. If you had a super 5 card spade suit why would you make yourself reverse at the 3 level when you can do it at the 2 level? I could understand someone wanting to get the major in when they feel too weak to reverse, but the other way around?

5♣ would indeed not be natural for me and i'm taking a gamble that slam is there, but i've no other way to show my hand, partner will probably figure me to be 6-5 or 7-5 and act accordingly.

[neilkaz]

Excellent reply, Simplicity ! And as you all see, I am not trying to criticize this very difficult hand and sequence am just provoking your thoughts !

[Simplicity]

Jlall, on May 22 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

For people who play that new suits at the 4 level are never natural in uncontested auctions (or some similar rule), and especially the 4th suit, is this a reasonable auction for an exception to be made or no? If no what is the difference between 4C and 4D. I guess I could see 4C as a stronger bid than 4D, actually I think thats how I'd take it at the table.

I wouldn't take this bid a natural without prior discussion, although I logically that could easily be a better treatment. This auction and analogously 1♥-1♠-3♦ do as you say having forcing raises available and 4♣ natural could be useful.

At the table I would simply take the view that 4♦ is either a weaker raise, or one without a club cue available

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on May 22 2008, 02:42 PM, said:

4C natural goes against all of my general partnership rules but I also don't see any reason why it should be artificial (since it's being bid after a minor which you can raise in a forcing manner below game). Guess I should ask my partner's about it, but at the table I bet they would have thought I was cuebidding for diamonds.

4C here would be interpreted by my partners as "I don't know what to bid but I'm too strong to bid 3NT or 4NT"

It must imply some club length, because you are implying that you can't bid anything else naturally, but I don't think it has to have extreme length. What would you bid on

A
AQJxx
KQx
KQxx

?

[FrancesHinden]

Jlall, on May 22 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

For people who play that new suits at the 4 level are never natural in uncontested auctions (or some similar rule), and especially the 4th suit, is this a reasonable auction for an exception to be made or no? If no what is the difference between 4C and 4D. I guess I could see 4C as a stronger bid than 4D, actually I think thats how I'd take it at the table.

I do.
In fact, I have a general rule that 4th suit is never natural {and then some specific exceptions to that rule}.

I have a twofold answer:
i) Possibly this is an exception
ii) But I'm not going to make it one, I've never actually had this auction and this problem so it must be pretty rare, and if I do agree this one of us will forget.