[jillybean]

---

Help us come to an agreement on style here!

[mike777]

I will try 3h after 2s....sometimes pard may be able show the AC or AD.

Will rebid 4s if pard rebids 3s.

[Siegmund]

Looks like a normal auction to me. As South I'd feel I had underbid slightly with only-2-spades.

I suppose 3H by North at second turn is legally an option -- ostensibly a game try in spades asking about heart quality but implying a double fit to give South a choice of games -- but I wouldnt bother, slam looking like it's completely out of the question from where North sits, and it probably carries a lot more risk of getting dumped in 3H if South has a minimum and thinks he has been offered a choice of partscores than it has chance of uncovering a surprise cuebid from South. (Bonus question: if it does go 1H-1S-2S-3H-4C, which suit did we agree as trumps? Or do you play a six-ace version of Blackwood in this type of auction?)

Did you have a particular question about the hand, jilly? (If you also had a 3-card GF raise like 1H-pass-3NT available, I would have started with 1S anyway without both minors stopped.)

[jillybean]

Hi Gordon. I felt that North should show the ♥ fit at some stage and that 4♠ was premature.

As for 1♥:1♠ 2♠:3♥ 4♣ I would assume ♠ were trump.
What is correct?

[Siegmund]

What's correct is you and your partner giving the same answer to the question. There is IMO a clear right answer in an auction where GF is established but suit isnt yet agreed (e.g. after 1N-2D-2H-3D, 4C should clearly cue for diamonds while 3H sets trumps as hearts and tells partner to start cuebidding) but 1H-1S-2S-3H-3S doesn't do that.

Getting back to the actual hand, some people put a lot of effort into making choice-of-games auctions available. That's not a bad thing in an established semi-expert partnership. But in a newish or less regular partnership I am a big believer in "if a major has been bid and raised, it is trumps, all further discussion is only about how high we're going." If a minor has been bid and raised, the space between 3m and 3NT is still available to discuss notrump or make a delayed raise of a major (1H-2D-3D-3H = hearts are trump; 1H-2D-3D-3S = if we're going to have a trump suit it is going to be spades, but 3NT may still be the final contract). Not optimal in the world championship I am sure but it guarantees no expensive accidents. It's the style I would assume is in effect with a pickup partner, and even with a regular partner unless and until we've specifically discussed which auctions are COG.


As an extra bonus, if we have a choice we'll take the 4-4 fit over the 5-3 fit (and 1H-1S-2S often is a 4-4 fit in spades while hearts never is), so in this particular auction, always picking spades is going to be right more often than not.

[Cascade]

The auction looks normal and standard to me.

Unless you are willing to game force raise with three trumps then bidding 1♠ is completely normal.

After a spade fit has been found with soft minor suit cards bidding anything other than 4♠ is more likely to give the opponents useful information than to help your side get to a better contract than 4♠.

[Hanoi5]

jillybean, on 2010-December-27, 21:26, said:

Hi Gordon. I felt that North should show the ♥ fit at some stage and that 4♠ was premature.

As for 1♥:1♠ 2♠:3♥ 4♣ I would assume ♠ were trump.
What is correct?

Isn't a 5-4 fit better than a 5-3 fit? What I would change from the given auction is that I'd cue-bid diamonds on my way to 4♠ but then I'd get a club lead...

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on 2010-December-28, 01:21, said:

The auction looks normal and standard to me.

Unless you are willing to game force raise with three trumps then bidding 1♠ is completely normal.

After a spade fit has been found with soft minor suit cards bidding anything other than 4♠ is more likely to give the opponents useful information than to help your side get to a better contract than 4♠.

Heartily agree with Wayne's post

The costs of a more complex auction outweigh the benefits

[Fluffy]

There is no point on bidding 3♥ if you don't have any slam ambitions.

On your auctio 1♥-1♠-2♠-3♥-4♣. First of all, 2♠ is 100% 8 card fit for me so I won't have some problems others find, also 3♥ is 100% 3+ cards, so if we latter have a blackwood sequence it will be 6 keycard blackwood.

On thi particular hand you did very well, I am pretty sure I would play at the 5 level or higher with south bidding 3 or 4 spades, not 2.

[jillybean]

Hanoi5, on 2010-December-28, 06:53, said:

Isn't a 5-4 fit better than a 5-3 fit? What I would change from the given auction is that I'd cue-bid diamonds on my way to 4♠ but then I'd get a club lead...

Yes a 5-4 fit is better than a 5-3 fit but is it better than a 6-3 or 7-3 fit? Partner does not know the shape of openers hand, I would have shown ♥ support in this auction, obviously not standard practice.

[kenrexford]

IMO (a fringe "O" admittedly), this problem is best handled by way of a fudgy 2♣ response.

With 5♠/3♥ and GF values, after a 1♥ opening, I STRONGLY prefer a 2♣ response, to set the GF.

If Opener rebids 2♥, then (in my approach to 2/1 GF, which is critical to the analysis, perhaps) he does not have four spades OR he has 6-4. Therefore, we agree hearts as PROBABLY the right contract. Sure, we might end up in a 6-3 heart fit rather than a 5-4 spade fit when partner's handling of the 6-4 hand is ♥♥♠ rather than ♥♠♥, but at least GF is established.

When Opener has 5♥/4♠, we get to the right strain anyway (1♥-2♣-2♠-3♠), with GF established and room to cue.

When Opener lacks four spades, we end up in hearts with a GF. Sure, we might end up in a 5-3 heart strain instead of a 3-5 spade strain, and the 3-5 spade strain might be ideal, but that cost seems outweighed by the benefits, IMO.

[Phil]

Why wouldn't I want to protect my ♦K?

The auction is fine!

[Siegmund]

Quote

Yes a 5-4 fit is better than a 5-3 fit but is it better than a 6-3 or 7-3 fit?

As long as you have plenty of entries, yes, for most of the same reasons 4-4 is better than 5-3: the unevenly divided side suit provides more pitches, and a dummy reversal might be possible with the evenly divided trump suit.

If it's a choice between 5-3 and 7-1, you may have to pick the 7-1 for fear of being unable to reach the 7 once it's established if you run out of trumps in that hand.

[jillybean]

kenrexford, on 2010-December-28, 12:36, said:

IMO (a fringe "O" admittedly), this problem is best handled by way of a fudgy 2♣ response.

I like 2♣ artifcial gf very much. The trouble with the way I play it, opener would need K more than minimum to 'reverse' into 2♠ after 2♣ so would bid 2♥ in this auction.

I realise that this doesn't prove anything, other than possibly the players in this tournament were inexperienced however, 10 pairs played this board in 4♥, 5 in 4♠ and 1 in nt.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

jillybean, on 2010-December-28, 13:23, said:

I like 2♣ artifcial gf very much. The trouble with the way I play it, opener would need K more than minimum to 'reverse' into 2♠ after 2♣ so would bid 2♥ in this auction.

I realise that this doesn't prove anything, other than possibly the players in this tournament were inexperienced however, 10 pairs played this board in 4♥, 5 in 4♠ and 1 in nt.

I'm also interested in Ken's 2C! method = Cl or 3+ Ht support.[EDIT: probably just 3h support because with 4h, Responder would make a GF raise using his favorite "modified" Jac2NT system ].
[ He has posted the "thought" before, but I don't know the followups ].
;
I also appreciate the Opener's concern about showing his 4 cards Sp...[EDIT: ...because the immediate bid of 2S over 2C does not distinguish between a minimum opener and one with "extras"].

Eventho Opener does not know about Responder's Sp, I think you could devise a scheme where Opener could at least show his 4 cards Sp ( 4s) in TWO different ways:

1H - 2C!
??
.. 2H! = minimum w/4s or
.. 2S! = extras w/4s

and with NO 4s :
1H - 2C!
??
.. 2D! = minimum and NO 4s
.. 2NT! = extras and NO 4s

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2011-January-01, 08:55

[han]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2010-December-28, 17:37, said:

[ He has posted the "thought" before, but I don't know the followups ].

He has written a book about it.

jillybean, on 2010-December-28, 13:23, said:

I like 2♣ artifcial gf very much. The trouble with the way I play it, opener would need K more than minimum to 'reverse' into 2♠ after 2♣.

If you bid 2C and then 2S, you show more clubs than spades. So most importantly, you are 3 clubs short for that route.

Ken would bid 2C planning to raise hearts unless opener introduces spades. I think that on some other hands that would be a good idea. However, I think that it would be a very bad idea for a beginner/intermediate partnership to adopt Ken's methods. (if you are not convinced, try reading his book)

[jillybean]

han, on 2010-December-29, 04:53, said:

He has written a book about it.



If you bid 2C and then 2S, you show more clubs than spades. So most importantly, you are 3 clubs short for that route.

Ken would bid 2C planning to raise hearts unless opener introduces spades. I think that on some other hands that would be a good idea. However, I think that it would be a very bad idea for a beginner/intermediate partnership to adopt Ken's methods. (if you are not convinced, try reading his book)

Han, it's not me who is bidding 2♣(in Ken's system), it is reponder with 5♠ amd 3♥.
The way we play 2/1 auctions is that a new,higher level suit rebid by opener(a "reverse")shows a King more than minimum. So I was poiting out that on this hand I would bid 2♥, not 2♠ and never discover the double fit. If I did have a K+ I would bid 2♠.

Our 2♣/1x bid shows a game forcing hand with either ♣, 3 card support for partners M, or a balanced hand that will bid NT next.

[JLOGIC]

With this exact north hand I think bidding 1S might be right even if you bid 2C in general with this hand type. That is because if we have 2 5-3 fits we probably want to play in spades to protect our hand (Kxx of diamonds, Qx of clubs).

Oops sorry this is beginner/int, ken got me again! Well I wouldn't worry about bidding 2C then, 1S is normal. I think bidding 4S is expert for the same reason though, north wants to play spades no matter what in order to rightside the hand.

Personally the only questionable bid in my mind is 2S.

[jillybean]

JLOGIC, on 2010-December-29, 12:58, said:

With this exact north hand I think bidding 1S might be right even if you bid 2C in general with this hand type. That is because if we have 2 5-3 fits we probably want to play in spades to protect our hand (Kxx of diamonds, Qx of clubs).

Oops sorry this is beginner/int, ken got me again! Well I wouldn't worry about bidding 2C then, 1S is normal. I think bidding 4S is expert for the same reason though, north wants to play spades no matter what in order to rightside the hand.

Personally the only questionable bid in my mind is 2S.

LOL Ok, care to elaborate? I have nice shape and my ♠suit is good but my ♥'s are ratty.
Would you bid 3♠ with this?

[JLOGIC]

jillybean, on 2010-December-29, 14:30, said:

LOL Ok, care to elaborate? I have nice shape and my ♠suit is good but my ♥'s are ratty.
Would you bid 3♠ with this?

What is "lol" about my statement. You bid to the best contract and asked for comments. I said only one bid is questionable, 2S. What is the problem? If you know everything there is to know about this hand that you feel the need to "lol" at my response to your thread, why bother posting it?