missed slam

[a***@yahoo.co.uk]

First board of the evening with an unfamiliar partner:

MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.

West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762

1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P

Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

[ais523]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the
dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT.
Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think
the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could
East have done more?

To me, this looks like partnership confusion over what 2C means. There's
no way East should stop short of slam unless West shows a minimum (and
West has rather more than a minimum; as you say, this is only slightly
short of a strong jump shift). Does 3NT show a minimum? I don't see how
it logically can, /unless/ 2C is game-forcing. (Maybe your partner
thought 2C was a game force and you were showing a minimum, and you
thought it was a one-round force and were showing a maximum; I've had
that sort of accident before in new partnerships.)

For what it's worth, this sort of situation is why nearly all bidding
systems will have a game force in them somewhere (although the details
vary from system to system). As soon as you show the fifth diamond
(which, unfortunately, the 1S bid might not in a five-card-major system;
it would when playing four-card majors), East has enough to at least
explore slam in diamonds, even over a minimum opening bid; as soon as
you show more than minimum strength, East has enough to at least explore
slam in no-trumps. A game force (by either player, but probably
responder on this hand) would give you enough time to show that without
worrying about being passed out below game.

[[e-mail]]

Post by ais523

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the
dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT.
Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think
the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could
East have done more?

To me, this looks like partnership confusion over what 2C means. There's
no way East should stop short of slam unless West shows a minimum (and
West has rather more than a minimum; as you say, this is only slightly
short of a strong jump shift). Does 3NT show a minimum? I don't see how
it logically can, /unless/ 2C is game-forcing. (Maybe your partner
thought 2C was a game force and you were showing a minimum, and you
thought it was a one-round force and were showing a maximum; I've had
that sort of accident before in new partnerships.)
For what it's worth, this sort of situation is why nearly all bidding
systems will have a game force in them somewhere (although the details
vary from system to system). As soon as you show the fifth diamond
(which, unfortunately, the 1S bid might not in a five-card-major system;
it would when playing four-card majors), East has enough to at least
explore slam in diamonds, even over a minimum opening bid; as soon as
you show more than minimum strength, East has enough to at least explore
slam in no-trumps. A game force (by either player, but probably
responder on this hand) would give you enough time to show that without
worrying about being passed out below game.
--
ais523

you seem to assume that game forcing means receptive to slam interest. East would certainly insist on game without the D Q.

Carl

[ais523]

Post by ***@verizon.net
you seem to assume that game forcing means receptive to slam interest.
East would certainly insist on game without the D Q.

You're falling into the trap of trying to find slam only by counting 12
tricks in the individual hands. Although being able to count 12
tricks guarantees a slam, there's another way to get there: often, you
can have no idea where the tricks are going to come from, and yet know
that the combined strength of the hands are enough that they'll almost
definitely come from somewhere.

On a raw HCP count, West has 18 HCP, East has 16 HCP. Regardless of how
well the hands fit, and regardless of how those HCP are distributed
within the hand, it's very likely that at least twelve tricks are
makable in some strain, even if you don't know in advance where you're
going to find them. In deals with 34HCP in one partnership, it's
overwhelmingly likely that that partnership has a slam somewhere, even
given no other information about the hand. Sometimes you just have to
try for slam based on sheer strength (which is, I suspect, why most of
the rest of the field were in 6NT, even though most of them may not
have had sophisticated methods).

Now look at it from West's point of view: you have 18 HCP (OK, part of
it is a singleton Queen, so your hand isn't as strong as a normal 18-HCP
hand), you haven't shown any additional strength yet, you hear a game
force from partner - and it isn't a jump to game, it shows doubt about
the strain. OK, so the game force can't be a gamble based on a long suit
(then the partner /would/ know the strain), it must be general strength.
At this point, it doesn't in the least matter whether East had slam in
mind or not: you're something like two Kings stronger than you could be
(and as partner has shown strength, and has bid your singleton suit, the
singleton Q is likely to be actually valuable). Even if East is
completely minimum for their game force, slam has to be worth trying
for. Perhaps the partnership has only 30 HCP and no fit, who cares,
you're still almost always going to make at least 11 tricks even in
that situation, so going beyond game has to be safe. You have to at
least make a slam /try/: that doesn't commit your side to slam, just
shows you're trying for it. Then partner, who's also considerably above
minimum, is going to accept.

One problem with this style of bidding is that you tend to miss grand
slams (being much more likely to stop at a small slam), but on these
hands the grand is only a little better than 50:50 anyway, so it's no
big loss.

[[e-mail]]

Post by ais523

Post by ***@verizon.net
you seem to assume that game forcing means receptive to slam interest.
East would certainly insist on game without the D Q.

You're falling into the trap of trying to find slam only by counting 12
tricks in the individual hands. Although being able to count 12
tricks guarantees a slam, there's another way to get there: often, you
can have no idea where the tricks are going to come from, and yet know
that the combined strength of the hands are enough that they'll almost
definitely come from somewhere.
On a raw HCP count, West has 18 HCP, East has 16 HCP. Regardless of how
well the hands fit, and regardless of how those HCP are distributed
within the hand, it's very likely that at least twelve tricks are
makable in some strain, even if you don't know in advance where you're
going to find them. In deals with 34HCP in one partnership, it's
overwhelmingly likely that that partnership has a slam somewhere, even
given no other information about the hand. Sometimes you just have to
try for slam based on sheer strength (which is, I suspect, why most of
the rest of the field were in 6NT, even though most of them may not
have had sophisticated methods).
Now look at it from West's point of view: you have 18 HCP (OK, part of
it is a singleton Queen, so your hand isn't as strong as a normal 18-HCP
hand), you haven't shown any additional strength yet, you hear a game
force from partner - and it isn't a jump to game, it shows doubt about
the strain. OK, so the game force can't be a gamble based on a long suit
(then the partner /would/ know the strain), it must be general strength.
At this point, it doesn't in the least matter whether East had slam in
mind or not: you're something like two Kings stronger than you could be
(and as partner has shown strength, and has bid your singleton suit, the
singleton Q is likely to be actually valuable). Even if East is
completely minimum for their game force, slam has to be worth trying
for. Perhaps the partnership has only 30 HCP and no fit, who cares,
you're still almost always going to make at least 11 tricks even in
that situation, so going beyond game has to be safe. You have to at
least make a slam /try/: that doesn't commit your side to slam, just
shows you're trying for it. Then partner, who's also considerably above
minimum, is going to accept.
One problem with this style of bidding is that you tend to miss grand
slams (being much more likely to stop at a small slam), but on these
hands the grand is only a little better than 50:50 anyway, so it's no
big loss.
--
ais523

What unambiguous slam try does W have in a pick-up partnership?

Carl

[ais523]

[context: 1D, 1H; 1S, 2C; 3NT, West dealer]

Post by ***@verizon.net
What unambiguous slam try does W have in a pick-up partnership?

It depends on the meaning of 2C, which really ought to have been agreed
even in a pickup partnership (this is something I ask about in all my
pickup partnerships due to accidents in the past). This is why I think a
misunderstanding over the meaning of 2C is the reason the slam was
missed.

If 2C is game forcing, then 2NT...4NT would be an unambiguous way to
make a slam try (and the game-forcing nature of 2NT means that it won't
be passed out).

If 2C is not game forcing, then West doesn't have enough to go beyond
game, but West does have enough to jump to 3NT (and actually did at
the table), at which point East (who has 8 to 10 points more than
previously shown - a non-game-forcing 2C could be made on around 6 to 8
points) should make a slam try.

[[e-mail]]

Post by ais523

Post by ***@verizon.net
you seem to assume that game forcing means receptive to slam interest.
East would certainly insist on game without the D Q.

You're falling into the trap of trying to find slam only by counting 12
tricks in the individual hands. Although being able to count 12
tricks guarantees a slam, there's another way to get there: often, you
can have no idea where the tricks are going to come from, and yet know
that the combined strength of the hands are enough that they'll almost
definitely come from somewhere.
On a raw HCP count, West has 18 HCP, East has 16 HCP. Regardless of how
well the hands fit, and regardless of how those HCP are distributed
within the hand, it's very likely that at least twelve tricks are
makable in some strain, even if you don't know in advance where you're
going to find them. In deals with 34HCP in one partnership, it's
overwhelmingly likely that that partnership has a slam somewhere, even
given no other information about the hand. Sometimes you just have to
try for slam based on sheer strength (which is, I suspect, why most of
the rest of the field were in 6NT, even though most of them may not
have had sophisticated methods).
Now look at it from West's point of view: you have 18 HCP (OK, part of
it is a singleton Queen, so your hand isn't as strong as a normal 18-HCP
hand), you haven't shown any additional strength yet, you hear a game
force from partner - and it isn't a jump to game, it shows doubt about
the strain. OK, so the game force can't be a gamble based on a long suit
(then the partner /would/ know the strain), it must be general strength.
At this point, it doesn't in the least matter whether East had slam in
mind or not: you're something like two Kings stronger than you could be
(and as partner has shown strength, and has bid your singleton suit, the
singleton Q is likely to be actually valuable). Even if East is
completely minimum for their game force, slam has to be worth trying
for. Perhaps the partnership has only 30 HCP and no fit, who cares,
you're still almost always going to make at least 11 tricks even in
that situation, so going beyond game has to be safe. You have to at
least make a slam /try/: that doesn't commit your side to slam, just
shows you're trying for it. Then partner, who's also considerably above
minimum, is going to accept.
One problem with this style of bidding is that you tend to miss grand
slams (being much more likely to stop at a small slam), but on these
hands the grand is only a little better than 50:50 anyway, so it's no
big loss.
--
ais523

at W's 3rd bid, I mean.

Carl

[[e-mail]]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Wouldn't W have bid the same way without the H Q? A big card!

Certainly E would have bid the same without the D Q. A big card!

W's auction is unsolvable without special agreements.

The hand is certainly strong enough for 2H, but jumping in 4-card suit is a ticking time bomb. I myself would risk it in a pick-up partnership.

The big point is that if either had shown *any* slam interest, the other would have made sure slam was reached.

Carl

[Charles Brenner]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Wouldn't W have bid the same way without the H Q? A big card!

"Big card" seems an exaggeration. 6NT is a still a heavy favorite without it (for example spade finesse or break is good enough barring 5-0 diamonds), and 7NT inadequate even with it.

Post by ***@verizon.net
Certainly E would have bid the same without the D Q. A big card!

Similar objection. Without the D Q 6NT is home with a diamond break plus a winning finesse in diamonds or in spades -- that's already 68%x75% = 50+% -- or with both finesses plus diamonds 4-1 and spades 3-3.

So removing one or the other red queen missing doesn't change which contracts are desirable.

Post by ***@verizon.net
W's auction is unsolvable without special agreements.

East doesn't have to bid 6NT directly over 3NT, but can certainly afford to bid at least 4NT.

Post by ***@verizon.net
if either had shown *any* slam interest, the other would have made sure slam was reached.

Agree.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Wouldn't W have bid the same way without the H Q? A big card!

"Big card" seems an exaggeration. 6NT is a still a heavy favorite without it (for example spade finesse or break is good enough barring 5-0 diamonds), and 7NT inadequate even with it.

Post by ***@verizon.net
Certainly E would have bid the same without the D Q. A big card!

Similar objection. Without the D Q 6NT is home with a diamond break plus a winning finesse in diamonds or in spades -- that's already 68%x75% = 50+% -- or with both finesses plus diamonds 4-1 and spades 3-3.
So removing one or the other red queen missing doesn't change which contracts are desirable.

Post by ***@verizon.net
W's auction is unsolvable without special agreements.

East doesn't have to bid 6NT directly over 3NT, but can certainly afford to bid at least 4NT.

Post by ***@verizon.net
if either had shown *any* slam interest, the other would have made sure slam was reached.

Agree.

If you believe you can raise 3NT to 4 naturally in an unfamiliar partnership, you have led a sheltered life.

Carl

[Charles Brenner]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Wouldn't W have bid the same way without the H Q? A big card!

"Big card" seems an exaggeration. 6NT is a still a heavy favorite without it (for example spade finesse or break is good enough barring 5-0 diamonds), and 7NT inadequate even with it.

Post by ***@verizon.net
Certainly E would have bid the same without the D Q. A big card!

Similar objection. Without the D Q 6NT is home with a diamond break plus a winning finesse in diamonds or in spades -- that's already 68%x75% = 50+% -- or with both finesses plus diamonds 4-1 and spades 3-3.
So removing one or the other red queen missing doesn't change which contracts are desirable.

Post by ***@verizon.net
W's auction is unsolvable without special agreements.

East doesn't have to bid 6NT directly over 3NT, but can certainly afford to bid at least 4NT.

Post by ***@verizon.net
if either had shown *any* slam interest, the other would have made sure slam was reached.

Agree.

If you believe you can raise 3NT to 4 naturally in an unfamiliar partnership, you have led a sheltered life.

Long ago I played bridge for income so certainly had to cope with partners of zero sophistication. But playing competitively I have not been so generous with my time as to devote a session to a random beginner. To that extent I shelter. If offered to partner someone who tends not to see the best contract with all cards in view I would be reluctant to play.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Wouldn't W have bid the same way without the H Q? A big card!

"Big card" seems an exaggeration. 6NT is a still a heavy favorite without it (for example spade finesse or break is good enough barring 5-0 diamonds), and 7NT inadequate even with it.

Post by ***@verizon.net
Certainly E would have bid the same without the D Q. A big card!

Similar objection. Without the D Q 6NT is home with a diamond break plus a winning finesse in diamonds or in spades -- that's already 68%x75% = 50+% -- or with both finesses plus diamonds 4-1 and spades 3-3.
So removing one or the other red queen missing doesn't change which contracts are desirable.

Post by ***@verizon.net
W's auction is unsolvable without special agreements.

East doesn't have to bid 6NT directly over 3NT, but can certainly afford to bid at least 4NT.

Post by ***@verizon.net
if either had shown *any* slam interest, the other would have made sure slam was reached.

Agree.

If you believe you can raise 3NT to 4 naturally in an unfamiliar partnership, you have led a sheltered life.

Long ago I played bridge for income so certainly had to cope with partners of zero sophistication. But playing competitively I have not been so generous with my time as to devote a session to a random beginner. To that extent I shelter. If offered to partner someone who tends not to see the best contract with all cards in view I would be reluctant to play.

It is not only random beginners who fear to pass 1D - 1H ; 1S - 2C ; 3N - 4N .

After all, a stranger cannot be confident of *your* sophistication

Carl

[Charles Brenner]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Wouldn't W have bid the same way without the H Q? A big card!

"Big card" seems an exaggeration. 6NT is a still a heavy favorite without it (for example spade finesse or break is good enough barring 5-0 diamonds), and 7NT inadequate even with it.

Post by ***@verizon.net
Certainly E would have bid the same without the D Q. A big card!

Similar objection. Without the D Q 6NT is home with a diamond break plus a winning finesse in diamonds or in spades -- that's already 68%x75% = 50+% -- or with both finesses plus diamonds 4-1 and spades 3-3.
So removing one or the other red queen missing doesn't change which contracts are desirable.

Post by ***@verizon.net
W's auction is unsolvable without special agreements.

East doesn't have to bid 6NT directly over 3NT, but can certainly afford to bid at least 4NT.

Post by ***@verizon.net
if either had shown *any* slam interest, the other would have made sure slam was reached.

Agree.

If you believe you can raise 3NT to 4 naturally in an unfamiliar partnership, you have led a sheltered life.

Long ago I played bridge for income so certainly had to cope with partners of zero sophistication. But playing competitively I have not been so generous with my time as to devote a session to a random beginner. To that extent I shelter. If offered to partner someone who tends not to see the best contract with all cards in view I would be reluctant to play.

It is not only random beginners who fear to pass 1D - 1H ; 1S - 2C ; 3N - 4N .
After all, a stranger cannot be confident of *your* sophistication

When someone changes "unfamiliar partner" to stranger, and slips in "confident" as the necessary criterion for taking any action, I sense pointless argumentativeness.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Wouldn't W have bid the same way without the H Q? A big card!

"Big card" seems an exaggeration. 6NT is a still a heavy favorite without it (for example spade finesse or break is good enough barring 5-0 diamonds), and 7NT inadequate even with it.

Post by ***@verizon.net
Certainly E would have bid the same without the D Q. A big card!

Similar objection. Without the D Q 6NT is home with a diamond break plus a winning finesse in diamonds or in spades -- that's already 68%x75% = 50+% -- or with both finesses plus diamonds 4-1 and spades 3-3.
So removing one or the other red queen missing doesn't change which contracts are desirable.

Post by ***@verizon.net
W's auction is unsolvable without special agreements.

East doesn't have to bid 6NT directly over 3NT, but can certainly afford to bid at least 4NT.

Post by ***@verizon.net
if either had shown *any* slam interest, the other would have made sure slam was reached.

Agree.

If you believe you can raise 3NT to 4 naturally in an unfamiliar partnership, you have led a sheltered life.

Long ago I played bridge for income so certainly had to cope with partners of zero sophistication. But playing competitively I have not been so generous with my time as to devote a session to a random beginner. To that extent I shelter. If offered to partner someone who tends not to see the best contract with all cards in view I would be reluctant to play.

It is not only random beginners who fear to pass 1D - 1H ; 1S - 2C ; 3N - 4N .
After all, a stranger cannot be confident of *your* sophistication

When someone changes "unfamiliar partner" to stranger, and slips in "confident" as the necessary criterion for taking any action, I sense pointless argumentativeness.

nonsense

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Charles Brenner
When someone changes "unfamiliar partner" to stranger, and
slips in "confident" as the necessary criterion for taking
any action, I sense pointless argumentativeness.

nonsense

Q.e.d.

[Travis Crump]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Wouldn't W have bid the same way without the H Q? A big card!
Certainly E would have bid the same without the D Q. A big card!

I changed both queens to deuces and ran it double dummy. I got 71.3% in
6N out of 1000 trials. It is probably not that high single dummy, but it
has a lot of chances. I'd be surprised if it wasn't over 50%. Certainly
close enough that I've been in worse would apply.

Post by ***@verizon.net
W's auction is unsolvable without special agreements.
The hand is certainly strong enough for 2H, but jumping in 4-card suit is a ticking time bomb. I myself would risk it in a pick-up partnership.
The big point is that if either had shown *any* slam interest, the other would have made sure slam was reached.
Carl

[KWSchneider]

Made this exact mistake before - bidding 1S instead of 2N. Then after the 4th suit, 3N is unclear.

2N then responder will get to at least 6N.

[ais523]

Post by KWSchneider
Made this exact mistake before - bidding 1S instead of 2N. Then after
the 4th suit, 3N is unclear.
2N then responder will get to at least 6N.

1x, 1y; 2NT is a very risky bidding sequence, especially undiscussed,
when you have a singleton in partner's suit. Many players interpret the
2NT bid as guaranteeing at least two-card support for their suit, and
you may well end up in a slam on a 6-1 fit, which is probably not where
you want to be.

[Travis Crump]

Post by ais523

Post by KWSchneider
Made this exact mistake before - bidding 1S instead of 2N. Then after
the 4th suit, 3N is unclear.
2N then responder will get to at least 6N.

1x, 1y; 2NT is a very risky bidding sequence, especially undiscussed,
when you have a singleton in partner's suit. Many players interpret the
2NT bid as guaranteeing at least two-card support for their suit, and
you may well end up in a slam on a 6-1 fit, which is probably not where
you want to be.

If it gets to that point, stiff queen is likely as good as, or better
than, two small. I probably wouldn't bid 2N, but there is a lot to be
said for it.

[Lorne]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

If 2C is a GF then W should bid 2N. Jumping to 3N shows no interest in
anything but 3N however 6D must be a possibility opposite a suitable 13
count so save space and explore.

If 2C is not a GF then 3N shows extras and E has a safe 4N advance in
case there are a lot of extras.

[[e-mail]]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the dioamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

" If 2C is a GF then W should bid 2N. Jumping to 3N shows no interest in anything but 3N"

What is the basis of your belief that this is a consensus agreement?

Is it documented anywhere at all?

Carl

[ais523]

Post by ***@verizon.net
" If 2C is a GF then W should bid 2N. Jumping to 3N shows no interest
in anything but 3N"
What is the basis of your belief that this is a consensus agreement?
Is it documented anywhere at all?

For what it's worth, I also had the belief that jumping to game
opposite a game force is (without specific agreement) the weakest
possible action (and the choice of 3N specifically shows a misfit and
a stop in unbid suits, so it's giving partner a choice of games but
heavily hinting at notrump). Note that this is a meta-rule for game
forces in general (often known as "fast arrival" or the "useful space
principle"), not related to 4th-suit-forcing in particular.

Checking some source on fourth suit forcing, jumps in notrump seem not
to exist: I checked three different sources and they aren't listed in
any of them. There seems to be general agreement that a jump in a suit
below game shows strength and is highly encouraging for slam, but jumps
to the game level, including 3NT, seem to not be a possible response in
most sources. Again, though, you can use general principles to work out
what they should mean: if you cut out all the space that your
partnership could use to find an appropriate strain to play in, then it
must be due to insistence that the strain you chose is the correct one.

[[e-mail]]

Post by ais523

Post by ***@verizon.net
" If 2C is a GF then W should bid 2N. Jumping to 3N shows no interest
in anything but 3N"
What is the basis of your belief that this is a consensus agreement?
Is it documented anywhere at all?

For what it's worth, I also had the belief that jumping to game
opposite a game force is (without specific agreement) the weakest
possible action (and the choice of 3N specifically shows a misfit and
a stop in unbid suits, so it's giving partner a choice of games but
heavily hinting at notrump). Note that this is a meta-rule for game
forces in general (often known as "fast arrival" or the "useful space
principle"), not related to 4th-suit-forcing in particular.
Checking some source on fourth suit forcing, jumps in notrump seem not
to exist: I checked three different sources and they aren't listed in
any of them. There seems to be general agreement that a jump in a suit
below game shows strength and is highly encouraging for slam, but jumps
to the game level, including 3NT, seem to not be a possible response in
most sources. Again, though, you can use general principles to work out
what they should mean: if you cut out all the space that your
partnership could use to find an appropriate strain to play in, then it
must be due to insistence that the strain you chose is the correct one.
--
ais523

"General principles" hah!

Carl

[ais523]

Post by ***@verizon.net
"General principles" hah!

How else do you know what bids mean in a pickup partnership?

Everyone relies on rules such as "undiscussed spade bids normally have
spades or are at least related to the spade suit", because there's never
time to discuss everything. Undiscussed bids don't have meanings
entirely at random.

There's a range of similar principles that are often usable to determine
the meaning of bids in a pickup partnership, but more precise. For
example, "an undiscussed low-level notrumps bid that, from context,
can't be natural, is likely to show the minors". I've used this
successfully in a pickup partnership before:

(2C), Pass, (2D), 2NT; (3H), 5C, (5H), Pass; (Pass), Pass.

2C by our opponents was a strongest-bid game force. We hadn't discussed
what to do over those at all (pickup partnership, after all), so every
single bid by our side was undiscussed. (We hadn't dicussed an
unusual-no-trump, either; 2NT might well have been taken as natural in
other circumstances, but it pretty much couldn't be in this one.)

5CX would have been a good sacrifice over 4H, and 5H failed by one
trick. So general-principles bidding got us an excellent result.

[Eddie Grove]

Post by ais523

Post by ***@verizon.net
"General principles" hah!

How else do you know what bids mean in a pickup partnership?

You don't.

That's why rebidding 2N is the practical choice.

Eddie

[[e-mail]]

Post by Eddie Grove

Post by ais523

Post by ***@verizon.net
"General principles" hah!

How else do you know what bids mean in a pickup partnership?

You don't.
That's why rebidding 2N is the practical choice.
Eddie

It is what another poster called the weasel convention. I won't describe my hand until you describe yours; nyah nyah nyah.

Carl

[Co Wiersma]

Post by Eddie Grove

Post by ais523

Post by ***@verizon.net
"General principles" hah!

How else do you know what bids mean in a pickup partnership?

You don't.
That's why rebidding 2N is the practical choice.
Eddie

With the risk that your pick-up partner is not sure either and bids 3NT
and you lose the 4-4 fit Spades

Is bidding 2S not a more practical bid in this situation?

Co Wiersma

[Eddie Grove]

Post by Co Wiersma

Post by Eddie Grove

Post by ais523

Post by ***@verizon.net
"General principles" hah!

How else do you know what bids mean in a pickup partnership?

You don't.
That's why rebidding 2N is the practical choice.

With the risk that your pick-up partner is not sure either and bids
3NT and you lose the 4-4 fit Spades

2N does not deny 4 spades. At least, I've never had that be a problem
with a pickup partner. The main problem is whether partner thinks 3C is
natural signoff or some variation of new minor forcing. I've certainly
seen 1D-1H ; 2N-3C go wrong more than once kibbitzing online bridge.

Post by Co Wiersma
Is bidding 2S not a more practical bid in this situation?

2S is an overbid. If you think the chance your pickup partnership will
mess up after rebidding 2N is higher than the chance you'll force to a
bad game or induce a bad slam by bidding 2S, I'd understand your choice.


Eddie

[[e-mail]]

Post by ais523

Post by ***@verizon.net
"General principles" hah!

How else do you know what bids mean in a pickup partnership?
Everyone relies on rules such as "undiscussed spade bids normally have
spades or are at least related to the spade suit", because there's never
time to discuss everything. Undiscussed bids don't have meanings
entirely at random.
There's a range of similar principles that are often usable to determine
the meaning of bids in a pickup partnership, but more precise. For
example, "an undiscussed low-level notrumps bid that, from context,
can't be natural, is likely to show the minors". I've used this
(2C), Pass, (2D), 2NT; (3H), 5C, (5H), Pass; (Pass), Pass.
2C by our opponents was a strongest-bid game force. We hadn't discussed
what to do over those at all (pickup partnership, after all), so every
single bid by our side was undiscussed. (We hadn't dicussed an
unusual-no-trump, either; 2NT might well have been taken as natural in
other circumstances, but it pretty much couldn't be in this one.)
5CX would have been a good sacrifice over 4H, and 5H failed by one
trick. So general-principles bidding got us an excellent result.
--
ais523

Except that "fast arrival" is not one such general(ly) accepted principles.

Carl

[Steve Willner]

Post by ais523
For what it's worth, I also had the belief that jumping to game
opposite a game force is (without specific agreement) the weakest
possible action

It's commonly played and known as "fast arrival." While some good
players advocate it, I think it's terrible when partner's hand is
unlimited. The alternative agreement is "picture bids," where a jump
shows some specific hand type.

In the suggested auction 1D-1H-1S-2C-, I think 3NT should show an
unbalanced (short hearts) 15-17 or so. In other words, distinct extra
values but consistent with not opening 1NT. If 2C was GF, or even if it
merely promises a rebid, you can use 2NT two ways: either minimum
balanced or 18+ balanced. With the latter, you plan to bid above game
later.

As others have written, though, a lot depends on agreements both about
the 1S rebid and responder's 2C. Without clear agreements, anything
could be right.

Post by ais523
(often known as "fast arrival" or the "useful space
principle"),

"Useful space principle" is entirely different from "fast arrival." USP
generally involves switching up two bids, for example using 4S as
Blackwood when hearts are agreed. Another example is using next step
over a weak two as an Ogust inquiry with 2NT showing the suit that step
would have shown.

Post by ais523
if you cut out all the space that your
partnership could use to find an appropriate strain to play in, then it
must be due to insistence that the strain you chose is the correct one.

That's the reasoning for picture bids. When partner's hand is limited,
the tradeoffs are different. In that case, fast arrival has merit.

[Hotzenplotz]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the diamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Why does everyone keep talking about a pickup partnership. You have no idea of the standard of a pickup player. If you play on BBO you absolutely have no idea and an "expert" may well be a beginner.

Mentioned above as an example is a 4NT bid which clearly should be quantitative, yet my experience on BBO is that the only players who understand that this is quantitative are regular partners. The discussions we have here should assume that it is a standard strong partnership.
I would suggest the following auction:
1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N
Or if you are playing with an excellent card player you could even get to 7NT as there will almost certainly be a squeeze on this hand.

[KWSchneider]

While I agree entirely with your auction, there is no consensus among “pickup players” that 1S is even forcing. Furthermore I’ve been told by the local GrLM’s that 2N is the safest bid and that 3C would pick up the spade suit.

[Lorne]

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N. There must be excellent chances of a
diamond slam even opposite a hand that might pass 3N.

[ais523]

Post by Lorne

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N. There must be excellent chances of a
diamond slam even opposite a hand that might pass 3N.

Are you confident that 3D is forcing here?

Logically, it has no reason not to be, but partner's first-bid suit is a
dangerous one to repeat. (Bear in mind that there seems to be
partnership confusion about what 2C meant.)

[Lorne]

Post by ais523

Post by Lorne

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N. There must be excellent chances of a
diamond slam even opposite a hand that might pass 3N.

Are you confident that 3D is forcing here?
Logically, it has no reason not to be, but partner's first-bid suit is a
dangerous one to repeat. (Bear in mind that there seems to be
partnership confusion about what 2C meant.)

If W rebids 2N with an 18 count then yes 3D is forcing (ie I was
responding in the context of the auction suggested which was clearly
based on an assumption that 2S was a GF).

As far as your bid was concerned you say later that your partner thought
2C was not a GF so you were right to bid 3N, but partner has
considerable extras over a hand only good enough to invite so should
raise 3N to 4N which you can then raise to 6N.

[Pubkeybreaker]

Post by Lorne

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N.

Absolutely! However, 3N means "I know 2NT shows extras, but I am setting
the contract". For West to push to 4NT after already showing extras shows
a complete distrust of partner. Perhaps E stretched slightly to bid 2C.....

But East, having heard 2NT (showing extras) should now show the diamond support.

However, I prefer:

1D 1H
1S 2C (1)
2D (2) 3D(3)

and now slam is a certainty.

(1) Artifical GF
(2) GF? Oh really? I have extras's. I have a diamond suit; Let's explore.
2D does not promise extras; Nor does it deny. It just starts to show the
hand. Why rush?
(3) We are in a GF; fast arrival applies, so 3D shows extras.

Why are people herein so damn reluctant to show the diamond suit/support.???

What's the damn hurry to jump to 3NT, etc?? In a GF auction slow is best.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by Lorne

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N.

Absolutely! However, 3N means "I know 2NT shows extras, but I am setting
the contract". For West to push to 4NT after already showing extras shows
a complete distrust of partner. Perhaps E stretched slightly to bid 2C.....
But East, having heard 2NT (showing extras) should now show the diamond support.
1D 1H
1S 2C (1)
2D (2) 3D(3)
and now slam is a certainty.
(1) Artifical GF
(2) GF? Oh really? I have extras's. I have a diamond suit; Let's explore.
2D does not promise extras; Nor does it deny. It just starts to show the
hand. Why rush?
(3) We are in a GF; fast arrival applies, so 3D shows extras.
Why are people herein so damn reluctant to show the diamond suit/support.???
What's the damn hurry to jump to 3NT, etc?? In a GF auction slow is best.

Slow is best IF the bid provides useful information. Wasting a bid in round 3 to show no more than "extras" is crazy. (Admittedly, it denies various things.)

Usually, the fourth-suit bidder is uncertain about strain. Given that, there are approximately zero minimum opening hands that can bid 3NT with any confidence that it is the best contract. It is a wild stab.

Carl

[Pubkeybreaker]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by Lorne

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N.

Absolutely! However, 3N means "I know 2NT shows extras, but I am setting
the contract". For West to push to 4NT after already showing extras shows
a complete distrust of partner. Perhaps E stretched slightly to bid 2C.....
But East, having heard 2NT (showing extras) should now show the diamond support.
1D 1H
1S 2C (1)
2D (2) 3D(3)
and now slam is a certainty.
(1) Artifical GF
(2) GF? Oh really? I have extras's. I have a diamond suit; Let's explore.
2D does not promise extras; Nor does it deny. It just starts to show the
hand. Why rush?
(3) We are in a GF; fast arrival applies, so 3D shows extras.
Why are people herein so damn reluctant to show the diamond suit/support.???
What's the damn hurry to jump to 3NT, etc?? In a GF auction slow is best.

Slow is best IF the bid provides useful information. Wasting a bid in round 3 to show no more than "extras" is crazy. (Admittedly, it denies various things.)

If you think that showing a real diamond suit is a wasted bid, then I suggest that you should give up the game. With an 18-count and a genuine suit opposite
a GF, the key to any slam is the diamond suit.

Showing a 5 card suit while searching for the right strain is DEFINITELY
useful info to partner.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by Lorne

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N.

Absolutely! However, 3N means "I know 2NT shows extras, but I am setting
the contract". For West to push to 4NT after already showing extras shows
a complete distrust of partner. Perhaps E stretched slightly to bid 2C.....
But East, having heard 2NT (showing extras) should now show the diamond support.
1D 1H
1S 2C (1)
2D (2) 3D(3)
and now slam is a certainty.
(1) Artifical GF
(2) GF? Oh really? I have extras's. I have a diamond suit; Let's explore.
2D does not promise extras; Nor does it deny. It just starts to show the
hand. Why rush?
(3) We are in a GF; fast arrival applies, so 3D shows extras.
Why are people herein so damn reluctant to show the diamond suit/support.???
What's the damn hurry to jump to 3NT, etc?? In a GF auction slow is best.

Slow is best IF the bid provides useful information. Wasting a bid in round 3 to show no more than "extras" is crazy. (Admittedly, it denies various things.)

If you think that showing a real diamond suit is a wasted bid, then I suggest that you should give up the game. With an 18-count and a genuine suit opposite
a GF, the key to any slam is the diamond suit.
Showing a 5 card suit while searching for the right strain is DEFINITELY
useful info to partner.

Sorry, i was talking about 2NT.

Are you sure that 2D would not be taken as denying club stop, as well as showing D length?

And you *still* are hiding 1/3 of your high card points.

Carl

[Pubkeybreaker]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by Lorne

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N.

Absolutely! However, 3N means "I know 2NT shows extras, but I am setting
the contract". For West to push to 4NT after already showing extras shows
a complete distrust of partner. Perhaps E stretched slightly to bid 2C.....
But East, having heard 2NT (showing extras) should now show the diamond support.
1D 1H
1S 2C (1)
2D (2) 3D(3)
and now slam is a certainty.
(1) Artifical GF
(2) GF? Oh really? I have extras's. I have a diamond suit; Let's explore.
2D does not promise extras; Nor does it deny. It just starts to show the
hand. Why rush?
(3) We are in a GF; fast arrival applies, so 3D shows extras.
Why are people herein so damn reluctant to show the diamond suit/support.???
What's the damn hurry to jump to 3NT, etc?? In a GF auction slow is best.

Slow is best IF the bid provides useful information. Wasting a bid in round 3 to show no more than "extras" is crazy. (Admittedly, it denies various things.)

If you think that showing a real diamond suit is a wasted bid, then I suggest that you should give up the game. With an 18-count and a genuine suit opposite
a GF, the key to any slam is the diamond suit.
Showing a 5 card suit while searching for the right strain is DEFINITELY
useful info to partner.

Sorry, i was talking about 2NT.
Are you sure that 2D would not be taken as denying club stop, as well as showing D length?

It says "I have a real diamond suit". It shows at least 5-4 in the pointed suits.

Post by ***@verizon.net
And you *still* are hiding 1/3 of your high card points.

And? You say this as if it is meaningful. Partner's response to 2D
will tell us where the hand is going.....This is a bid designed to elicit a
response from partner.

[ais523]

[context: 1D, 1H; 1S, 2C; 2D/2NT]

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by ***@verizon.net
Sorry, i was talking about 2NT.
Are you sure that 2D would not be taken as denying club stop, as well as showing D length?

It says "I have a real diamond suit". It shows at least 5-4 in the pointed suits.

In many systems (although of course not all) the 1S bid would have shown
that already (with an NT rebid being forced with hands with four or
fewer diamonds, even with four spades; most systems/partnerships have
some artificial bid avaible to ask about spades after that). So you
need to know more information about the system in order to know
whether showing the fifth (and fourth!) diamond or the stop has a
higher priority; if you've only shown three (or even two) diamonds so
far, showing genuine diamonds must be important, but if you've shown
five diamonds already, showing them again is pretty much bottom of the
list.

There's a possible exception for 4=1=4=4 hands, which might well open 1D
and rebid 1S in such systems despite not having five diamonds, but this
is a hand type that's both rare and traditionally hard to bid; at least,
most systems don't use up bidding space over their one-of-a-suit
openings for it, preferring either to improvise or to show it
artificially, and partner's expected to assume that the first bid suit
has five cards even though the occasional three-suiter might have to
distort its shape a bit.

[Pubkeybreaker]

Post by ais523
[context: 1D, 1H; 1S, 2C; 2D/2NT]

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by ***@verizon.net
Sorry, i was talking about 2NT.
Are you sure that 2D would not be taken as denying club stop, as well as showing D length?

It says "I have a real diamond suit". It shows at least 5-4 in the pointed suits.

In many systems (although of course not all) the 1S bid would have shown
that already (with an NT rebid being forced with hands with four or
fewer diamonds, even with four spades;

Many, yes. But not all. Suppose one has a 4243 13 count. Do you bid
1NT after 1D-1H? You won't be happy to play in 1NT while missing a 4-4
spade fit. This is a matter of style and both are playable.

[ais523]

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by ais523
[context: 1D, 1H; 1S, 2C; 2D/2NT]

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by ***@verizon.net
Sorry, i was talking about 2NT.
Are you sure that 2D would not be taken as denying club stop, as well as showing D length?

It says "I have a real diamond suit". It shows at least 5-4 in the pointed suits.

In many systems (although of course not all) the 1S bid would have shown
that already (with an NT rebid being forced with hands with four or
fewer diamonds, even with four spades;

Many, yes. But not all. Suppose one has a 4243 13 count. Do you bid
1NT after 1D-1H? You won't be happy to play in 1NT while missing a 4-4
spade fit. This is a matter of style and both are playable.

Well, my point was more that discussing the bidding sequence in
particular is pointless without knowing more about the system. Having
1D, 1H; 1S as natural and potentially balanced is hardly unreasonable,
although it does place some extra strain on the rest of the system from
then onwards; the tradeoff is that sometimes you find a spade fit when
your hand happens to be balanced and outside the 1NT range (although
hardly any system can find a spade fit when balanced and inside the 1NT
range; 1NT would have to either be forcing, or else say something about
spades). Having 1D, 1H; 1S as natural and always balanced is also
entirely reasonable, and commonly seen in practice. The distinction
doesn't really matter elsewhere in the thread, but it's very important
for understanding the implications of 2D after a fourth-suit force.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by Lorne

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N.

Absolutely! However, 3N means "I know 2NT shows extras, but I am setting
the contract". For West to push to 4NT after already showing extras shows
a complete distrust of partner. Perhaps E stretched slightly to bid 2C.....
But East, having heard 2NT (showing extras) should now show the diamond support.
1D 1H
1S 2C (1)
2D (2) 3D(3)
and now slam is a certainty.
(1) Artifical GF
(2) GF? Oh really? I have extras's. I have a diamond suit; Let's explore.
2D does not promise extras; Nor does it deny. It just starts to show the
hand. Why rush?
(3) We are in a GF; fast arrival applies, so 3D shows extras.
Why are people herein so damn reluctant to show the diamond suit/support.???
What's the damn hurry to jump to 3NT, etc?? In a GF auction slow is best.

Slow is best IF the bid provides useful information. Wasting a bid in round 3 to show no more than "extras" is crazy. (Admittedly, it denies various things.)

If you think that showing a real diamond suit is a wasted bid, then I suggest that you should give up the game. With an 18-count and a genuine suit opposite
a GF, the key to any slam is the diamond suit.
Showing a 5 card suit while searching for the right strain is DEFINITELY
useful info to partner.

Sorry, i was talking about 2NT.
Are you sure that 2D would not be taken as denying club stop, as well as showing D length?

It says "I have a real diamond suit". It shows at least 5-4 in the pointed suits.

Post by ***@verizon.net
And you *still* are hiding 1/3 of your high card points.

And? You say this as if it is meaningful. Partner's response to 2D
will tell us where the hand is going.....This is a bid designed to elicit a
response from partner.

Who has already made a non-descriptive bid to elicit a response from you.

You seem to think the game of chicken is appropriate.

Carl

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pubkeybreaker

Post by Lorne

1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N

Surely E should bid 3D over 2N.

Absolutely! However, 3N means "I know 2NT shows extras, but I am setting
the contract". For West to push to 4NT after already showing extras shows
a complete distrust of partner. Perhaps E stretched slightly to bid 2C.....
But East, having heard 2NT (showing extras) should now show the diamond support.
1D 1H
1S 2C (1)
2D (2) 3D(3)
and now slam is a certainty.
(1) Artifical GF
(2) GF? Oh really? I have extras's. I have a diamond suit; Let's explore.
2D does not promise extras; Nor does it deny. It just starts to show the
hand. Why rush?
(3) We are in a GF; fast arrival applies, so 3D shows extras.
Why are people herein so damn reluctant to show the diamond suit/support.???
What's the damn hurry to jump to 3NT, etc?? In a GF auction slow is best.

By the way, how does "fast arrival" make 3D show extras?

If you replace the D Q with a small D, what is responder's fast arrival bid? 5D?

Carl

[KWSchneider]

Post by Hotzenplotz

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
MP, 5 card majors, strog NT, 3 weak twos.
West East
AJ73 K92
Q AK84
KJ763 AQ8
AK5 762
1D 1H
1S 2C
3NT P
Making 13 tricks after North threw her singleton spade on the diamonds revealing the marked finesse. Most found it, one punted 7NT. Should I have rebid 2NT instead of showing the spades (I didn't think the West hand was quite good enough for a strong jump shift), or could East have done more?

Why does everyone keep talking about a pickup partnership. You have no idea of the standard of a pickup player. If you play on BBO you absolutely have no idea and an "expert" may well be a beginner.
Mentioned above as an example is a 4NT bid which clearly should be quantitative, yet my experience on BBO is that the only players who understand that this is quantitative are regular partners. The discussions we have here should assume that it is a standard strong partnership.
1D 1H
1S 2C
2N 3N
4N 6N
Or if you are playing with an excellent card player you could even get to 7NT as there will almost certainly be a squeeze on this hand.

While I agree entirely with your auction, there is no consensus among “pickup players” that 1S is even forcing. And furthermore, no agreement whatsoever on what 2N and 3N rebids by responder (instead of 4th suit) would mean in terms of HCP ranges.

Furthermore I’ve been told by local Grand LM’s that 2N is the safest bid and that 3C (Stayman) would pick up the spade suit.

For example, this deal occurred last week with South dealing:

South North
AQJ8 T96
AJ8 KQ4
K2 A986
KT86 AQ2

1C 1D
1S 2H
2N 3N
P (long thought)

Q: What would 3N mean instead of 2N? Fast arrival weakest?

The proposed auction was:
1C 1D
2N 6N

Kurt

[a***@yahoo.co.uk]

Thanks for the insights, I didn't expect this hand to throw up so much debate, but this may be because the system details aren't there and the right action is heavily dependant on the finer details.

I went back to my partner about this hand and he said he doesn't think the 2C (FSF) bid is forcing to game. In this case, shouldn't a jump to 3NT
show a strong opener, and a 2NT bid show a weaker hand with a club stop? Of the pairs I know whon bid the slam, all of them rebid 2NT on my hand which probebly means that is what I should have done.

[Fred.]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Thanks for the insights, I didn't expect this hand to throw up so much debate, but this may be because the system details aren't there and the right action is heavily dependant on the finer details.
I went back to my partner about this hand and he said he doesn't think the 2C (FSF) bid is forcing to game. In this case, shouldn't a jump to 3NT
show a strong opener, and a 2NT bid show a weaker hand with a club stop? Of the pairs I know whon bid the slam, all of them rebid 2NT on my hand which probebly means that is what I should have done.

I'd thing 3NT when 2C is invitational plus should show at least a king
above minimum, and responder with 16 HCP, fitting cards in both of
opener's suit and good top cards should make a slam try.

Note that when 2C is invitational plus then 3D, 3H, and 3S are all
game forcing. 4D over 3NT would show slam interest and 3-card
support since with 4-card support responder would have bid 3D
directly. But, since opener can hold a 4-card diamond suit, even
if 2S promises and unbalanced hand, 4D is only playable if opener
can retreat to 4NT without responder taking it as Blackwood.

In a less disciplined partnership responder's slam try should be
a natural invitational 4NT. Opener should take this as natural
and pass with a minimum for 3NT, bid 6NT with a maximum or
temporize with 5MT if in the middle.

Opener taking this as Blackwood would be ignoring the fact that
NT has been bid naturally, the fact that responder has not set
trump even though it would have been possible to do so using a
game forcing 3D, 3H, or 3S call, and if playing RKC opener is
going to be unclear which suit is implicitly agreed so key
cards can be counted.

Playing match points I would take this risk, bidding 6NT over
any Blackwood response. At total points I would likely pass
to put 3NT in the bank.

Fred.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Fred.

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Thanks for the insights, I didn't expect this hand to throw up so much debate, but this may be because the system details aren't there and the right action is heavily dependant on the finer details.
I went back to my partner about this hand and he said he doesn't think the 2C (FSF) bid is forcing to game. In this case, shouldn't a jump to 3NT
show a strong opener, and a 2NT bid show a weaker hand with a club stop? Of the pairs I know whon bid the slam, all of them rebid 2NT on my hand which probebly means that is what I should have done.

I'd thing 3NT when 2C is invitational plus should show at least a king
above minimum, and responder with 16 HCP, fitting cards in both of
opener's suit and good top cards should make a slam try.
Note that when 2C is invitational plus then 3D, 3H, and 3S are all
game forcing. 4D over 3NT would show slam interest and 3-card
support since with 4-card support responder would have bid 3D
directly. But, since opener can hold a 4-card diamond suit, even
if 2S promises and unbalanced hand, 4D is only playable if opener
can retreat to 4NT without responder taking it as Blackwood.
In a less disciplined partnership responder's slam try should be
a natural invitational 4NT. Opener should take this as natural
and pass with a minimum for 3NT, bid 6NT with a maximum or
temporize with 5MT if in the middle.
Opener taking this as Blackwood would be ignoring the fact that
NT has been bid naturally, the fact that responder has not set
trump even though it would have been possible to do so using a
game forcing 3D, 3H, or 3S call, and if playing RKC opener is
going to be unclear which suit is implicitly agreed so key
cards can be counted.
Playing match points I would take this risk, bidding 6NT over
any Blackwood response. At total points I would likely pass
to put 3NT in the bank.
Fred.

Your comments about Bw are just winning the post-mortem. It doesn't matter whether 4NT *should* be natural; of course it should.

The question is whether it can be passed safely in an unfamiliar partnership.

Carl

[[e-mail]]

Post by Fred.

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
Thanks for the insights, I didn't expect this hand to throw up so much debate, but this may be because the system details aren't there and the right action is heavily dependant on the finer details.
I went back to my partner about this hand and he said he doesn't think the 2C (FSF) bid is forcing to game. In this case, shouldn't a jump to 3NT
show a strong opener, and a 2NT bid show a weaker hand with a club stop? Of the pairs I know whon bid the slam, all of them rebid 2NT on my hand which probebly means that is what I should have done.

I'd thing 3NT when 2C is invitational plus should show at least a king
above minimum, and responder with 16 HCP, fitting cards in both of
opener's suit and good top cards should make a slam try.
Note that when 2C is invitational plus then 3D, 3H, and 3S are all
game forcing. 4D over 3NT would show slam interest and 3-card
support since with 4-card support responder would have bid 3D
directly. But, since opener can hold a 4-card diamond suit, even
if 2S promises and unbalanced hand, 4D is only playable if opener
can retreat to 4NT without responder taking it as Blackwood.
In a less disciplined partnership responder's slam try should be
a natural invitational 4NT. Opener should take this as natural
and pass with a minimum for 3NT, bid 6NT with a maximum or
temporize with 5MT if in the middle.
Opener taking this as Blackwood would be ignoring the fact that
NT has been bid naturally, the fact that responder has not set
trump even though it would have been possible to do so using a
game forcing 3D, 3H, or 3S call, and if playing RKC opener is
going to be unclear which suit is implicitly agreed so key
cards can be counted.
Playing match points I would take this risk, bidding 6NT over
any Blackwood response. At total points I would likely pass
to put 3NT in the bank.
Fred.

If you are bidding 6NT regardless of the response, why are you giving information to the defense by asking?

Carl

[ais523]

Post by ***@verizon.net

Post by Fred.
Playing match points I would take this risk, bidding 6NT over
any Blackwood response. At total points I would likely pass
to put 3NT in the bank.

If you are bidding 6NT regardless of the response, why are you giving
information to the defense by asking?

Presumably the 4NT bidder wouldn't bid 6NT over a pass by their partner!
I'm reading this as "I'd bid 4NT, hoping it gets interpreted as
quantitative, but if partner interprets it as Blackwood instead I'll
recover by bidding 6NT". That seems like a sensible option to me if
you want to be in slam opposite a non-minimum but are unsure about how
4NT will be interpreted.