BBO Discussion Forums: Where is partner taking us? - BBO Discussion Forums

 jillybean, on 2013-January-07, 19:11, said:

???

Maybe this is an conlusion of the 3S bid, but ...

Sometimes people ask me about the merits of 2/1. If they are asking me for advice they are not very advanced, but I usually make the point that it is a good system if you discuss the features well enough so that you get the benefits, else you should not bother because there is a price. This discussion seems to bear this out.

I would bid 2♠ over 2♦ but others, the hog for example, would not. Jb had said that she thought it better to show the sixth heart, leading me to believe that after the 2♥ bid we could assume responder knew she had six hearts. Many, I think including Marty Bergen for example, would agree that 2♥ shows six. But then Jb says no, it shows 5+. I am not trying to pick at Jb or anyone here. Mr.Ace says that after 1♥-2♦-2♥, a bid of 2♠ might not be on four cards. Well, with me it is. But that's me. I gather some think that after 1♥-2♦, an opener holding 4-5 in the majors can bid 2♠ w/o showing extras. I certainly know people who think that way, and really if rebidding 2♥ shows six then I imagine the 2♠ cannot show extras. I play it as about a King extra, rebidding my five card suit if I lack the strength for 2♠. And so on.


And it matters. If 2♥ really shows six, then I should think that a responder who wants to make a slam try in hearts would bid 3♥. As the auction went, after responder bids 3♦, I don't think that 3♠ now shows four spades. This is the point where I would bid 3♠ with spade values expecting partner to bid 3NT if he can handle the clubs. And if 2♥ did not show six, it is not so clear to me that my 3♠ shows a sixth heart either, although it surely would if 3♠ shows four spades and i could have bid 2♠ earlier w/o showing extras.

I play pickup, and even when I play with a regular partner I have left many things undiscussed. The meaning of the 4♣ bid is a case in point. So I am fully aware of my own glass house here.

My point is this: If partner opens the bidding and I have an opening hand, we are going to be playing in game whether our system is Goren or SAYC or 2/1 or what have you. The selling point for 2/1 is that it handles complexity, especially if a hard to bid slam is a possibility. But that only works if there are some firm agreements.

I apologize for the pedantry, I do acknowledge I come up short here as much as anyone.

 P_Marlowe, on 2013-January-08, 07:30, said:

3D sets trumps? that is 4♦ Uwe, 2/1 is too hard if you cannot rebid 3♦ with KJ10xxxx or AKJxxx

 jillybean, on 2013-January-07, 10:09, said:

I would bid 2S with "extras" and 2H with a minimum open ( and 2H should promise 6 cards if not playing a special system .... 2NT would show 5 cards ♥... And I consider your hand as extras ... eventho the ♦-void is a liability:
South
1H - 2D! ( 2/1 GF )
2S - 3D
3H - ?? ( Since Responder does not have 4 cds ♠, 3S! could "ask" shortness )
.... - 3S!
3NT! ( ♦-shortness; whereas 4C! = ♣-shortness )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am curious about Responder's 4C bid .

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-08, 08:37, said:

With your given 7 carder, I set trumps, similar with your 6 carder.

I dont like to reach the 4 level, without having agreed to play a suit, I can still suggest to play a slam
in a different suit, if I think this makes sense later on, but when I enter the 4 level I want to have a suit.

But ok, lets modify the statement - "sets trump for the time being".

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: And 3S is not introducing a new suit anyway - responder could have bid a 4 carder over 2H, he did not, hence,
he does not have a 4 carder, and because of this, why should I introduce a 4 carder?
And 2/1 is complicate / unplayable, the question is only, why do I move more and more in the direction of a 2/1
system ..., Acol did work and was such a beautiful and simple system to play.

 MrAce, on 2013-January-08, 02:59, said:

2♠ does show extras for us.

With a 4523 hand I would happily bid 2♠ showing 4+♠5+♥ and a King more than minimum. Given that partner has shown length in
my void, (2♦ promises 5+) I decided it was better not to encourage and rebid 2♥.


P Marlowe - 3♦ did not set trump.

 jillybean, on 2013-January-08, 09:54, said:

I guessed so, but whatever your agreement regarding 3D, or 3S / 4C is / will be,
the main question ist still open, see my questionmarks regarding your claim in your
post, that opener has already shown 6 hearts.

Usually confusion late in the bidding, starts a couple of rounds earlier in the
beginning, and if opener believes, that he has already shown the 6th heart, and
if responder thinks otherwise, than this is the point to investigate to find out
what causesed the different interpretations.

With kind regards
Marlowe

My partner is a very smart guy, I think after 1H 2H 3S
he will be reasonably sure I have 6H but I will check

 jillybean, on 2013-January-08, 10:39, said:

Try to come up with a problem hand, a example, which may need fine tuning
due to system agreements not known to me, may be

AJx
AKJxx
x
xxxx

If he says, sure, you have shown 6 hearts in the given auction, ask him, what he
would bid with the sample hand.
Dont show the sample hand, before you have an answer, gut feeling / answers are
the most interesting ones.

With kind regards
Marlowe

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-January-08, 09:04, said:

This puts a very heavy load on 2NT, does it not? Suppose you open 1♥ with 4/5 in the majors and a minimum. Partner buds 2♦. You cannot bid 2♥ if it shows six, you cannot bid 2♠ if it shows extras. I suppose with one diamond and three clubs you can rebid 2NT but on at least some hands I won't be wanting to.

At any rate, it is one more way of playing, and demonstrates how quickly a simple auction can become ambiguous unless these matters have been settled. I would prefer to rebid 2♥ with the 4=5=1=3 minimum hand, and especially with the 4=5=2=2 minimum hand, but mostly we just need to be on the same page as partner.


I do play Flannery with one partner, a convention that I do not find as useful as its proponents claim nor as awful as its detractors claim. Of course then after 1♥ I never have the 4/5 minimum.

This may all sound far afield, but I really think that figuring out what partner has in mind with 4♣ requires that we first figure out what we have already shown him. If I were to ask pard abou the 3♠, and I probably will do that, I would simply ask what he would make of it. Maybe he will say 6-4. It's not what I would make of it.

 P_Marlowe, on 2013-January-08, 10:42, said:

1♥ 2♦
2♥ 3♦
3N

 kenberg, on 2013-January-08, 07:35, said:

No, I said I thought it was better to start to show the 6th heart because I downgraded my hand due to the ♦ void.
All 2♥ promises is 5+. When I bid 3♠/3♦ this is what indicates that I have 6♥/4♠ otherwise I would have supported partners minor or bid nt.

 jillybean, on 2013-January-08, 10:39, said:

I agre with Uwe here, you haven't shown the 6th heart yet if 2♠ promises extras. You could have 4513 without stopper in clubs

 jillybean, on 2013-January-08, 17:47, said:

I misunderstood, sorry.

 jillybean, on 2013-January-08, 10:39, said:

 P_Marlowe, on 2013-January-08, 10:42, said:

I checked with my partner tonight and he did expect me to have 6♥ after 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 3♦ 3♠,
I'm glad we are on the same wavelength.

On the example hand you gave, he bids it exactly as I did. 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 3♦ 3N

The whole sequence is of interest. With my Flannery partner, the 3♠ bid would, I hope, unequivocally be a spade fragment attempting to get to 3NT. A minumum 4-5 and a minimum 4-6 are bthj opened 2♦. With non-Flannery partners I still would expect 3♠ to be interpreted as an attempt to get to 3NT if he has some help in clubs. But I guess there might be more ambiguity.

But now we still have to come to grips with partner's 4♣, given that he expects 4-6 and a minimum (since with enough extra you would have bid hearts-spades-hearts instead of hearts-hearts-spades). I guess i see two main possiblilies:

A Partner is delighted to find that you have six hearts and now wants to make a slam try in hearts. 4♣ shows a good heart doubleton, probably at least second round control in clubs, and a desire to move forward if you have some extra values.

B Partner is dismayed by the fact that no fit has emerged. His 4♣ asks you to choose among the least of evils.

Both A and B have been advocated in one form or the other in this discussion.

Perhaps a preliminary question is: Suppose partner, instead of 4♣, had bid 4♦. Is this passable? I can see an argument for making it so. When partner bid a game forcing 2♦ he did not envision the whole hand developing so badly and now he just wants out. This wouldn't be crazy. In this way of thinking, partner could have put you in 4♠ if he had a strong three card holding (not ideal, but maybe it would work) or in 4♥ if he had a stiff heart, or bid a passable 4♦ if he had neither a strong three card spade holding nor a stiff heart.
If these options are available to him, what to make of 4♣? Sounds like A.

Otoh, maybe pard thinks 4♦ still forces you to bid, so he bids 4♣ intending to pass a major suit rebid, and he might even pass 4♦ if his gf has nothing extra in it. That is, he is going with B.


Beats me as to which one he might be intending, or even if he might have some third plan C in mind.. Justin and others say that it should be A. Clown and others go with B. I can see the point of either, but if undiscussed, I haven't a clue.

So relieve the suspense. How was it intended?

 kenberg, on 2013-January-09, 07:40, said:

You have some well thought out posts here.

I agree with you that having Flannery on your card can solve the bidding problem .... ♥ - ♠ - ♥ would show a 6-4 w/extras ...

and ♥ - ♥ - ♠ should be asking for NT -- worried about a stop in the 4th suit ( unbid ) ... in this case ♣ .

Here, however, the 4♣ ( going past 3NT ) seems to be some sort of advance cuebid ( as you think so ) .... but for which suit as trumps ? The only one that seems to make sense is ♦ .

Will we ever see the OTHER hand ??

Surely your partner would expect 4 spades and 6 hearts for the auction

1H - 2D
2S - 3D
3H,

as well as the extra values per agreement. A good and clear description of your hand.

 han, on 2013-January-09, 09:13, said:

I agree that this sequence shows the 4-6 shape, and it is the sequence that I would have chosen on the hand in the OP.

I disagree that the 2♠ bid shows extras. 2♦ forced us to game. It is important to show one's shape accurately as soon as possible so that the proper strain can be determined. I find no reason to distort the shape of the hand by requiring that a natural call of 2♠ shows extras. I can understand rebidding hearts on a 4-5 or 4-6 minimum if 2♦ is not game forcing. But you have to figure out what strain you are playing in before you can determine the level, and requiring extras for a 2♠ rebid makes the process more difficult because of the nebulous nature of the 2♥ rebid.

Repeating a quote from Jilly's signature: "And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly." - MikeH

As for the last two bids in the sequence shown in the post immediately preceding mine, the result was excellent. 6♥ is absolutely the right contract. I don't know if North and South were on the same wavelength, but the operation was a success.