[daveharty]

---

This hand came up in a pairs game at a recent sectional. Playing 2/1 with occasional partner, no prior discussion about this auction.
1. How do you play 4S here? How is the answer to this affected by the rest of your system (e.g. Namyats, preemptive style, whatever)?
2. In light of your answer to the above, what would your action be now?

[masse24]

1.) 4♠ in my partnership is something along the lines of:

♠AKQJTxx
♥QT
♦Qx
♣xx

A hand with NO controls outside the ♠ suit.

It is NOT a Namyats hand.

2.) Pass, I'm off 2 keys

[wyman]

In the style to which I'm accustomed, this is a hand just barely too strong to open 4S. There's no way we have a slam here when I'm holding 1 KC. I don't play namyats typically, so that and my preempt style will dictate what the weakest hand is for 1S-4S, but no matter what, I wouldn't play a style where this has 3 keys.

[Phil]

Agree with Wyman. I also think it shows a semi solid suit at best. What about AQT9xxx x x AJxx?

[gordontd]

 Phil, on 2012-January-27, 21:01, said:

Agree with Wyman. I also think it shows a semi solid suit at best. What about AQT9xxx x x AJxx?

I think it denies a control in the unbid suits.

[whereagles]

Classically, this is a hand just a little bit stronger than the corresponding preempt.

AKJTxxx
Axx
x
xx

would be just about par.

I would keycard now, as it's not impossible for pard to have 3 keys and the Q. Even more if he's a causal pard.

[daveharty]

Interesting. There seems to be wildly different ideas about what this should show in terms of suit quality and outside controls. It's such an expensive bid, in the face of a partner who has shown strength, that it seems obvious that it should be very narrowly defined. Either something like masse24 suggests ("solid suit, no outside controls") or a Namyats-type hand (which I have always thought of as having a tightly defined trick count, like 8.5-9.5 or something) seems reasonable but I don't think I've ever discussed it with anyone.

[FrancesHinden]

This isn't going to be a very helpful answer, but we've discussed it and agreed it doesn't exist.
If I had to guess I would assume a 7- or 8-card weak spade suit, probably too much outside random stuff for an opening pre-empt, and certainly fewer than 3 key cards

[Flameous]

I use Namyats (or 3NT actually) to show solid or solid without an ace opening with 8+ playing tricks without quacks.
Direct 4M is somewhat weaker though could contain a solid suit.

This sequence shows something without solid suit but about 7-8 playing tricks, not rich in aces.

Opposite unknown partner playing fast arrival, I think this is sort of "just leave me be" -bid, suggesting you should hold some trump support and many controls to bid on.

[ggwhiz]

 whereagles, on 2012-January-28, 05:43, said:

I would keycard now, as it's not impossible for pard to have 3 keys and the Q.

It is impossible in my partnership and should be in a casual one too. With 2♠ and 3♠ available this should show a 3♠ preempt that was just too good to do that,

ie. AKQTxxx, x, x, Jxxx

[mike777]

Agree strongly with Frances. I dont see how this bid exists in 2/1.


3s would demand I start cuebidding, all other bids would start with 2s or pard would open 4s.

In any event seems like an easy pass, pard cant have enough keycards.

[whereagles]

 ggwhiz, on 2012-January-29, 15:24, said:

It is impossible in my partnership and should be in a casual one too. With 2♠ and 3♠ available this should show a 3♠ preempt that was just too good to do that,

ie. AKQTxxx, x, x, Jxxx

Well, I mean

AKQxxxx
Axx
x
xx

I'm used to bid 1S-x-4S on this sort of hand. A casual might think the same.

[Xiaolongnu]

Agree with Pass, and all those arguments along the line of partner having too few key cards and possibly still having a spade loser, maybe even two. Agree also with the views that the 4♠ bid was unscientific to begin with. Finally, if passing misses a slam, then there is nothing that I could do about it anyway. #Not a fan of scolding partner, what I mean is that partner has spoken and not given me a choice, I have no choice but to trust him.

The straightforward thought that comes to my mind is that partner has desperately forced me to pass, even though he knows I am strong. This is an extreme case of fast arrival, and since it is unscientific, I have to do some second guessing. Partner did not preempt, but he is the weakest among those hands that are too strong to preempt. So I would imagine a solid or semisolid spade suit and some secondary honours scattered around. Outside aces are unlikely. With AKQ of ♠ and ace of ♥ and / or ♣, would partner have jumped like a bunny to the 4 level knowing you are strong? No chance! He would rather fake a 3 carded suit if he does not have a systematically correct rebid. Even with AQ of ♠ ace of ♣ he might still have refrained from bidding so fast. The conclusion is that partner must not have 3.5 key cards (where "half a key card" means things like a trump queen or some useful top honour) and slam is not possible.

Of course I still have an unscientific view that specifically in pairs, 6NT might have a case hoping for some misdefence or something like that. But that is of course something that is not theory.

[whereagles]

 Xiaolongnu, on 2012-January-30, 01:18, said:

With AKQ of ♠ and ace of ♥ and / or ♣, would partner have jumped like a bunny to the 4 level knowing you are strong?

If that's the systemic bid, certainly. One can discuss the merits of such an approach, but if that's the agreement you should abide by it. I'm pretty sure a casual player would bid like this some of the time.

[phil_20686]

I play it generally as a hand too strong to open 4s. The suit should have play for no loser opposite a singleton, and there should be exactly one outside ace. There may also be lesser outside cards, but 3S would show a solid suit in a good hand so there cannot be too many lesser outside cards.


If you are cold opposite 7 solid + an ace, you should bid keycard.

Here you are cold opposite the club ace in 6N, so its probably worth a keycard bid. Will be tough to decide on 6N or 6S though imo.

[Codo]

If I disturb my own construcitve bidding with such an immense jump, I need to show a very well defined hand. I do not like to have such jumps so well defined, because I need my fading memory for other purposes. So I am with Frances about this hand.

[ArcLight]

 masse24, on 2012-January-27, 19:27, said:

1.) 4♠ in my partnership is something along the lines of:

♠AKQJTxx
♥QT
♦Qx
♣xx

A hand with NO controls outside the ♠ suit.

It is NOT a Namyats hand.

2.) Pass, I'm off 2 keys

This is what Mike Lawrence advocates in his 2/1 system notes.

He reserves a jump rebid (over a 2/1) of 3M for either;
a) Solid suit: AKQJxxx – JTx – x – Kx. With Qx of C, its not a 3S rebid. (good hand) Suggests slam.

b) <Mikes choice> Solid or semi-solid suit. The rest of the hand must be good. AKJTxx AQJTxx KQJTxx AQJ98xx (Blackwood may keep you from getting too high)

[jmcw]

Easier to consider what 4♠ is by having an agreement about a jump to 3♠.

Agree the suit should be solid so a min of AKQJXXX, and no A or K outside AND no supporting honor in p suit.

---

Now change the red suits and you bid 3♠

[daveharty]

Partner was thinking along the same lines as jmcw and masse24, albeit even slightly weaker:

---

Down one on a heart lead. I didn't agree with partner's choice for two reasons: I think this West hand is within the parameters for a second-seat unfavorable preempt (although certainly max), and because it's perfectly suitable for notrump if partner has the other suits under control and a spade. That's the main reason, I suppose, that I don't buy into the description of 1M-2X-4S advocated by some here; even if it's extremely descriptive, it blows by a not-unlikely good spot. It makes more sense to me to have the bid deny a solid suit, maybe something like KQJTxxx QJx x Qx, but even with that hand I would prefer a different route. I guess I agree with those who think this auction shouldn't exist.

That being said, I think the result is my fault for not passing. With no agreement in place I should have played it safe.

[whereagles]

Gambling 3NT pwnz joo!