[eagles123]

The hands:

West:

♠ A876
♥ A3
♦T
♣AKT743


East:

♠QJT
♥962
♦AK6
♣J985

bidding went (opps passing throughout)

1♣ 1♦* 1♠ 2♥** 3♣ pass

*a lie I know but want to find more info and dont play a forcing 1NT. maybe 2NT better but I dont see any reason to rush?
** 4th suit forcing.

I was so reluctant to pass 3♣ here but thought I had already shown an invitational hand with my 2♥ bid? Pass was a disaster though with 6 making!! how can we distinguish between this kind of hand which has a genuinely good holding in clubs and wants to be in game from one that is say 5-4-2-2 and 12 pts?

Please help on how we should have bid the hand

Thanks,

Eagles

[Codo]

1. If you are too strong to bid 1 NT, bid 2 NT. This "rushes" but it describes the hand so incredible well: No 4 card major, balanced 10-11 HCPs, often no 5 card diamond. If you do NOT choose the system bid, you will get problems later.
2. If 2 ♥ was just invitational, you can pass 3 ♣ and your partner failed. But wait a moment: He made an understandable mistake. What shall he do? No fit, no real good heart stopper, no 5. spade? You gave him this problem because you did not choose the simply choice of 2 NT one round before.
3. But why should 2♥ be invitational? Are you sure that you defined it this way in your partnership? It is entirely possible to play it as GF and maybe even the choice of the majority.

So the by far worst bid was 1 ♦. I had missed 6 ♣ over 1 ♣ 2 NT, but I had reached a game.

[eagles123]

Codo, on 2013-April-16, 05:00, said:

1. If you are too strong to bid 1 NT, bid 2 NT. This "rushes" but it describes the hand so incredible well: No 4 card major, balanced 10-11 HCPs, often no 5 card diamond. If you do NOT choose the system bid, you will get problems later.
2. If 2 ♥ was just invitational, you can pass 3 ♣ and your partner failed. But wait a moment: He made an understandable mistake. What shall he do? No fit, no real good heart stopper, no 5. spade? You gave him this problem because you did not choose the simply choice of 2 NT one round before.
3. But why should 2♥ be invitational? Are you sure that you defined it this way in your partnership? It is entirely possible to play it as GF and maybe even the choice of the majority.

So the by far worst bid was 1 ♦. I had missed 6 ♣ over 1 ♣ 2 NT, but I had reached a game.

1 - yes understood just thought it would give partner a better chance to describe his hand at a lower level but can see 2N better

2 - I entirely understand my P's problem but also I have the problem how to distinguish between a hand like the one he had and a real minimum?

3 - yes played as invitational only, again can see GF might be better.

[Codo]

1. You made a fundemental error: You think that it would be best, if you know his hand instead of describing yours. This is plain wrong. And in this hand, you could easily describe your hand with one bid.

Most bidding systems are built in a way that the more space you consume, the more detailed is the describtion of your own hand. (Just looking at the undisturbed bidding) So a bid like 1 any over 1 ♣ contents a billion of various hands. But a bid like 2 NT, 3 ♦ or similar has a well defnied shape and range. At the moment you pick up your card, you do not know, whether the bidding makes you the captain, or the one who has to describe his hand- or maybe you have a dialogue with partner. Everything is possible.

In this hand, you should have described your hand over 1 ♣ and let partner decide.

2. If 2 ♥ was clearly invitational, 3 ♣ from partner was an underbid. You cannot distingush between a bad 12 HCP hand and his good hand if he bids 3 ♣ with both. If you had hold another hand which justifies your bidding so far, he simply misbid over 2 ♥.

3. I play 4sf as GF, but I would not claim that this is better- some hands you gain, some hands you lose. Being on the same wavelength with partner is important, and if you two agreed that 2 ♥ was invitational, then that was and is a fine agreement....

[eagles123]

Codo, on 2013-April-16, 05:17, said:

1. You made a fundemental error: You think that it would be best, if you know his hand instead of describing yours. This is plain wrong. And in this hand, you could easily describe your hand with one bid.

Most bidding systems are built in a way that the more space you consume, the more detailed is the describtion of your own hand. (Just looking at the undisturbed bidding) So a bid like 1 any over 1 ♣ contents a billion of various hands. But a bid like 2 NT, 3 ♦ or similar has a well defnied shape and range. At the moment you pick up your card, you do not know, whether the bidding makes you the captain, or the one who has to describe his hand- or maybe you have a dialogue with partner. Everything is possible.

In this hand, you should have described your hand over 1 ♣ and let partner decide.

2. If 2 ♥ was clearly invitational, 3 ♣ from partner was an underbid. You cannot distingush between a bad 12 HCP hand and his good hand if he bids 3 ♣ with both. If you had hold another hand which justifies your bidding so far, he simply misbid over 2 ♥.

3. I play 4sf as GF, but I would not claim that this is better- some hands you gain, some hands you lose. Being on the same wavelength with partner is important, and if you two agreed that 2 ♥ was invitational, then that was and is a fine agreement....

1 I have accepted and move on

2 so what bid could P have made then instead? 3♥?

3 ok thanks

[Zelandakh]

Playing Acol, you could have simply responded 3♣ showing an invitational hand with 4 or more clubs. If you were playing 5 card majors, it is a little trickier. Now the 1♦ response is ok - some people have more stringent side suit requirements for a direct 2NT than others and, in any case, some systems use a 2NT response to show a GF hand. Now we need to know something about the system in use. The majority of BBF players use methods where the 1♠ rebid promises real clubs. This hand is a poster-child for such a treatment as it allows Responder to make a 3♣ rebid in full confidence of an 8 card fit. If 1♠ was simply "up-the-line" and could also be made with 4333 then you have a problem now. The 2 choice that remain are to raise clubs (taking a chance that partner does not hold the 4333 hand) or to rebid 2NT (taking a chance on the heart suit).

What you should generally avoid doing is to make a fourth suit forcing bid with a non-descript, balanced 11 count just because you are missing a stopper. It is possible to build a system that does allow this but that is simply not feasible for beginner players and it is almost certainly counter-productive. In fact, I would recommend that you do not bid 2♥ in this auction with any non-GF hands at all.

[Codo]

I honestly do not know what partner sould have done. I guess I had choosen 3 NT. Not the best description, but what else?

Over 2 ♥ 2 NT is not enough, nor is 3 ♣.
3 ♦ shows a fit...
3 ♥ looks great. If partner holds Qxx or so, he can bid NT from the right hand...But if partner holds a hand like xxx,xxx,Axxx,Qxx (with some quacks here and there) we may miss 3 NT, maybe our last making game?
3 ♠ shows surely another hand
4 ♣ shows the legth and strength, and the shape looks like a game in a suit not in 3 NT. But otoh: Without a know fit, and opposite an invitational hand this is really tricky too.

[Zelandakh]

Codo, on 2013-April-16, 05:36, said:

I honestly do not know what partner sould have done. I guess I had choosen 3 NT. Not the best description, but what else?

One method would be to use an artificial negative:-
2♠ = no heart stop, min (artificial)
2NT = heart stop, min
3♣ = GF; nat
3♦ = GF; nat
3♥ = GF; nat
3♠ = GF; nat
3NT = GF; heart stop

but it is probably best not to get into this sort of thing here. This is why I suggest avoiding the invitational 4th suit approach on this auction.

[Vampyr]

Codo, on 2013-April-16, 05:17, said:

3. I play 4sf as GF, but I would not claim that this is better- some hands you gain, some hands you lose. Being on the same wavelength with partner is important, and if you two agreed that 2 ♥ was invitational, then that was and is a fine agreement....

I think it is much better, and in my experience even people who don't play the fourth suit as always unconditionally GF usually play that it is GF if at the 3-level or if responder is reversing (as here).

[Cyberyeti]

eagles123, on 2013-April-16, 04:51, said:

The hands:

West:

♠ A876
♥ A3
♦T
♣AKT743


East:

♠QJT
♥962
♦AK6
♣J985

bidding went (opps passing throughout)

1♣ 1♦* 1♠ 2♥** 3♣ pass

*a lie I know but want to find more info and dont play a forcing 1NT. maybe 2NT better but I dont see any reason to rush?
** 4th suit forcing.

I was so reluctant to pass 3♣ here but thought I had already shown an invitational hand with my 2♥ bid? Pass was a disaster though with 6 making!! how can we distinguish between this kind of hand which has a genuinely good holding in clubs and wants to be in game from one that is say 5-4-2-2 and 12 pts?

Please help on how we should have bid the hand

Thanks,

Eagles

First - general system - NT range, minimum length of the club ?

You have 3 bids you could make on your hand, none of them the one you actually bid:

2♣ inverted if you play this
3♣ limit if you don't
2N limit if you play this

Our auction would not help you here as we would start 1♣-2♣(inverted)-3♠(decent 6-4) and bidding 6♣ is easy.

On yours - N cannot bid a NF 3♣, his best bid is probably 3♥ if you just play this as a general force or I have Ax(x) and I want you to protect your Q if you have it, at least you'll bid game, but you more or less killed the slam when you bid 1♦ as partner will not assume you have 4♣.

[1eyedjack]

Responding 1D was not the only occasion in the auction where you had an opportunity to describe your hand but instead chose to wrest the captaincy.
Having chosen 1D I think that you could still have recovered by rebidding 3C on your second turn, which I think is a better rebid by responder even if 2H (4th suit) was not systemically GF.
Your concern might have been the possibility of opener having potentially as few as 3 card Club suit, and you will encounter a lot of players whose 1S rebid by opener remains consistent with a balanced hand showing only 4 Spades and 3+ Clubs. Personally I (and others, but clearly not everyone) dislike this style but I do not know what beginners are taught in this regard. Not altogether sure how GIB is programmed that way. But if (as I prefer) you open or rebid NT with a balanced hand, the 1S rebid by opener would confirm a genuine club suit in the opener, adding safety to a 3C rebid by responder without relying on the "pitiful crutch", as 4th suit is sometimes called.

I tend to find that if your purpose in using 4th suit is as a NT probe, it is generally a good idea to have a little something in the 4th suit, just perhaps not enough to commit to NT yourself. If *your* 4th suit is completely wide open, then by making some other limit bid, if partner then commits to NT he does so without any expectation of assistance from you in the 4th suit.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

2H as FSF was fine, assuming you play it Acol style, maybe old fashioned Acol, which would be as inv.+
Playing this style, you have to agree on the default rebid, which maybe either 2S or 3C, depending on what
you decide, 3C showed either 64 o 54, and you have also to agree, if it could still be min or if it already
showes max.

In case 3C could still be min with 64, opener has to bid 3H to show a max. hand.

Looking at openers hand, 3C was certainly intended as forcing? Holding 15GCP vs. 10/11+ - opener knowes,
the partnership has 25+ combined, i.e. opener has to make a forcing bid.
So he though 3C to be forcing, you though 3C to be nonforcing.

I played this style for a long time, it works, I have now agreed to play, that an answer on the 3 level
generates a game forcing sequence.

Assuming opener showed 64 with min, you still appreciate, that you have a 64 fit, that all your honors are
working, your QJx in spades will be nice fitting, the Ace of diamonds will cover a looser as well.

A min hand like Axxx x xx Axxxxx will give you some play for 5C, i.e. passing is not a good idea.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Stephen Tu]

I think 1♦ is OK although I'd prefer an inverted 2♣ if available. If 3♣ is your limit raise, it's less desirable playing a 5 cd major system where the opening is frequently 3 cds. I dislike a 2nt call; imagine the same hand for partner with the K of hearts rather than the ace, you declare 3nt and lose the first 5 heart tricks while it's cold from his side of the table.

After 1♠ I'd prefer 3♣ if invitational. But if 3♣ is GF in your system I suppose you are forced into 2♥ inv+ if you still don't want to bid 2nt for the same reason you didn't bid it first round. But over 2♥ inv+ it's crucial to have agreements on which bids by opener are forcing. I think something like Zelandakh's scheme is best with 2s waiting, 3 level bids GF. Although I wouldn't have 3♥ as "natural"; opener can't really have hearts at this point (would bid 1♥ not 1♠), this should be some GF without a heart stop or other nat bid, say a strong 4225.

Or you could switch to 4sGF.

Simply raise clubs if you don't have good agreements, and don't want to bid NT, don't trot out artificial stuff if your partnership doesn't have agreements!

[mycroft]

This is American bidding, not English, sorry, I don't speak Acol very well in any of its versions.

1♣-2NT would be bog standard across most of "SA or 2/1" world - and I hate it. The only bid that's worse is 1♣-3NT showing the same hand with another king (also bog standard). Old-fashioned 2NT GF (could be huge) and 3NT more GF for me, please. But if you're playing invitational 2NT, you have the perfect hand for it - bid it. If you don't bid it, partner will *not* play you for that hand.

This is a meta-rule: "If one of your options limits your hand, take that option." Goes along with "as far as possible, one of the first three calls by your side should be a limit call; partner of the limited hand is captain" (which obviously can't be done all the time, but one can try).

If you're playing 2NT response GF, then you don't have a NT bid you can make; I prefer 1♦ to some number of clubs, assuming the clubs could "frequently" be 3 (least lie). But then when partner continues, you bid 2NT invitational *now*. 2♥ just keeps captaincy on a hand where partner usually will know what to do more than you do. *Usually* the balanced hand should show and the unbalanced hand should place.

I'm used to 4SF to game; with limit+, as people have said above you need agreements on what calls are passable and what calls show GF values - and opener can't make a passable call. Again, that might mean that he has to either lie or bypass 3NT - which is the invitational hand's fault for not relinquishing captaincy, not opener's for being forced into a bad call.

[aguahombre]

The 1♦ response was quite reasonable if:

--1NT would have shown 6-10 or 8-10 (my preference).
--2NT would have been standard split range 13-15 or 18-19.
--3NT would have been in between the above.
--A club raise, inverted or not, would show 5+.

That leaves 1D as the default. However, when opener rebids 1M showing an unbalanced hand, a 3C rebid by responder establishes the club fit and the 11-12 range. The fact that you are flat instead of two-suited with the minors is unavoidable at that point, IMO. But, opener will move to game at least so it doesn't really matter, and opener is rightfully in charge of further probing.

[Vampyr]

Stephen Tu, on 2013-April-16, 10:22, said:

After 1♠ I'd prefer 3♣ if invitational. But if 3♣ is GF in your system ...

It is worth noting that if you are playing 4SF (really 4th Suit Artificial is a better name for it, since it would be forcing in any case) it is normal to play all of these secondary raises as invitational.

[Vampyr]

Stephen Tu, on 2013-April-16, 10:22, said:

After 1♠ I'd prefer 3♣ if invitational. But if 3♣ is GF in your system ...

It is worth noting that if you are playing 4SF (really 4th Suit Artificial is a better name for it, since it would be forcing in any case) it is normal to play all of these secondary raises as invitational.

[eagles123]

Thanks guys for all the replies I think best to forget this one and move on practice makes perfect as they say

[eagles123]

Thanks guys for all the replies I think best to forget this one and move on practice makes perfect as they say

[gszes]

The 1d bid was fine and well thought out. W failed to remember a cardinal
rule of bidding once the majors are out we are looking for NT with the
minors as a last option. W had Ax of hearts a suit you would have strained to
bid NT if you had stop(s). That greatly increases the probability of the opps
holding KQJ of hearts and them being worth 1 or zero tricks.
It is difficult to imagine too many hands where we dont have decent play for 5
of a minor and we need to make a stronger bid than 3c and i suggest 3h.
Lets give p some room to bid further and see if they can bid 4c or 3s or have
to rebid 4/5 diamonds (or even 3n) P next bid will give us a strong
clue how to proceed but W cannot act as if they have a minimum balanced hand.

Your partnerships does need to define fsf as game forcing or invitational+ (my choice
but not a majority choice)

IMO it does your partnership a huge disserive to just willy nilly bid 2N and up w/o
having stoppers in the unbid suits and this is especially true if your bidding 1c 1d 1s
showed a semi balanced or unbalanced hand.

1c 1d
1s 2h
3h 3s
4c*4d (cue) would not have bid 3s with long diamonds
4h cue 5c nothing else to add
pass or 6c are both reasonable though i think pass is a tad
better since p did not want to cue 4s and it is unliely we will
escape wit no spade losers

*note this is a stronger bid than 4c over 2h due to using 3h first