[mikeh]

I have no experience in these situations since 2♦ would have been artificial for me. I see it was not 4th suit, but was it forcing at all?

If it showed values, and was a one round force, then the jump need not show a huge hand. If it could be passed (say KJxx x Qxxxxx xx) then the jump to 3♠ shows the hand Justin expects.

In the former case, a trump lead (what? a trump lead surprises you? I bet not) probably beats game: picture K10x AKxxx x AJxx... a minimum opposite a one round force perhaps but surely too much to bid 2♠ on.

In the latter case, opener may hold AQx AKxxx AJxx and now I need to be in game.

So I am going to do what is a first for me: abstain

If I am not allowed to abstain, then I guess 4♠ just because I like bidding games and defence is the toughest part of the game. Plus with all you guys at the other table, this way i get a push

[mikeh]

Gerben42, on Oct 13 2005, 02:11 PM, said:

Thanks for your responses!

This hand is from the Atlanta Appeals. Partner alerted 2♦ as 4th suit forcing, even though you would have redoubled with such a hand. 3♠ is two down, 4♠, well, three down

The more common expert practice (if not playing that redouble starts transfers) is for the redouble to show a balanced hand, usually with no fit, and interest in penalizing the opps. With other hands, just ignore the double, thus 4th suit would still be on.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Oct 13 2005, 10:29 PM, said:

I have no experience in these situations since 2♦ would have been artificial for me. I see it was not 4th suit, but was it forcing at all?

If it showed values, and was a one round force, then the jump need not show a huge hand. If it could be passed (say KJxx x Qxxxxx xx) then the jump to 3♠ shows the hand Justin expects.

In the former case, a trump lead (what? a trump lead surprises you? I bet not) probably beats game: picture K10x AKxxx x AJxx... a minimum opposite a one round force perhaps but surely too much to bid 2♠ on.

Mike, I think Justin's argument that 2♠ shows extras has not so much to do with the question of whether 2♦ is forcing, but with the style of opener's rebid.
If your style is that you always raise 1♠ to 2♠ with an unbalanced hand and a minimum, then you always show extras when you first bid 2♣ and then show 3 spades. Since, I think, 2♠ should show 3 spades, you cannot have a minimum hand for that, and it would do justice to the KTx AKxxx x AJxx hand you are giving.

Arend

[mike777]

Wow down 3, Ok I will ask since no one else did, what was pard's hand?

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Oct 13 2005, 01:16 PM, said:

Wow I was about to write "4S wtp." As of now I'm outvoted 4-1 though lol. Well to me 3S shows a LOT of extras. Partner could have bid 2S which would show extras (IE 3514 15 count). He must have a nice 17 or 3505 with compensating values or so, just under jump shift strength. My diamond card being the ace instead of something wasted is a big plus, my CQ seems to be useful, and I have 5 trumps. I imagine game will be touch and go, but we are red at imps so that's fine with me.

2♠ is a simple preference

[Fluffy]

You absolutely have a minimum hand, or even sub-minimum, why is poeple voting for 4♠? I guess that's why some people play jump raises to the 3 level as forcing, seems many players never reject an invitation

[the hog]

4S. Not close.

[HeartA]

Jlall, on Oct 13 2005, 08:16 AM, said:

Wow I was about to write "4S wtp." As of now I'm outvoted 4-1 though lol. Well to me 3S shows a LOT of extras. Partner could have bid 2S which would show extras (IE 3514 15 count). He must have a nice 17 or 3505 with compensating values or so, just under jump shift strength. My diamond card being the ace instead of something wasted is a big plus, my CQ seems to be useful, and I have 5 trumps. I imagine game will be touch and go, but we are red at imps so that's fine with me.

I am with you, Justin. I would bid 4♠.

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Oct 13 2005, 07:17 AM, said:

You have:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> West </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> E/W </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> J8543 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> T </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> AT763 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> Q3 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

Pass 1♥ Double 1♠
Pass 2♣ Pass 2♦*
Pass 3♠ Pass ?

* Not 4th suit forcing

Thanks for posting this hand, the more I think about it the more meat I see.

I do not see how partner can be as good as:
Axx=AQxxx=void=AKxxx

Partner has made not one but 2 free bids, I would bid 4s with that hand over 2D.

[adhoc3]

Al_U_Card, on Oct 13 2005, 11:06 AM, said:

(the trumps are breaking badly, pards cards are in front of the t/o doubler etc.)

In view of t/o double, I'll pass.

♠ could be 1345 and ♥5521, maybe worse. PD's strength mainly located in ♥ and ♣, otherwise he would bid differently. Guess PD was testing 52 trump.

[Winstonm]

4S. Virtually every card in my hand has gone up in value and I have a 5th spade plus shape.

Winston

[Blofeld]

Winstonm, on Oct 14 2005, 12:41 AM, said:

4S. Virtually every card in my hand has gone up in value and I have a 5th spade plus shape.

Winston

Haven't we already shown five spades?

[Blofeld]

Well yes, that's my basic problem with things. I don't fully understand the implications of the 2♦ bid, or the implications of not making the 2♦ bid when it's available. My intuitive interpretation is that we've shown five spades, but I could be wrong (and if we have only shown four then I think I change my vote to 4♠).

[jdeegan]

I think you have to bid four. Partner is advertising three spades, one diamond and fifteen to seventeen HCP. Something like:

---

If this piece of cheese offers a good play for four spades, how can you not bid four?
In may cases bidding is nothing more than mental play.

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Oct 14 2005, 06:13 AM, said:

Gerben42, on Oct 13 2005, 09:05 AM, said:

I'm not sure if it's the "Justin effect" but 4♠ has now overtaken Pass in the poll.

lol, I'm sure it was just a coincidence. Me voting for a bid makes others less likely to do it, just ask my partners

Yes, as I said unfortunately I had voted already before I saw that my vote was agreeing with you.

Arend

[Kalvan14]

mike777, on Oct 13 2005, 06:40 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Oct 13 2005, 07:17 AM, said:

You have:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> West </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> E/W </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> J8543 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> T </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> AT763 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> Q3 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

Pass 1♥ Double 1♠
Pass 2♣ Pass 2♦*
Pass 3♠ Pass ?

* Not 4th suit forcing

Thanks for posting this hand, the more I think about it the more meat I see.

I do not see how partner can be as good as:
Axx=AQxxx=void=AKxxx

Partner has made not one but 2 free bids, I would bid 4s with that hand over 2D.

Pard has not made 2 free bids: in my view 1♠ ignores the double and is 1-round forcing.
The point is quite different: if pard has a minimum to average hand (say, up to 15 HCP) , he would raise ♠, without introducing ♣. Otherwise he is self-fixed in an auction like the one which is being discussed: 2♠ would be a weak preference, denying a 3-card fit.
My first gut-feeling would be to bid 4♠; and I would certainly bid it playing with a partner I have confidence in. The only negative feature of my hand is the ♠ texture.
I fail to understand how 2♦ could be other than a 4th suit forcing.