[han]

Yesterday I played a very nice tournament in Nijmegen, the city where I lived until I moved to the US. Every match is played in a different bar, and the tournament is sometimes called beer-teams. The team I was on ended in second place, only one VP behind the winners. Of course there were many hands that could have made the difference. Here is a nice hand where my partner and I missed the top spot:

Scoring: IMP

---

Our auction was:

1H-1S
2D-3C*
4NT-6H

3C was fourth suit forcing, the rest of the auction was natural. Do you have any ideas how we could/should have found the great 7NT contract? This was the first time we played together, so you have no unusual gadgets available.

[Gerben42]

very complicated hand! I agree with the auction up to 4NT, but after that just shooting 6♥ does not seem right. I would bid 5NT. Not sure how to bid this though...

[mike777]

Sounds like a lot of fun, what the heck was 4nt? 3C did not promise hearts, why not just bid 4C bidding out shape and extra's? Bidding 7nt will not be easy.

[han]

Gerben42, on May 22 2006, 06:03 AM, said:

very complicated hand! I agree with the auction up to 4NT, but after that just shooting 6♥ does not seem right. I would bid 5NT. Not sure how to bid this though...

What is 5NT here Gerben, and why are you bidding this? To bid a grand with some confidence, you should at leat find out whether you are missing, say, the ace of hearts. How is 5NT going to help you with that?

[han]

mike777, on May 22 2006, 07:56 AM, said:

Sounds like a lot of fun

It was!

Quote

what the heck was 4nt?

Natural, showing extra values. I'd say that this shows about 17-19 HCP, a club stopper and 2-5-4-2 or 1-5-4-3 shape. I agree with you that 4C is an alternative. I suggested it to partner afterwards, and he agreed. However, I don't think that it would have helped us to get to the 7-level. What would 4NT over 4C be? Would you risk it in a first-time partnership?

[Fluffy]

I would bid 3♥ rather than 3♣, that might lead to 7♥ if you think ♣ cue is based on the King and not sigleton . I don't know how to find actually and don't know if I would land on the best contract, always hard to bid when both players have extras.

BTW, do you think 1♥-1♠-2♦-4♣ is splinter or 5-5?

[han]

Fluffy, on May 22 2006, 08:12 AM, said:

I would bid 3♥ rather than 3♣, that might lead to 7♥ if you think ♣ cue is based on the King and not sigleton . I don't know how to find actually and don't know if I would land on the best contract, always hard to bid when both players have extras.

BTW, do you think 1♥-1♠-2♦-4♣ is splinter or 5-5?

3♥ would not be forcing for us.

7♥ would have gone down (bad break). 7NT, 7♣ and also 7♠ would have made, but 7NT is of course by far the best grand.

I don't know what the jump to 4♣ would have been, that's an interesting question. I sure wasn't going to risk it.

[barmar]

Jumping to 4♣ would probably be a splinter, using the general rule "one higher than a forcing bid is a splinter". The way to show a game force with natural clubs would be to bid 3♣ (FSF) followed by 4♣.

I agree with everyone else that bidding 7NT is very difficult. It hinges on all those fitting queens, as well as the jacks that guard against bad breaks. But if you're going to find it, you need to slow down the auction to allow room for cue bidding.

[kfgauss]

Is 5C forcing over 4NT? (This is perhaps a bad idea in a pickup partnership, but my question is theoretical.) This still doesn't really get you there, of course, but it might help slightly.

Andy

[jdonn]

1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 3♣ is the highest, and thus most difficult, of all 4th suit forcing auctions. On all others, opener at least has a 2NT bid available. There is a method change that deals well with it that I have played with a few people.

If you aren't in love with whatever 1♥ 2♠ means for you, consider making that a sort of 'constructive weak jump shift'. Essentially, any hand that would otherwise have bid 1♠ then 2♠.

That frees up bidding 1♠ then 2♠ as an artificial game force, like 4th suit forcing. So on your auction responder would bid 2♠ instead of 3♣, though I'm certainly not saying it is realistic to reach 7NT anyway. At least opener could have jumped to 3NT instead of 4NT to show his extra values, saving a level of bidding.

There are a couple other good points about this method. One is that you gain a couple other bids. The 3♣ bid here (the artist formerly known as 4sf) becomes a natural game force, promising 5-5. 1♥ 1♠ 2♣ 2♦ is also freed up, you can use it as weak 5-5, invitational 5-5, whatever.

I have to admit I used this method in conjunction with kaplan inversion, so if I wasn't playing that I never thought about 1♥ 1♠ 1NT 2♠. Maybe it should be invitational instead of weak, or maybe it should still be the start of a game force, with three level jumps invitational. I'm sure either would work ok.

Also after specifically 1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ you can play neat rebids by opener, I think Fred has even written about this. It goes something like
2NT: 4 clubs
3♣: 4 diamonds
3♦: 1633 (maybe 26(32) with xx of spades is ok?)
3♥: 3622 (maybe 26(32) with Hx of spades is ok?)
3♠/4♣/4♦: Shortness with 7 hearts.
3NT/4♥: Max/min with 2722

I think there are a lot of plusses associated with this suggestion, and it is probably worth a try.

[Impact]

Ok , I'm normally a relay bidder but this looks biddable:-

1♥ - 1♠
2♦ - 3♣ = 4SF
3NT - 4♣ =only forcing easy bid with perhaps 5H the alternative
4♦cue for C - 4♠ cue
4NT DI huge extras- 5♦ cueing beyond 5-level must be looking for grand
5♥ - 5♠ cues
5NT trumps & more- 7♣

I think that without knowing about the SJ, 7NT is just too tough....

THere is a lot to be said for cue-bidding and I truly believe that if you remove RKCB/Bw from most players' arsenal it would actually improve their bidding longterm!

[jdonn]

Impact, on May 23 2006, 02:20 AM, said:

Ok , I'm normally a relay bidder but this looks biddable:-

1♥  -  1♠
2♦ -  3♣ = 4SF
3NT    -  4♣ =only forcing easy bid  with perhaps 5H the alternative
4♦cue for C  - 4♠ cue
4NT  DI huge extras- 5♦ cueing beyond 5-level must be looking for grand
5♥  -  5♠  cues
5NT trumps & more-  7♣

I think that without knowing about the SJ, 7NT is just too tough....

THere is a lot to be said for cue-bidding and I truly believe that if you remove RKCB/Bw from most players' arsenal it would actually improve their bidding longterm!

Isn't 3NT an underbid? It will miss slam if responder passes with, say, AKJxx xx Kxx Axx? I think responder would pass 3NT with even a slightly better hand than that.

[mikeh]

The auction through 4N makes sense, and, absent the type of gadgetry mentioned by jdonn, seems impeccable. I understand 4♣ rather than 4N, but don't like it. 4N has the powerful advantage of actually describing the hand held, while 4♣ could (I think) be bid on somewhat fewer values (not a minimum) and 0=5=4=4 shape.. how much fewer values I am not sure...

It seems to me that maybe North should bid 5♥ over 4N. That cannot logically be passable and must announce a hand that had good ♥ support and at least mild slam interest at the 2♦ stage: with a minimum, North could have jumped to 4♥.

If North has MILD slam interest over 2♦, then logically the partnership ought to be in a slam force after S's jump to 4N.


Unfortunately, I still see no clear path towards any making grand: 7♥ may be reachable, but I can't see reaching 7♣ (North has NEVER shown that suit) nor 7N... neither partner can ever picture 13 top tricks in notrump.

So my 'improvement' on the auction will either push the actual result, by reaching 6♥, or lose big by reaching the inferior and failing 7♥ grand.

[mike777]

There is something to be said for playing all 4nt bids to be blackwood and 5nt as a grand slam try in a first time partnership at the pub. Even Zia played this way in the finals or semifinals at the world teams with Pakistan.

[mikeh]

mike777, on May 23 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

There is something to be said for playing all 4nt bids to be blackwood

Yes, but what should be said about that treatment is unsuitable for posting in a forum accessible by children

[Impact]

jdonn, on May 23 2006, 10:20 AM, said:

Impact, on May 23 2006, 02:20 AM, said:

Ok , I'm normally a relay bidder but this looks biddable:-

1♥  -  1♠
2♦ -  3♣ = 4SF
3NT    -  4♣ =only forcing easy bid  with perhaps 5H the alternative
4♦cue for C  - 4♠ cue
4NT  DI huge extras- 5♦ cueing beyond 5-level must be looking for grand
5♥  -  5♠  cues
5NT trumps & more-  7♣

I think that without knowing about the SJ, 7NT is just too tough....

THere is a lot to be said for cue-bidding and I truly believe that if you remove RKCB/Bw from most players' arsenal it would actually improve their bidding longterm!

Isn't 3NT an underbid? It will miss slam if responder passes with, say, AKJxx xx Kxx Axx? I think responder would pass 3NT with even a slightly better hand than that.

Josh,

I agree you give up certain types of hand but showing extra values in these auctions is always hard after a one-over-one and 4SF at a high level in standard methods.

My theory has always been to relinquish the extra with no fit, as the prospect of 6NT (or more) always requires so much substantial extra.

Accordingly, you may have extra values (in this case maximal extra values!!!) and it becomes easy to push.

Sure, you can create easy 15 HCP with the right J (particularly SJ) where no further move is made and 6NT is laydown, but the philosophy allows you to reach many more making minor suit slams (and GS) while only jumping to 4NT with the hand just short of a forcing bid - thereby allowing leeway for partner.

Obviously "fit slams" require fewer values and hence are more frequently occurring. Except for the rare perfecto, the substantial extra values needed for 6NT give both players an opportunity to push.

Here, when you know the style, it is always going to be easier to have extra values with opener (who makes the 3NT call).

It is not perfect, but again is an example of a philosophy of treatment being applied to effect a compromise.

I have a gut feeling (and it is only that ie no empirical data) that many of the methods which focus on NT slams arise from pairs bridge (MP) but if you play more imps, your focus tends to be quite different in terms of origin of methods.

If you look at old BW "You be the Judge" columns many focus on the inability to determine extra values in standard after one-over-one starts.

I would be interested to hear what you think both of the philosophy and the anecdotal basis above...

[fred]

I am not suggesting I would actually do this at the table (because it is a very strange bid), but I think a 2C response to 1H (as opposed to the "obvious" 1S) makes a lot of sense.

Not that it proves anything, but on this particular hand you would get to 7 of something after that start, most likely without breathing hard. I suspect it would not be too hard to construct a credible auction to get to 7NT (not that this is so important - getting to 7 of anything is pretty good).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

fred, on May 23 2006, 10:47 PM, said:

I am not suggesting I would actually do this at the table (because it is a very strange bid), but I think a 2C response to 1H (as opposed to the "obvious" 1S) makes a lot of sense.

Not that it proves anything, but on this particular hand you would get to 7 of something after that start, most likely without breathing hard. I suspect it would not be too hard to construct a credible auction to get to 7NT (not that this is so important - getting to 7 of anything is pretty good).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

It really does make a lot of sense, presuming 2/1 game forcing. Though likewise I'm not saying I would have done it on this hand (I wouldn't have), my current partner and I invariably start with 2♣ on balanced game forcing hands with four spades, and have extended this to certain unbalanced hands with heart support. If you have heart support it becomes very easy to support hearts cheaply next in a forcing auction as opposed to this one, where 5♥ was the first opportunity. There is much to be said for making the auction game forcing as early as possible, to leave as much room as possible to focus on where you are going.

Even with a shape like 4243, I definitely think it's right to respond 2♣ playing 2/1 game forcing, at least given certain fairly common followup agreements (such as opener being able to 'reverse' into 2♠ without showing extras), and presuming you don't have a natural 2NT response available. You won't miss a spade fit. If clubs get raised you can easily just bid notrump next. And take partner on a good hand with a diamond fit. It is pretty obvious which auction is easier to handle between 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 3♣ 3N 4♦? and 1♥ 2♣ 2♦ 3♦.