[kenrexford]

♠KQxxx ♥AKJxxx ♦xx ♣--

You open 1♥ (2/1 GF) and partner surprises you by responding 1♠.

Now what?

[suokko]

I'm going to bid 4♠ at least so I'm going to show short ♣ in the way to there.

For this hand it is nice to have Gazilli for HCP heavy splinters and direct splinters to show distributional strong hands.

[SlickRicky]

Hi Ken,

It's tempting to bid 4D or 5D with a hand like this, but I will go with a pedestrian 4C bid. If partner signs off we won't have a slam.

Ricky

[mike777]

4c

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure what partner will do after 4♣, because in practice partner was bidding strangely and continued that practice. My bid happened to be 3♦, for various reasons. I need the diamond and spade Aces for slam to be good, and nothing more. So, I decided that 4♣ was insufficient, even with 4♦ LTTC available. Plus, a jump shift into diamonds had the additional advantage of perhaps dissuading a diamond lead, where any two missing Aces might work.

The end auction was:

1♥-1♠
3♦-3NT
4♠-4NT
6♥(two with the Queen and a void)-P

The final pass was really weird. I felt that I needed to show the void because I would have held ♠KQJx ♥AKQxxx ♦Kx ♣x or something similar. Walsh Fragments do not seem to be used after a heart opening.

So, to the play problem. Partner had been bidding very strangely. He bid 1♠ because he decided that 3NT was probably going to be the right final contract. He bid 3NT for the same reason. He converted 4♠ to 4NT because he felt that this was natural, which seems odd. In any event, the diamond King hits the table as the lead, after many questions about whether 3♦ was a natural bid and much in the way of fussing over the lead by LHO. You see:

Scoring: MP

♦King lead.

---

How to play this mess to the bitter end is the next question.

[ochinko]

5♣ exclusion BW?

[han]

Agree Ken, 3D is automatic but not sure what partner is thinking, faking a spade suit on Axx. Weird.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Sep 29 2008, 03:17 PM, said:

He converted 4♠ to 4NT because he felt that this was natural, which seems odd.

4NT sounds natural to me.
Opener has shown a very strong 3=5=4=1 or 3=5=5=0. Responder has got a poor 4=1=3=5 or similar. Why shouldn't he want to pull 4S to 4NT looking at

J10xx
x
Qxx
KJ109x

?

You've painted such a pretty picture of your hand that there is no need for RKCB.

p.s. I can understand 3D as a psyche to try and put off the diamond lead. But you seem to be arguing that it's the correct call for some slightly obscure reason. I'm just too stupid not to raise partner when I have 5 card support.

[han]

Yes also agree that 4NT is natural, it made more sense than 3NT.

[jdonn]

I also agree 4NT was natural, and in addition don't see why the final pass was at all weird. You are supposed to be 3640 exactly, no other shape even seems possible. I doubt the auction is even possible since 4♠ isn't forcing, but I guess we are already past that point.

The auction started off so well with 1♥. It's too bad there wasn't a single good bid made by either player after that until partner's pass.

[mikeh]

han, on Sep 29 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

Agree Ken, 3D is automatic but not sure what partner is thinking, faking a spade suit on Axx. Weird.

I'm not sure that I agree with this, Han. 3♦ looks like the obvious bid, of course, but deeper thought may persuade you that 3♣ is the superior call.

It is best for a number of reasons:

1. It conserves bidding space

2. We have first round control of clubs, and we all know that suit quality is important when jumpshifting

3. It allows us later to cue our diamond void.

I don't know where Ken finds these weird partners... there he is, bidding straight down the middle, and his partner screws up the auction.

[pclayton]

Perhaps a 1♦ opening is best as well. After all, we can have a comfortable splinter of either major (especially given that pard is prone to bidding 3 card majors at his 1st opportunity), and we can always correct diamonds to hearts if the bidding really gets out of hand.

How else can we right-side 6♥ opposite: Axx Qxx Kx xxxxx?

[kenrexford]

This is finally getting to the crux of the issue.

There seem to be two lines of thinking going on.

School A feels that 3♦, followed by 4♠, shows a hand that cannot be bid properly by way of a splinter, such that the diamond suit is manufatured. In that school, 4♠ now must show 4+ spades, such that 4NT is unambiguously RKCB (and Opener answers).

School B feels that 3♦ shows a real suit (possibly with a sub-school where 3♦ could be manufactured only when Opener has a hand with a heart one-suiter that is too strong for a 4♥ call), such that 4♠ is simply a pattern-out fragment bid and, accordingly, 4NT is natural.

I don't get School B. How can Opener have a hand that strong, when Responder might have a bare minimum? With 3550, and huge, 4♦ works. So, we have a 3541 monster? How monsterous can we really be, when partner might have just the club King for his bidding to date?

Forgetting the strange 1♠ response, I really do not understand how this auction can show anything other than 4♠ (perhaps 5 but never 3), 6+ hearts, and hence almost assuredly a manufatured diamond suit (4540 being the obvious exception).

[han]

That's what I'm saying, 4S should show 5 spades and since we opened 1H we have at most 2 cards in the minors. We obviously wouldn't bid 3D with a singleton diamond (unless it was the ace but partner is looking at that card) therefore we must be 5620.

With discussion one could also play that the auction 1H.. 3D.. 4S shows a hand with only 4 spades but diamonds too weak to bid 4C over 1S.

[kenrexford]

han, on Sep 29 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

That's what I'm saying, 4S should show 5 spades and since we opened 1H we have at most 2 cards in the minors. We obviously wouldn't bid 3D with a singleton diamond (unless it was the ace but partner is looking at that card) therefore we must be 5620.

With discussion one could also play that the auction 1H.. 3D.. 4S shows a hand with only 4 spades but diamonds too weak to bid 4C over 1S.

But what about a classic walsh fragment type of hand, also? Meaning, solid hearts, four good spades, and 3-0 or 2-1 in the minors? It seems to me that there are a lot of hands for a "fake" 3♦ call, but that 4♠ after 3♦ must assuredly set trumps. If so, then 4NT cannot be to play. Agree?

[han]

The problem with your plan is that partner does not always bid 3NT. For example, partner could bid 4D, even though your partner did not seem aware of this possibility. Now a 4S bid by you would not show 4-card support, and would not suggest that your diamonds are fake.

Maybe you could survive by jumping to 5S over 4D. To me 4D does not show any extra values (I'd bid it with xxxx x xxxxx Axx) so 5S may be too high.

In my partnerships we try to show a big fit as soon as possible. If we don't directly support but do it a round later then that almost always denies 4-card support.

[jdonn]

There is no school A, Ken. Just because you in particular bid a hand a certain way doesn't make it a "school". Perhaps some sort of reform school for delinquents, but not a valid school of thought.

Just because 4♦ on 3550 or 4♥ on 3640 might "work" doesn't make it the most accurate or best choice.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Sep 29 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

There is no school A, Ken. Just because you in particular bid a hand a certain way doesn't make it a "school". Perhaps some sort of reform school for delinquents, but not a valid school of thought.

Just because 4♦ on 3550 or 4♥ on 3640 might "work" doesn't make it the most accurate or best choice.

Unless people are being funny, it looks like three of us bid 3♦ with this holding. That makes a school. You might not agree with that, but it still is so.

What problems develop?

3♥ -- no problem. Bid 3♠ and then 4♠.
3♠ -- wonderful!
3NT -- bid 3NT
4♣(?!?) -- 6♠. It probably makes.
4♦ -- 5♠ works.
4♥/4♠ -- NP.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Sep 29 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

Unless people are being funny, it looks like three of us bid 3♦ with this holding. That makes a school. You might not agree with that, but it still is so.

Read the first five words you just wrote. Reread them. Read them a third time. Then think about them very hard. Then go read the posts by Han and Mike again. Then click on this link. Definition number 1 is very appropriate here. Then please get back to me on what constitutes a school.

[mikeh]

edited for redundancy, having read josh's post..