[gwnn]

KQxx
Ax
AKJxxx
J

opp

xx
KJ9xx
xx
T97x

1♦-1♥
1♠-2♦ 1♠ showed 5-4
3♣-pass

despite the relatively good interior strength of the trump suit, we got a bad result for this.

how would you bid it after 1♦-1♥? I know pass from south is an alternative, but please assume you do respond on the S hand.

[helene_t]

If North found himself too strong for 3♦ as his 3rd bid, he should have bid 2♠ at his 2nd turn.

South bid fine. I would probably have passed at my first turn but I suppose 1♥ is in accordance with the partnership style.

[Jlall]

As helene said. I would jumpshift with the north hand 100 % though.

[peachy]

The N hand is bolstered by Ax in partner's heart suit and a very strong two-suiter. I'm wondering why N did not rebid 2S (instead of 1S).

[Hanoi5]

3♣ is terrible, but Pass is worse.

[andy_h]

1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♦; 3♦-Pass.
It's a maximum 1♠ for me, and change the Jack of clubs to Jack of spades and I would JS.

[MickyB]

Two Qs. The first -

AKxx
Kx
AQJxx
xx

You open, and bid uncontested -

1♦:1♥
1♠:2♦
What now?

The second -

I hear that fitting hands play better than misfits. Can't the discovery of a 6-2 diamond fit improve a hand to being worthy of forcing to game?

[nige1]

gwnn, on Jun 21 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

North ♠ KQxx ♥ Ax ♦ AKJxxx ♣ J: 1♦ 1♠ 3♣
South ♠ xx ♥ KJ9xx ♦ xx ♣ T97x: 1♥ 2♦ _P
1♠ shows 5-4

Despite the relatively good interior strength of the trump suit, we got a bad result for this. How would you bid it after 1♦-1♥? I know pass from south is an alternative, but please assume you do respond on the S hand.

IMO, North's bidding is acceptable and his 3♣ is FSF. South may pass 1♦ but may not pass 3♣. South has a difficult bid over 3♣. Perhaps 3♥ = 10, 3♦ = 9.

[gnasher]

nige1, on Jun 22 2009, 09:10 AM, said:

3♣ is FSF

Me too. It's not very useful as a natural bid - a strong 4153 would bid 2NT over 2♦, so the only shape which might want to bid 3♣ is 4054.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

if I assume, that I would have bid 1H, that the auction
until 2D looks fine, or systemic, the alternative to 2D
would be 1NT, but 2D sounds less encouraging to my
ears.

I would guess, that 3C was FSF, given that opener has
18HCP, and is certain to have a 5-3 fit in diamonds, the
bid looks also reasonable, although 3D would ask the same
question and tell partner abouth the 6th diamonds, i.e.
3D is a lot better.

I dont like pass after 3C, because you are playing partner
for 5440, I think if you respond 1H, you should now bid 3D.

So I give it 50-50.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

I am with the English and to me it looks like south just passed a 4sf bid.

And in my style, he should have passed 1 diamond.

[MFA]

For me, 3♣ would surely be 4th suit forcing.
Agree with a jumpshift. Would surely respond 1♥, not close for me.

[jdonn]

1♦ 1♥ was a good start. I don't believe a single correct bid was made after that.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Jun 22 2009, 05:25 PM, said:

1♦ 1♥ was a good start. I don't believe a single correct bid was made after that.

huh? What else but 2D when partner has shown 4-5?

[mikeh]

The idea that 3♣ was FSF is risible.

3♣ is natural in standard methods, and while there may be arguments why it ought not to be, I am at a loss to see how those arguments should prevail in this simple auction.

[I also suspect that the info in the original post was mistaken... that 1♠ did not promise 4=5+... I suspect that it might also include 4=1=4=4 and some players would go further and say it might be 4=0=4=5 with weak clubs, but maybe not this partnership. In any event, it clearly includes 4=0=5=4, and while those are low frequency hands, are they so low frequency that we decide to remove them from our bidding dictionary? Why?]

And why would we use FSF here? I fail to see what purpose is served by such a usage. Consider:

We cannot have a gf hand... we just rebid a non-forcing 1♠ and partner's 2♦ call did not show an iota of previously undisclosed strength, nor a real diamond fit, so we cannot NOW re-evaluate the hand to gf strength... so we don't need 3♣ as gf..

We cannot have a hand invitational to 3N... we'd bid 2N

We cannot have a hand with 4=6 in the suits and wanting partner to bid 3N when possible... we'd have an easy 3♦ bid (as we clearly did, having (reasonably if conservatively) chosen 1♠ as our second call)

We cannot have a good hand with 3 hearts: we'd bid 2♥ now

And so on... we can eliminate any meaning for 3♣ that does not involve.... drum roll, please....clubs!

And, on the flip side, we cannot show clubs in any manner other than by.... you guessed it... bidding the suit!!

So, 3♣ shows clubs... and why not? it shows clubs with extra values... still interested in game after partner's limited and non-fitting bids.

Edit: i should anticipate all the FSF bidders' response... with a 4=1=5=3 or some 4=2=5=2s with extra values and no club guard, there may be some value to 3♣ as FSF... not much, given that partner bid 2♦ rather than a modest 1N, but not zero value. So my rant was an overbid But I still stand by my basic view.

[mike777]

gwnn, on Jun 21 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

KQxx
Ax
AKJxxx
J

opp

xx
KJ9xx
xx
T97x

1♦-1♥
1♠-2♦ 1♠ showed 5-4
3♣-pass

despite the relatively good interior strength of the trump suit, we got a bad result for this.

how would you bid it after 1♦-1♥? I know pass from south is an alternative, but please assume you do respond on the S hand.

prefer 2s not 1s.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Jun 23 2009, 12:00 AM, said:

The idea that 3♣ was FSF is risible.

3♣ is natural in standard methods

One of the few unattractive features of these forums is the way that some people insist that what is standard for them is the only standard.

It seems clear from the comments that 3♣ has different meanings to different people, and that this difference depends partly upon their location. Personally I find that quite interesting, and am pleased that a discussion involving players from all over the world has unearthed this difference. In contrast, I find the comments quoted above quite uninteresting.

Quote

I also suspect that the info in the original post was mistaken... that 1♠ did not promise 4=5+... I suspect that it might also include 4=1=4=4

Yes, you must be right: it's almost impossible that anyone would have agreed to open 1♣ with 4144 shapes. That wouldn't be standard.

Quote

We cannot have a gf hand... we just rebid a non-forcing 1♠ and partner's 2♦ call did not show an iota of previously undisclosed strength, nor a real diamond fit, so we cannot NOW re-evaluate the hand to gf strength

Of course we can. Three of the things that partner's 2♦ tells us are:
- He has at least two diamonds
- If he has only two diamonds, he probably doesn't have a club stop.
- He probably doesn't have a very bad hand with 3=2 in the pointed suits
This hand is improved by all of these.

[jdonn]

If someone has a hand very much like this one that they didn't think was a game force until partner bid 2♦ (I agree they exist, and I would have jump shifted on the actual hand) then why not bid 4♣ next? The odds of missing a good 3NT for a bad 5♦ pale in comparison to the benefits of describing the hand in case of slam, IMO. That being due to the 1♥ bid and the non-1NT rebid.

[Codo]

Of course you can waste your bidding space with 4 ♣. But why should you?

To catter for the hands where you have 4054 and partner has 4 clubs but still no NT rebid and your 4-4 club fit plays so much better then the 5-2 diamond fit ?

Or do you frequently rebid 2 ♦ with say Kx, Kxxx,xx,8xxxx? If you do, you may need 3 ♣ as a natural and nonforcing bid.

[jdonn]

Lol that is exactly why. You have shown you understand perfectly Codo. Well done.