[Ant590]

Hi all,

In a sequence such as 1♣ - (3♥) -, what is a typical hand that bids 4♠?

Is it a hand that expects to usually make opposite a weak NT (with stronger hands starting with a 3♠ bid), or do such hands 3♠ leaving 4♠ for the stronger hands (say those that have slam interest opposite 18/19 counts)?

Is in fact a hand that thinks it's making opposite a weak NT automatically have slam interest opposite 18/19 anyway?

Do either contain weaker hands that want try and play in spades without ever issuing a slam try?

Ta

[TylerE]

Strong hands start with an X or a Cuebid imo. Neither 3♠ nor 4♠ are forcing.

[wyman]

TylerE, on 2013-May-22, 16:09, said:

Strong hands start with an X or a Cuebid imo. Neither 3♠ nor 4♠ are forcing.

This is a style thing. I play 3S forcing -- could be a big hand with spades or could just be unsure of strain, not wanting to bypass 3N or rule out 5m, for example.

Cues for me are supporting clubs.


4S is a hand that wants to play 4S opposite a (slightly better than) minimum partner.

This is just one style, though. Other people double with good hands and play 3S NF as above.

[rogerclee]

To me 4S is something like a hand with a lot of spades and constructive values but is not very strong (ie no forcing pass if they bid 5H), I would always think this undiscussed playing with another expert, but I'm not aware of any standard definition. Thinking about it a little, there is some logic to playing it shows a spade slam try with no heart control, since that is an impossible problem playing standard methods without forcing to the 5 level. (There are many other "impossible" handtypes you could make it show on this auction).

Sorry to sidetrack the thread a little, but you are thinking about this auction the wrong way if you think it's primarily about strength, shape is more important. On this auction, when you have a decent hand, correct strain is the most important thing to sort out. Here are some questions you want the answers to:

1) Should you play spades? Differentiating between 4 vs 5+ is very important.
2) Should you play NT?
3) Should you play opener's minor? The other minor?
4) Should you just defend 3HX?

Obviously you cannot answer all these questions very accurately anymore, that's why they bid 3H.

In response to TylerE, if you think about these questions correctly, you will quickly deduce that playing 3S nonforcing is very bad. It caters to an unlikely and less important handtype (competitive but less than invitational with spades) while making it very hard to answer questions (1) and (2), since strong hands with 5 spades are at a total guess as to what strain to play, since playing a 5-3 spade fit will usually be right, and playing a 5-2 spade fit will often be wrong. It seems like TylerE is using X to show all decent hands with 4-5 spades, and just guessing to bid 4S (or 4H) with 6+ spades.

The degree of your spade fit is the most important thing to sort out on this auction. Double, necessarily, must cater to the most handtypes, since it is the most flexible action. It is not uncommon to X on a hand with 3 spades and no convenient bid to make. Diluting your most flexible bid to show 3, 4, or 5 spades is a bad way to play bridge, it makes determining whether you should be in spades very difficult, while not gaining a lot in having a NF 3S bid. It also makes determining when to pass out 3HX very difficult, how can you defend 3HX with a random stopperless 3334 when you could easily have a 5-3 spade fit?

Again, sorry to sidetrack, but I see a lot of intermediate/advanced players such as TylerE thinking about these kinds of auctions the wrong way. Strain always takes priority before strength, this principle applies in many auctions where you don't have enough bids to show all the handtypes you would like to show.

[rhm]

wyman, on 2013-May-22, 16:25, said:

This is a style thing. I play 3S forcing -- could be a big hand with spades or could just be unsure of strain, not wanting to bypass 3N or rule out 5m, for example.

Cues for me are supporting clubs.


4S is a hand that wants to play 4S opposite a (slightly better than) minimum partner.

This is just one style, though. Other people double with good hands and play 3S NF as above.

Standard is that a new suit at the three level is forcing to game. I would not call that a style thing.
If you do something else you are in a small minority with special prior agreements.
Playing 3♠ NF is like stopping on a dime and aims at a narrow target, while creating big problems for hands, which are stronger, not unlikely when an opponent preempts.
Better to overbid and force to game if you can not bring yourself to pass over a preempt with a promising invitational hand
For example if you DBL first with a strong hand and a spade suit after say 1♣-(3♥) partner might bid 3N. Now what?
Good luck finding out whether you belong in 3N, 4♠ or 6♠.

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

There was a problem in IMP magazine a few years ago where responder had a good hand with 7 spades. Some panel members voted to bid 4♠ directly as opposed to 3♠ followed by 4♠. The reasoning went along the lines "4♠ directly shows spades,spades,spades while the slow route shows a slightly more flexible hand. On the other hand, you don't want to blast 4♠ with a hand that is too good".

[MrAce]

Playing 3♠ nf is the worst idea someone can come up with imo.

[Zelandakh]

MrAce, on 2013-May-23, 02:30, said:

Playing 3♠ nf is the worst idea someone can come up with imo.

I disagree completely - someone could come up with the idea of playing 3♠ as a penalty double. As for the OP, I have nothing to add beyond what Roger said. You should write some bidding books with this style, Roger; it is super-clear and helpful.

[MrAce]

Zelandakh, on 2013-May-23, 02:50, said:

I disagree completely - someone could come up with the idea of playing 3♠ as a penalty double. As for the OP, I have nothing to add beyond what Roger said. You should write some bidding books with this style, Roger; it is super-clear and helpful.

I almost missed your point and was about to reply

[Ant590]

Thanks for all the replies, and I agree Roger's answer is very nice.

In the style of the late, great Marshall Miles, could anyone help me construct a worst and best hand that would bid the direct 4♠ (c.f. Bridge World May 2013 Editorial).

I'll attempt to offer a suggestion, but the fact that I am asking the question means that I am really unsure:

Worst -> average -> best

AKJxxx x xxx xxx --> AQTxxxx xx xx xx --> AKJxxxx Q Kx xxx