[Fluffy]

Just how many tricks do you think a favourable preempt at the 3 level shows?

I just remembered, 5♦ actually makes 10 tricks, partner is 1444

[FrancesHinden]

 the hog, on 2013-November-30, 19:07, said:

Was this a joke game, Fluffy? I cannot believe anyone would bid 3D in a serious match?

It's a bit warped, but seems eminently reasonable to me.

[Zelandakh]

 Fluffy, on 2013-November-30, 03:05, said:

nevertheless the important thing is that 4♣ shows the will to compete in diamonds.

Surely not Fluffy. A FSJ has a specific meaning. In this case we can safely assume partner has at least KQxxx in clubs. If the fit is a lead-directer instead then that has a direct effect on how partner should advance. Both conventions are powerful but different. Opposite a lead-directing 4♣, I am not even sure why this is a question.

[Fluffy]

I think both are the same mark, partner bid 4♣ here with lead directing purposes, however he knew I would take it as a fit bid and didn't care on the bidding as long as I led a club if we defended.

[the hog]

I expect more than 2-3 tricks in a live auction. Warped is an understatement unless this a joke game.

[the hog]

However it seems both players deserve each other. Your pd made a fit jump with an inappropriate hand supposedly for lead or who knows what reason. How is it possible to judge whether to sacrifice or not under those circumstances? Wrong forum!

[cherdano]

 the hog, on 2013-December-01, 18:33, said:

However it seems both players deserve each other. Your pd made a fit jump with an inappropriate hand supposedly for lead or who knows what reason. How is it possible to judge whether to sacrifice or not under those circumstances? Wrong forum!

Am I looking at the same hand? Partner has 1444 with ♦Kxxx ♣AQxx, he wants to bid to 5♣ if we have club length, and defend 4♠ otherwise. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

[the hog]

I suspect you are misreading the problem. The op made a pre emt bid in s live auction with a 5 carder and no shape. His pd had good support but made a fit jump on a totally unsuitable hand - look at the so called fit suit. Normally this is a decent 5 carder.Then the pd claimed it was a fit bid but was intended as lead directing. You cant have it both ways.

[jogs]

 Fluffy, on 2013-December-01, 03:25, said:

Just how many tricks do you think a favourable preempt at the 3 level shows?

I just remembered, 5♦ actually makes 10 tricks, partner is 1444

East already overbid his pattern with 3♦. West has an easy 5♦ call. The 4♣ helps East with the opening lead, in case E-W ends up defending 5♠.

[Trinidad]

 the hog, on 2013-December-02, 00:22, said:

I suspect you are misreading the problem. His pd had good support but made a fit jump

Who is misreading?



Rik

[the hog]

Rik, did you see that the 4c bid was a fit bid. Jump or fnj it does not matter. You DO understand what a fit bid is?

[the hog]

Rik, did you see that the 4c bid was a fit bid. Jump or fnj it does not matter. You DO understand what a fit bid is?

[Trinidad]

Yes, it is a bid that shows a fit for partner's suit.

In the most narrow form of usage of the term it is a bid that shows the suit bid (even with requirements about suit quality), as well as a fit for partner's suit.

But there are other ways to use the term. I am not at home, so I can't look it up, but I think that Bergen has a chapter about fit bids in his book Better Bidding with Bergen Volume II - Contested Auctions. IIRC, the title of the chapter is something like: "xxx, splinters, and other fit bids". The word "other" would make it pretty clear that Bergen considers splinters to be fit bids.

In short, fit bid is an ambiguous term. It is most often, but certainly not exclusively, used for bids that show a fit as well as the suit bid. Therefore, the confusion in this thread is understandable.

The fact that the player who made the bid intended it as a lead directing also makes it pretty clear that "fit bid" is an ambiguous term.

Rik

[the hog]

 Trinidad, on 2013-December-03, 09:21, said:

Yes, it is a bid that shows a fit for partner's suit.

In the most narrow form of usage of the term it is a bid that shows the suit bid (even with requirements about suit quality), as well as a fit for partner's suit.

But there are other ways to use the term. I am not at home, so I can't look it up, but I think that Bergen has a chapter about fit bids in his book Better Bidding with Bergen Volume II - Contested Auctions. IIRC, the title of the chapter is something like: "xxx, splinters, and other fit bids". The word "other" would make it pretty clear that Bergen considers splinters to be fit bids.

In short, fit bid is an ambiguous term. It is most often, but certainly not exclusively, used for bids that show a fit as well as the suit bid. Therefore, the confusion in this thread is understandable.

The fact that the player who made the bid intended it as a lead directing also makes it pretty clear that "fit bid" is an ambiguous term.

Rik

" The word "other" would make it pretty clear that Bergen considers splinters to be fit bids."
No. As you do not know what a fit bid is I can understand that you are confused. Look it up, come back and we can resume the discussion. I suggest Robson and Segal to start with.

[Trinidad]

I think the Hog has a fit. (Just demonstrating that words and phrases can have more than one meaning.)

Rik

[cherdano]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-December-01, 04:45, said:

Surely not Fluffy. A FSJ has a specific meaning. In this case we can safely assume partner has at least KQxxx in clubs. If the fit is a lead-directer instead then that has a direct effect on how partner should advance. Both conventions are powerful but different. Opposite a lead-directing 4♣, I am not even sure why this is a question.

Let's give partner some leeway. He made a FNJ with one club card less and perhaps one diamond card more than expected. He probably knew he was deviating from the agreement, in order gain the lead-directing advantage.

This would seem like a good idea to me. Except when he made his bid, he did not yet know who would be on lead. I would feel very silly if I made this lead-directing bid, RHO turns up with ♣Kx, and as a result of my 4♣ bid they right-side the contract.

[Trinidad]

 cherdano, on 2013-December-04, 03:14, said:

Let's give partner some leeway. He made a FNJ with one club card less and perhaps one diamond card more than expected. He probably knew he was deviating from the agreement, in order gain the lead-directing advantage.

This would seem like a good idea to me. Except when he made his bid, he did not yet know who would be on lead. I would feel very silly if I made this lead-directing bid, RHO turns up with ♣Kx, and as a result of my 4♣ bid they right-side the contract.

The fact that he didn't know he would be on lead is certainly worth considering, so I agree, in principle. But in this case if I would end up on lead, I already have a good lead. If I can reach partner in diamonds, the 4♣ bid will direct the lead to the second trick.

Rik