[Winstonm]

Quote

Our auction is clearly looking for the best game, not a slam try. If we were looking for slam in clubs we would never bid 3♥, we would have raised 3♣ to 4♣. It is important for responder to consider things like that.

I am aware of many players who would consider 3H followed by 4C as an advance cue bid and a slam try. I am not saying I disagree with you or that your method is not superior, but to make a blanket statement that all players bid this way is not valid.

[Foxx]

mikeh, on May 28 2007, 10:59 PM, said:

I meant to add that even if he is slamming, he can't have a hand that could bid 6♣ over 4♠ even if he felt that it showed the A.

And even then, he could have ♠--- ♥10xx ♦Axxx ♣AQ10xxx and we may well survive.

I will admit to initially voting for 4♥ (pass), but upon reading the thread, removing back to 4♠ makes sense. It makes me queasy to think about playing this hand in a 4-3 fit.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on May 28 2007, 09:21 PM, said:

Quote

Our auction is clearly looking for the best game, not a slam try. If we were looking for slam in clubs we would never bid 3♥, we would have raised 3♣ to 4♣. It is important for responder to consider things like that.

I am aware of many players who would consider 3H followed by 4C as an advance cue bid and a slam try. I am not saying I disagree with you or that your method is not superior, but to make a blanket statement that all players bid this way is not valid.

It is your criticism that is not valid, except for my typo where I said 3♥ but obviously meant 3♠ (my post is now corrected). I am saying what the bids should mean, not what every person would do. Playing that bid as an advance cuebid (meaning natural but can turn out later to have instead been a cuebid) can be conclusively demonstrated to be unplayable, since if partner 'raises' to 4♠ and we next bid 5♣ it is impossible to tell which suit is trumps and which is the cuebid. My post was (sans typo) both true and valid.

[foo]

Fluffy, on May 28 2007, 06:16 AM, said:

♠KQJ742♥KQJ4♦5♣K4

S - N
1♠-2♣;2♥-3♣*;3♠-3N;4♣-4♥;??

3♣*= Limit, NON FORCING (10-11 or so)

"3♣*= Limit, NON FORCING (10-11 or so)"

^Lot's of folks seem to be forgetting this^

The OP's auction is not happening at my table.

I am !not! going slamming when I have 3 controls and CHO rates to only have 3-4 controls. Nor am I drawing out this auction longer than absolutely required (Why help the defense more than we have to?)

The limit of Our hands rates to be Game
I do not like Our ♦'s in NT after 1S-2C;2H-3C;??
OTOH, I have a trump suit that will play for 1 loser opposite a stiff x.

My bid on the 3rd auction round is 4♠. To Play.

[inquiry]

4♠'s... i supported clubs last round, so if partner can't stand spades, we shall here him correct to 5♣, although i have to admit this auction might be taken as a slam try, and that would not be good.

[Fluffy]

I hate it when so many people bid better than I did

I am surprised many say 6-1 plays better than 4-3. Of course it does, but partner already knew that, and he pick to bid 4♥, not 4♠ isn't that revealing?

[P_Marlowe]

Fluffy, on May 29 2007, 03:34 AM, said:

I hate it when so many people bid better than I did

I am surprised many say 6-1 plays better than 4-3. Of course it does, but partner already knew that, and he pick to bid 4♥, not 4♠ isn't that revealing?

I though about that shortly, maybe he has a spade
void, maybe he holds the Ace of hearts and wanted
to give you a choice, take your pick.
In view of your strong spade suit, 4S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

I voted 5♣ but thnking more about it I would have passed 3N. Hard to think of a hand by partner that makes 5♣ better than 3N.

[FrancesHinden]

Fluffy, on May 29 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

I hate it when so many people bid better than I did

I am surprised many say 6-1 plays better than 4-3. Of course it does, but partner already knew that, and he pick to bid 4♥, not 4♠ isn't that revealing?

If 3♠ was forcing, then partner thinks you are now looking for a club slam and is cueing the ace of hearts.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on May 29 2007, 03:34 AM, said:

I hate it when so many people bid better than I did

I am surprised many say 6-1 plays better than 4-3. Of course it does, but partner already knew that, and he pick to bid 4♥, not 4♠ isn't that revealing?

No since partner doesn't know we have the jack of spades. I would pass 4♥ without it and take my chances.

[foo]

helene_t, on May 29 2007, 04:48 AM, said:

I voted 5♣ but thnking more about it I would have passed 3N. Hard to think of a hand by partner that makes 5♣ better than 3N.

6C331 or 6C322 10-11 count with a hole or asymmetric guard or 1 stop in D's.

opposite this: ♠KQJ742♥KQJ4♦5♣K4

I dislike both 3N and 5C

[Fluffy]

---

4♠ and 5♣ make easilly with the diamond/spade position, I don't know wich one will pick partner if you bid ♠ because I played 4♥.

on 4♥ LHO led ♦AK on wich I discarded a spade, he switched to a trump and I tried to run ♠K with no success, In the end I had to guess clubs or find a black suit squeeze, neither happened.

[han]

I think passing 4H was really wrong (sorry Fluff), playing in the 4-3 with diamond ruffs in the 4-card suit seems a poor idea. I think that partner should correct to 5C. (1430 RKC would also get us to 5C)

[whereagles]

jdonn, on May 28 2007, 11:45 PM, said:

Our auction is clearly looking for the best game, not a slam try. If we were looking for slam in clubs we would never bid 3♠, we would have raised 3♣ to 4♣. It is important for responder to consider things like that.

Completely disagree and think it's very irresponsible to assume pard is thinking like that.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on May 29 2007, 02:53 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 28 2007, 11:45 PM, said:

Our auction is clearly looking for the best game, not a slam try. If we were looking for slam in clubs we would never bid 3♠, we would have raised 3♣ to 4♣. It is important for responder to consider things like that.

Completely disagree and think it's very irresponsible to assume pard is thinking like that.

If you disagree I won't argue it further since that's your right, but I don't think you know what irresponsible means

Why would being wrong (I'm not, but you think I am) and expecting partner to be on the same page be irresponsible?

[jtfanclub]

Another one I don't get....

It makes no sense to have 3♠ here be some kind of wishy-washy bid to me. It should mean either of...

1) I want to play in spades. I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit. If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

2) Game, schmame. I'm thinking big. You got some controls you'd like to tell me about?

The table-tennis match where 3♣ shows an invitational hand that can't decide whether it's strong enough to game followed by 3♠ showing an invitational hand which can't decide whether it's strong enough for game...bleah.

I'm going to assume it's case 1. Partner has made a non-system bid, which had better be a spade void or we're gonna have a talk after the round about trusting your partner. So 4♣ shouldn't be yet another runaway bride- it should be signoff. And then partner bids 4♥? The only meaning I can think of for that is "If you're 6-5-0-2, I want to play in hearts". Which, who knows, you could be. But you're not.

5♣

[Fluffy]

jtfanclub, on May 29 2007, 08:42 PM, said:

1)  I want to play in spades.  I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit.  If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

That is bid via 3♠ previous round, so can't be

Quote

2)  Game, schmame.  I'm thinking big.  You got some controls you'd like to tell me about?

And what's the fit? if its spades then see 1), if its clubs why wouldn't you bid 4♣?

Quote

The table-tennis match where 3♣ shows an invitational hand that can't decide whether it's strong enough to game followed by 3♠ showing an invitational hand which can't decide whether it's strong enough for game...bleah.

I agree, this is nonsense, partner already bid a playable suit, if there is no game stay at 3♣.

So 3♠ is not looking for slam, it is not looking for partnscore, so what is it?

Iin my opinion only, (but I have strong convition here ) it is simply looking for the best game.

[Fluffy]

Hannie, on May 29 2007, 07:51 PM, said:

I think passing 4H was really wrong (sorry Fluff), playing in the 4-3 with diamond ruffs in the 4-card suit seems a poor idea. I think that partner should correct to 5C. (1430 RKC would also get us to 5C)

You can beleive I was really tempted to force the 6-0 fit aiming for 2 trump and a diamond loser, but I though this was aiming for only 1 target

4♥ would have much more posibilities, depending on partner's hand, it was much funnier to play as well, so it wasn't really a loss .

[jtfanclub]

Fluffy, on May 29 2007, 03:53 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 29 2007, 08:42 PM, said:

1)  I want to play in spades.  I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit.  If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

That is bid via 3♠ previous round, so can't be

????

You play 1♠-2♣-3♠ as signoff?

Quote

So 3♠ is not looking for slam, it is not looking for partnscore, so what is it?

Iin my opinion only, (but I have strong convition here ) it is simply looking for the best game.

Well, part of it is the question of what 3♣ actually shows. He has 6 clubs, but if his only choice to show 6 clubs and an invitational hand is 2♣ followed by 3♣, that could be a pretty ratty suit. If it's GF except suit rebid, then

1♠ 2♣
2♥ 2NT

is game forcing, right? So with a 6-4-2-1, I'd rather bid spades, 'cause...
-it's a major. Yay majors!
-Partner hasn't denied 2 spades.
-If I have a solid spade suit, that's probably better than partner's maybe-solid club suit.

I don't think a 4-way choice of games is necessary. 4♣ should be choice of games for the black suits, 4♥ for the majors. I think it's unlikely that I'm going to want one of the choices in my choice of games to be 3NT.

[han]

jtfanclub, on May 29 2007, 03:42 PM, said:

Another one I don't get....

It makes no sense to have 3♠ here be some kind of wishy-washy bid to me. 

This is not the B/I forum, there bidding 3S followed by 4C would probably not be the recommended auction. Here more subtle auctions are possible.

Quote

It should mean either of...

1)  I want to play in spades.  I don't care how many spades you have, I wanna play in spades, and I want to play there now, dammit.  If you have some unexpected support, by all means bid 4, but otherwise pass.

Playing 3S as non-forcing is aiming at too small a target. If you have a hand that's really only interested in playing spades at this point then you should just bid 4S. The actual type of hand is far more common.

Quote

2)  Game, schmame.  I'm thinking big.  You got some controls you'd like to tell me about?

It makes sense to search for a playable fit before you bid controls. There is no reason in the world why 3S should show slam interest. It's just a gameforcing 6-4 hand.

The rest of your post made even less sense to me so let me not react.

And as for Fluffy..

Quote

it was much funnier to play as well, so it wasn't really a loss.

Getting a delicate decision right is much more pleasing, isn't it?