[helene_t]

---

On this hand, 3NT happened to be the only making game as spades broke 5-1 and clubs 4-1 while the diamond finesse worked.

I was unsure about what 3♥ instead of 3nt would mean. Suppose East bid 3♥. W obviously bids 3♠. Now, if E bids 3NT, does it show better hearts than the fast 3nt does? Which, if any, of the two sequences is likely to have a fifth spade?

I am interested both in "standard" treatments as well as some more intelligent Zelandakh or Kenrexford-like solutions. I thought that 3♦, the cheapest bid, should be some kind of relay and not show diamond tolerance.

In an ideal World, E is able to say "I have doubt about 3NT, what do you think?". Even better if E can also hint at the club fit but I don't think that is necessary.

[Cyberyeti]

Our auction is unsatisfactory.

1♦-1♠
2N(GF unbal)-3♣(semi forced)
3♠(3 card support)-3N

W has shown 5 diamonds and 3 spades, but neither has shown their clubs (for us 3♣ would show that hand with the A♠ turned into a small club).

In abstract, I'm not sure particularly at pairs what contract I'd want to be in, there may be a bit of resulting here, 4♠ may be at least as good as 3N.

[The_Badger]

hi helene_t

Seeing both hands (and that helps) there is a totally crazy solution to this problem, The Badger says firmly tongue in cheek.

***Warning***Must not be tried at home (on the kitchen table) or at a bridge club

West opens 1♦, East bids 1♠, West bids 2♥!

If players still bid up the line at the one level, if East raises ♥ then West can assume his partner has 5+ ♠.

Other than this bonkers suggestion, I personally cannot see anything wrong with 3♥ after 3♣. 5♣ looks the best percentage contract given the 2 hands. Just as a reference point that West hand is a stonking 23.65 on the Kaplan and Rubens hand evaluator!

[Stefan_O]

As the bidding went, I admit, it seems tempting with the A/K-rich
west's hand to try 4S over 3NT -- either resp has 5 spades, or no more than 3 hearts.
Bit unlucky perhaps, but technically he should pass 3NT,
since resp could use 3H if he was interested in 3-card spade support.

If resp bids 3H, and then rejects openers 3-card support with 3NT,
he must reasonably have good support in one of the minors
-- I prefer it as a mild slamtry -- but other's maybe
see it as being worried abt the heart stop and invites
opener to do "what he thinks is best"?

Btw, was 3 clubs GF or just showing some 5-4 17/18+ ?
If not GF, I would bid 3D over 3C to show a lousy hand -- opener
can still move on if he has the strength.

All that said, I prefer to play openers rebid in new suit, both at 1- and 2-level, as round-force.
So in my book, the jump to 3C would show 5-5 in a good hand.

[wank]

west has no business removing. east had 3 bids available at the 3 level to pass the time and elected not to employ any of them.

[helene_t]

wank, on 2016-September-08, 04:55, said:

west has no business removing. east had 3 bids available at the 3 level to pass the time and elected not to employ any of them.

Well that was what East thought but West reasoned the opposite way: if E had bid 3♥ first and opted for 3NT despite knowing that W was 3154, it would be easier for W to pass.

[wank]

3H shows 5 spades. east bids 3D with for example a 4324 pile of rubbish, too bad to raise clubs.

so 3H-3S shows a doubleton and a lack of a heart stop. 3H-3S-3NT is shows at least a partial stop, hoping to make 3NT for want of anything better.

if east has a very robust stop in hearts, he can skip showing the 5th spade and go direct to 3NT.

the lack of space after the jump shift, unsurprisingly, means something has to give and you can't describe your hand perfectly.

[nullve]

Playing with an unknown expert partner I'd assume that

1♦-1♠; 3♣(NAT GF)-?:

3♦ = D support [even if playing this as just D tolerance, or even as an ART relay, would be much better]
3♥ = 4SF, typically with 5S2-D or with 4S2-D and no H stopper
...3♠ = either with 3 S or with 2 S and no H stopper [can't always afford to bypass 3N with the latter hand type]
...3N = 2- S, H stopper
...(...)
3♠ = 6+ S
3N = to play (unless Opener has lots of extra shape)
(...).

Then over

1♦-1♠; 3♣-3♥; 3♠

I think it would make sense to play that

3N = to play opposite 2 S with 5 S and H sufficiently stopped,

although I wouldn't expect to be understood if I bid this way.

[Tramticket]

I don't see why this is complex? 3NT says: I don't have a fit for you, but I do have a heart stop. I think that 3NT might be the best contract. This fits West's hand perfectly.

West can see the potential for a heart trick in partner's hand + 8 further (if necessary on a diamond finesse). Taking 3NT out to a likely Moysian fit looks like a risky gamble (it might work sometimes, but probably best to just pass).

[Zelandakh]

I think Standard here would be for 3♦ to show some diamond support and 3♥ to be a grope. The problem here is that we have 3x3 cases to resolve and not enough space so better is probably, as you write, to use 3♦ as the grope. Then everything becomes fairly simple - we actually have too much space. One example of a reasonable format might be:

1♦ - 1♠; 3♣ - 3♦
==============
3♥ = no heart stop + <3 spades
3♠ = no heart stop + 3 spades
3NT = heart stop + <3 spades
4♣ = 3055
4♦ = 3064

Since 3♦ can cover all hands with 5 spades or no heart stop, the next question is what 3♥ should mean. The obvious idea is for this to show a minor suit fit without enough strength to bypass 3NT or 4 card club support and SI. Then a direct 4♣ shows 5 card support and a direct 4♦ is natural with slam interest. Over 3♥, 3♠ is then a relay with 3NT showing diamond support, 4♣ is slam interest with 4 clubs and higher bids are 4 clubs with strong slam interest.

1♦ - 1♠; 3♣ - 3♦
==============
3♥ = minor suit fit unsuitable for 4♣+
... - 3♠ = relay
... - ... - 3NT = weak SI
... - ... - 4♣ = 4 clubs with SI
... - ... - 4♦+ = 4 clubs with strong SI
3♠ = 6+ spades
3NT = to play, heart stop, 4 spades, no slam interest
4♣ = 5+ clubs with SI
4♦ = 3+ diamonds and SI

We can probably do better than this if we really go to town with it but I reckon this would be more than enough for most pairs and is (arguably) not too difficult/artificial to remember in the heat of battle.

[Stefan_O]

helene_t, on 2016-September-08, 04:58, said:

Well that was what East thought but West reasoned the opposite way: if E had bid 3♥ first and opted for 3NT despite knowing that W was 3154, it would be easier for W to pass.

So East must bid 3H everytime he has only 4 spades?
Definitely not standard!

As I said, bid 2C round-force instead, and there will be plenty room to sort out the rest.

[Zelandakh]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-08, 05:42, said:

As I said, bid 2C round-force instead, and there will be plenty room to sort out the rest.

2♣ is not a forcing rebid for most and also generally denies a GF hand. That is also definitely not standard. Now obviously we could sit here and recommend alternative methods such as Gazilli, transfer rebids or relays but that is probably not going to help with the discussion on options over a GF jump shift.

What you are missing is that some parts of the world play that bidding the 4th suit shows something in that suit in GF auctions. So not doing so suggests fewer values there. Apparently this West was from that school. It is generally quite playable (albeit often not optimal) providing both partners are on the same page.

[Kaitlyn S]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-08, 03:58, said:

Our auction is unsatisfactory.

1♦-1♠
2N(GF unbal)-3♣(semi forced)
3♠(3 card support)-3N

W has shown 5 diamonds and 3 spades, but neither has shown their clubs (for us 3♣ would show that hand with the A♠ turned into a small club).

In abstract, I'm not sure particularly at pairs what contract I'd want to be in, there may be a bit of resulting here, 4♠ may be at least as good as 3N.

A pair having your auction will soon be posting a thread about "How do we get 3NT played from the right side?"

[Stefan_O]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-08, 08:52, said:

2♣ is not a forcing rebid for most and also generally denies a GF hand. That is also definitely not standard.

Hi Z,

Yes, I know --- I usually dont answer like "if you played this and this...", but in this specific context, I really felt it was worth bringing up.
I just cannot understand why this is not part of the standard system (particularly for 2/1 players).

Sure, that approach has some issues of its own... like responder holding that super-lousy hand where he would pass 2C non-forcing, for one.

But, if we are gonna prioritize finding the right game and slam contracts -- rather than not getting too high in a partscore, or not playing in the wrong partscore -- I certainly find it a superior approach.

All in my opinion, I might emphasize, to steer around any controversies

Quote

What you are missing is that some parts of the world play that bidding the 4th suit shows something in that suit in GF auctions.

Yes, you are right, I had no idea --- what a strange world it is

[Cyberyeti]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-September-08, 11:42, said:

A pair having your auction will soon be posting a thread about "How do we get 3NT played from the right side?"

I said ours was unsatisfactory, but in practice you will get away with it unless leader has QJ10.

[rmnka447]

I think this auction is one of those areas where partnerships need to have some minimal agreements about what is a potential drop dead bid. This is similar to what partnerships need over reverses. If responder doesn't make the potential drop dead bid than it should be a positive and thus be a virtual GF.

Logically, I think that the bid should probably be a return to opener's 1st bid suit. Most of the time, jump shift rebids are made in a lower ranking suit, so the "preference" retains bidding space for opener to complete the description of his/her hand.

[msjennifer]

I do not know how many would like my suggestion about the bidding.As we play the LTC,a Jump Shift by opener ,after a simple one level response,in minor suits require partner to have 3 cover cards to bid a game if there is no fit worth mentioning in either suit.It suggests a 5 loser hand with the opener and as responder does not have 3 cover cards( A,K, or Q in openers suits and ,only an Ace in the remaining two suits to be counted as a cover card)but only two bare Kings in two remaining suits,the hand is a misfit for a 5 level minor suit contract.The responder ,therefore, bids 3D showing such a practically worthless hand.If opener still wants to force a game with a different hand he can certainly go ahead.Responder certainly cannot see 3 NT making.Keep the Heart Ace with South and DQ with North and the result will be very painful.As has been pointed out only a very lucky 3NT was making.We certainly do not mind missing a lucky and almost gambling 3NT game because it will pay in the long run.And oh yes ,some will say ,"if South has club QJX then the contract is cold on a double finesse in clubs",As clubs were 4-1 this line also fails.

[Stefan_O]

msjennifer, on 2016-September-09, 00:26, said:

Keep the Heart Ace with South and DQ with North and the result will be very painful.

That's just ~25% risk.
Both at IMPs and MP, this seems like an OK 3NT.
Essentially needs the diam finesse, afaics
(yes, if defense played with open cards, I could possibly see some variations, but...)

Going down should be no more painful, than if your opps bid and made it, and you didnt.
Can never win them all.....

[helene_t]

So it seems the consensus is that without any sophisticated agreements, E should either take a false preference to diamonds or bid 3♥ "grope", and in either case W would show her spade support after which E can judge to bid 3nt or 5♣. A direct 3nt should show a better heart stopper so this E hand is not suitable.

Maybe 3♦ is safer since 3♥ probably suggests a fifth spade. But I am not comfortable with such a false preference since it may be hard to convince partner not to correct 5♣ to 5♦.

The 3♥ grope has the problem that it is not a generic solution since after
1♥-1♠
3♦-?
the 4th suit is not available below 3nt.

So we should consider something slightly more artificial. The cheapest bid, in this case 3♦, as a grope, should be ok. Responder is captain and should not worry that 5♣ will be corrected to 5♦.

Maybe the best generic solution involves Gazilly. I think we are ok with this, we are quite happy to rebid 1nt with 1354 so we would be able to live without the natural 2♣ rebid I think.

[msjennifer]

Stefan_O, on 2016-September-09, 01:20, said:

That's just ~25% risk.
Both at IMPs and MP, this seems like an OK 3NT.
Essentially needs the diam finesse, afaics
(yes, if defense played with open cards, I could possibly see some variations, but...)

Going down should be no more painful, than if your opps bid and made it, and you didnt.
Can never win them all.....

Sir,please note my last sentence.We don't wish to win them all,but certainly we do not wish to win absurdly.We like to play and bid on applying well established gadgets and common sense .We don't bid games just because the combined count is 25 HP.Wish you good luck for your methods.After all,with only Spade AJ ,that is 5HCP,a pair does score a grand slam in Spades against any defense so it does not mean you bid a grand on just 5HCP every time. .If some pairs do bid and make a lucky 3NT on the given hand,we will say"well done opponents" although a little sarcastically .The famous hand ,wherein with all four hands balanced,a pair holding 24 HCP goes down three tricks in a ONE NT contract is a well known example.As regards the 25 percent risk ,which you have mentioned ,I would politely like to differ.If the diamond finesse is off,you will never score more than 8 tricks even if heart Ace is right ,on a certainly expected normal heart lead ,and so the risk is 50 percent not worth taking by our humble methods.To score 9 tricks even if the diamond finesse is off is when the hearts break 6/3 and N holds the Ace when you can duck once,again a very remote possibility.