[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Brian,

Thanks once again for your incisive comment.

You are a real asset to this site.

Stephen

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Brian,

Thanks for your prompt reply.  That was very helpful,

Much appreciated.

Stephen

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Could I extend the discussion to cover the continuations.  If partner bids the Unusual 2NT and the 3rd seat, say, raises the opener, e.g. 1H, (2NT), 3H – then the UNT’s partner has to bid 4 of a minor in order to bid at all.  If the UNT is bid on, say 8-9 points as in the example of this thread, unless partner is very strong, are you not going to end up far too high with barely more than half the points, even assuming 4th seat has 12+. Maybe I’m just too timid, but the feeling of going out of out depth worries me when U 2NT is bid.  Maybe it’s meant to be a sacrifice situation?  What do the more experienced players see as the way to use this beneficially.

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

David,

Thanks for your further response. I apologize for suggesting that you may have written something incorrectly – I should have known better than to question your accuracy of word :).

I’m very grateful for your comments. They’ve really been enlightening as to how one might bid with a strong minor. I think it confirmed how much less clear I am about bidding minor suits, especially when they are strong and slam is possible. What I’ve learnt from your and Julian’s comments should help in future.

Thanks

 

 

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Ah, the plot thickens!

David, I now see the parallels here to what I would have understood by “quantitative” – namely, go higher if you’re stronger than you’ve shown or sign off if you’re not. Just a very small point: I presume when you say “pass, if minimum” you don’t mean agree to a 4NT contract but rather you mean to sign off in 5C, or do you?

Julian, thanks for the correction. However, I’m afraid it still leaves me lost. The bidding is now seen as:
You     Partner
1D       2C
2S       2NT
3C      3NT
4NT    6C.

As you said, originally, your jump to 2S after a 2 over 1 from partner is game forcing. You then say partner’s 2NT was “not weak” in these circumstances. It would be helpful to have a more complete indication of what you actually would infer from this response. What shape and strength did you place partner with?

What you are taking partner for is even less clear after the 3rd round. You’ve now shown your 4 1 5 3 shape but not yet that you were more than a minimum 15 pts, but what’s partner showing? As you say, he’s not likely to be actually wanting to play in 3NT otherwise he would have bid that instead of 2NT, so is it, like David’s scenario, that he’s actually got a long, strong Club holding and 2NT was only a temporising bid to hear your 3rd bid (as it wouldn’t be passed in a GF sequence) and not showing a balanced hand at all?

If this is the situation, then am I right to see your 4NT, ”quantitative”, as reflecting that your “excited” (to use Bernard’s phrase) because you are stronger than you’ve shown. So, similar to David’s latest clarification, your 4NT is showing partner there’s reason to think big if he has extra values, because you have extra, and is in effect, an invite to 6 Clubs, if so, or to sign off in 5C if not. What it’s NOT, is asking for Pass or 6NT as a “traditional” (as I’ would have understood it) quantitative bid would be asking?

Am I getting there, at last, or am I still wandering in the darkness?

Thanks, again to you both for your patience.

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Thank you gentlemen for your responses that have clarified how the original (a) and (b) sequences might arise. However, I still feel they leave it unclear as to what would be meant by 4N in response to a previous 2N or 3N for some of the situations described.

In David’s 2nd example where 3N can mean a long, strong Minor then the 3N makes sense if that’s the system you play (not one I was aware of). But  what meaning of “Quantitative” would 4N be in reply to the 3N bid? The 3N, as just defined, is not a balanced hand with a limited point range whereby you pass/bid 6N if min/max. So, what is 4N asking? As is said in the response, if the sequence is 1C, 1H, 3N, then responder would bid 4C as a Club slam try so what holding would responder have to bid 4N instead and what would it be asking of partner?

In the (b) situation I stand corrected that 1C, 1H, 2S is not a reverse – it is a jump shift game force. Jonathan indicates that Responder re-bidding 2N is showing a decent hand, but presumably it’s a natural bid, showing a reasonably balanced hand and a more limited point range? But if so, what sort of range? Presumably it would be up to 14 or more such that Opener, if he had 19, could envisage a 6N slam if opposite 14 (as if opener was stronger than 19, they would probably not have opened with a level bid).

As to the example of the hand from the weekend, it was interesting but I can’t see how the 4N bid there was “quantitative” in the sense I have understood the term previously (i.e. asking to jump to 6N if at upper end of point range) as it was bid by the same person who had earlier bid 2N (so could hardly be asking partner how strong his own 2N bid was!). It wasn’t apparently Blackwood, so is it some other form of bid that also falls under the “quantitative” umbrella?

If you have the time, a further clarification would be much appreciated.

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Could I raise a couple of supplementary questions that arise from this thread.  Firstly, can the LHO of the person making a bid ask about any bid they make, or only ones that have been alerted by the bidder’s partner?

Secondly, if the LHO of the bidder is my partner and doesn’t ask, can I ask about the bid when the bidding comes round to me or can the bid only be queried immediately (by the LHO) or not at all.

P.S.  I’d be interested if you could elaborate on why you feel it might not be in a pairs’ best interests to query a bid especially if the LHO is not planning on bidding.  If it turns out that your answer to my second question above is that the bid can only be queried by the immediate LHO, then that alone is surely a reason for doing so as LHO might not know that partner would benefit from an explanation.

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

I read with interest this thread but found that although the comments made sense with regard to the question of 4N being quantitative, I was confused by some of the bidding sequences that gave rise to the quantitative bid.

In Ian’s original scenario I follow that 1C (P) 1H (P) 1N is showing 15-17 and so I infer that responder has 16/17 points and is looking to see if opener is maximum to hit the 33+ mark for 6N. Similarly, if opener rebids 2N he’s showing 18/19 so again Responder would have 14 exactly to need opener to say whether he was 18 (min) or 19 (max) and Pass or bid 6N accordingly. But what holding would Opener have to ever bid 3N after the 1C/1H initial round? If he had 20-21, wouldn’t he have opened 2N in the first place?

I was even more confused by the example at (b). Firstly, what kind of holding would you need to jump to 2S after the 1C/1H initial bids? Does that still only promise 5+ Clubs and 4+ Spades or is it promising 5+ and 5+? It is a Reverse so is forcing for at least 1 round and showing 16+ points. But what would a rebid of 2N never mind 3N be saying about Responder’s hand? For 2N is it indicating no real support for either black suit but around 8 points and fairly balanced, so inviting game in NT if opener is a bit stronger than 16? If that’s right, then presumably a 3N rebid is showing 9 or more opposite at least 16? However, in either case I can’t see how Responder is showing a defined range such that Opener can meaningfully enquire if it’s min or max.

As you can see, I’m confused and would welcome some understanding of the underlying bids that everyone who commented seemed to take for granted as being self-explanatory. They weren’t for me I’m afraid.

Thanks in anticipation.

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Brian,

Thanks so much for your prompt and very thorough reply.  Your answer confirmed what I’d kinda thought but I didn’t feel confident enough about my own assessment to rely on it so am most grateful to hear it from someone with much more experience like yourself.

You are a real asset to BMB  – thank you.

Stephen

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Brian,

Thanks very much for the reply. Yes, I was referring to a sequence like the one you proposed.

But in re-reading my question, (so as to be sure I understood your reply), I suddenly realised something that hadn’t struck me before. Namely, that the situation is essentially binary – either you have support for partner’s suit or you don’t, (I know, it seems obvious now!).
If you don’t, then 2NT as a negative to slam aspirations makes sense without the 7 point ‘classic’ holding of an Ace and King (or equivalent). But if you do have support, then as Bernard’s examples showed, unless you are extremely weak (when you might still bid 2NT first), you will be able to show that support and raise to 4 with quite modest strength, quite probably with at least a few points less than 7. So, between us, I think we’ve solved my general confusion regarding the ‘negative’. Thank you.

But if I you were willing, I’d still be grateful for guidance on my other two questions re Opener’s response to a 2NT rebid from partner:-

(a) 2C, 2D, 2S, 2NT, 3S – does 3S promise 6?

(b) 2C, 2D, 2S, 2NT, 3D – must you be 5, 5 in Spades and Diamonds or might you bid this sequence with 5,4?

Yours gratefully,

Stephen

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Brian,

Apologies for the delay in responding. I’ve been away.

I’ve looked and seen what you described. Thanks very much for pointing it out.

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Brian,

Thanks for that, but my query was more to do with how I get the screen shot into the text of a query that I might want to post in this forum for example. If it’s obvious how to do that then I apologize for being silly but I can’t see how it’s done.

 

 

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

I would very much welcome some teaching on the subject along the lines suggested by David. Very good suggestion.

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Martin,As it happens, the question raised by Barbara that ended up adjacent to yours seems relevant.
You had 16 points and with A K opposite 6 Hearts (and as you surmised, your partner likely having Q J 10 xxx plus an outside honour) you have a fit, and a possible game depending on his hand.
Therefore, if you played Ogust, or a similar convention after a 2NT strong enquiry, then you would have been able to discover his maximum hand and good suit, and thereby found game, which looks odds on.

 

[STEPHEN HUGHES]

Brian,

I recognize that with this particular layout of the cards, 3C would be the most desirable contract, but I can’t see how you would get there.
You say 3C would be a game try but my understanding of a game try is as David described it, and so you would certainly not want partner to pass.
What this discussion has brought out though, is the whole question of game tries which appear to me to be inconsistent with Bernard’s “rule” that a new suit at the 3 level is always GAME forcing. I don’t recall him making clear that that doesn’t apply when a fit has been found, as in your example, nor in the other sequence where a game try can occur such as:
1H, (P), 2H, (P), 3C. In this sequence as in yours, there is a bid of a new suit at the 3 level (as a game try) but it is not game forcing – the whole point of the game try is to allow partner to not bid to 4M if she doesn’t have help for the suit you’ve bid at the 3 level (Clubs in the examples here) but rather settle for 3M. That is, it’s forcing but not game forcing.
Perhaps Bernard assumed that we’d all take that as a given, but as someone whose still very much a learner, I certainly hadn’t, and it was only when you raised your example that I realized there was a whole raft of situations which were at odds with Bernard’s stricture.
Could someone more knowledgeable than me confirm that it is the case that Bernard’s rule does not apply to game try sequences.
Thanks

[Author]

Posts