[MrAce]

---

Team game, nothing special about the bidding, 1♣ 3+ std 2/1, x showed 4-4 majors.

[aguahombre]

If double showed 4-4, 1♠ denied four of them in pard's hand. No bid.

[the_clown]

Maybe X should be gametry in ♠? Of course this would be silly if you can have 5♥4♠ for your double.

[madongjun]

I prefer PASS nor 2,3,4♠.

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-24, 00:06, said:

If double showed 4-4, 1♠ denied four of them in pard's hand. No bid.

While DBL of 1♥ presumably would have shown 4 spades in pard's hand and Pass five.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Assuming 1♠ guaranteed 4 cards in spades, the bidding makes it very likely that partner has at most a singleton heart.
This means he is marked with a distributional hand and at least 5 cards in clubs.
His most likely distribution is 4♠=1♥=3♦=5♣.
His 1♠ bid means he must be minimum for his opening bid.
While all your points seem to work,(though your partner could be void in hearts) your diamond holding is worrisome.
Partner may well have taken his diamond holding into account when bidding only 1♠.

The choice is between 2♠ and 3♠.
While game still has chances it will almost never make unless the black suits behave and if they don't good opponents holding the balance of high cards will often double 4 spades. This changes the odds for bidding vulnerable games decisively.

2♠ for me.

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

rhm, on 2012-October-24, 03:14, said:

While DBL of 1♥ would probably have shown 4 spades in pard's hand and Pass five.

Rainer Herrmann

It is quite playable to play it as

pass=no suitable call (likely a minimum "weak NT" with 1-2 spades)
double=penalty
1♠=3 cards
1NT=good weak NT, good heart stop
2♣=natural
2♦=strong hand
2♠=4 spades

I'm not sure what 2♥ should be. And maybe 1NT could be played as 18-19 balanced but it doesn't seem like you have 18-19 that often in this sequence. At some point 655321 was saying that 1m-p-1H-1S; 1NT should be 18-19 balanced but there only 2 other players bid as opposed to all 3 in this sequence.

[phil_20686]

If partner is showing 4S, I would just bid 2S. Admittedly you have a fitting club honour, but the xxx diamonds are a concern, as rho's diamonds are probably over your parters holding.

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2012-October-24, 04:09, said:

It is quite playable to play it as

pass=no suitable call (likely a minimum "weak NT" with 1-2 spades)
double=penalty
1♠=3 cards
1NT=good weak NT, good heart stop
2♣=natural
2♦=strong hand
2♠=4 spades

I'm not sure what 2♥ should be. And maybe 1NT could be played as 18-19 balanced but it doesn't seem like you have 18-19 that often in this sequence. At some point 655321 was saying that 1m-p-1H-1S; 1NT should be 18-19 balanced but there only 2 other players bid as opposed to all 3 in this sequence.

You can play what you like and enlighten us in a separate thread why your agreements are so much superior to what is standard.
But if somebody else poses a bidding question, you should not assume he plays your set of agreements, just because you are so thrilled by them that you can not imagine anybody playing anything else.
Without further explanation, you should simply assume what seems natural.
Partner will bid spades if he has four (or more) of them and any non spade bid without a jump shows less.
Otherwise your answers are meaningless and you are simply hijacking the thread.

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

1♠ shows four, else Timo had told us.
2 ♠ is enough. I do not have so many extras...

[Zelandakh]

I thought what gwnn posted is standard. A 1 level rebid by Opener after 1♣ - (1♦) - X is typically played as 3 card support and I see no reason to change this because of the 1♥ interference. Using double to show hearts makes the same sense as doubling to show the suit they bid after a takeout double. Of course "standard" is always a tricky beast to pin down because it varies from region to region, sometimes from group to group. To me, what gwnn posted seems pure simplicity and logic itself. My guess is that there may be two or more standards available here - it would not be the first time that you have claimed something is standard that is not after all. Why is posting based on one set of agreements that might be regarded as standard hijacking while posting on a different set of agreements that might be considered standard helpful? For all I know, Timo may have a completely different idea of standard here from either of us!

[gwnn]

rhm, on 2012-October-24, 04:30, said:

You can play what you like and enlighten us in a separate thread why your agreements are so much superior to what is standard.
But if somebody else poses a bidding question, you should not assume he plays your set of agreements, just because you are so thrilled by them that you can not imagine anybody playing anything else.
Without further explanation, you should simply assume what seems natural.
Partner will bid spades if he has four (or more) of them and any non spade bid without a jump shows less.
Otherwise your answers are meaningless and you are simply hijacking the thread.

I am not sure what is standard*, nor am I saying that "my" agreements are better than them. Why are you this sure? Accusing me of hijacking will not cut it, I was answering to your misguided sarcasm attempt at aguahombre; and I think it is relevant to the topic of discussion what this 1S shows.

Over
1m-(1H)-x-p

it is quite standard to play
1S=3
2S=4, so I don't see why

1m-(1D)-x-(1H)
1S would show 4 in standard. X showed 4+ hearts and 4+ spades so why not differentiate between 3-and 4-card raises?

To Codo: Timo did not have any special understanding about this sequence so we will have to guess how many spades 1S shows.

If we are sure 1S guarantees 4 cards, I think 2S is enough, after all with a minimum neg x I can pass.

*I checked the Bridge World Standard and it seems that it does not play 1C-(1D)-x as promising 4-4 in the majors.

[Codo]

In the example Zel and Csaba gave, the next opponent passed. This is quite different from the actual situation. Here openerer does not have to bid, so why does he need to introduce a 3 card suit?

And over 1m (1H) X usually promise 4 spades. Over 1 ♣ (1♦) X does not, so there is not much sense in bidding 1 ♠ with three cards.

[gwnn]

Codo, on 2012-October-24, 05:29, said:

In the example Zel and Csaba gave, the next opponent passed. This is quite different from the actual situation. Here openerer does not have to bid, so why does he need to introduce a 3 card suit?

And over 1m (1H) X usually promise 4 spades. Over 1 ♣ (1♦) X does not, so there is not much sense in bidding 1 ♠ with three cards.

MrAce was very clear that 1♣-(1♦)-x promised 4 hearts and 4 spades. Opener does not 'need' to introduce a 3-card suit but he can. That will help partner compete if he doubled with 5 spades and 4 hearts.

edit: yes, if 1♣-(1♦)-x does not promise 4-4 in the majors (it can be for instance 'one or both majors' or just 'takeout' or whatever), I completely agree that 1♠ has to show 4.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2012-October-24, 05:34

[rhm]

gwnn, on 2012-October-24, 04:57, said:

I am not sure what is standard*, nor am I saying that "my" agreements are better than them. Why are you this sure? Accusing me of hijacking will not cut it, I was answering to your misguided sarcasm attempt at aguahombre; and I think it is relevant to the topic of discussion what this 1S shows.

Would you like a bet that MrAce assumed that 1S would clearly be taken as showing 4 cards in spade?
I do not care for your logic, nor for Zelandakh regionalism. Everybody is aware that different bidding systems and conventions are popular in different parts of the world.
I only know, if 1S showed 3 cards in spades MrAce would neither have posted the question nor would he have taken it for granted that everybody knew. He would have made it clear that it showed 3 cards.
The discussion and your assumptions are plain silly.

Quote

Over
1m-(1H)-x-p

it is quite standard to play
1S=3
2S=4,

Maybe this is popular in certain expert circles, calling it "standard" still sounds to me a big exaggeration.
Standard is for me what a good sensible player not from my region at the table would presume without prior agreement.

Quote

so I don't see why

1m-(1D)-x-(1H)
1S would show 4 in standard. X showed 4+ hearts and 4+ spades so why not differentiate between 3-and 4-card raises?

Because there is a world of difference between my pass ending the bidding in a doubled contract for the opponents or my pass being neutral denying 4 cards in spades, because RHO has bid and my partner will get another chance to bid in the pass-out seat.
There is also a small but decisive difference between raising with 3 cards, when your partner has shown at least 4 cards in a major and when he has shown exactly 4 cards in a major.

Rainer Herrmann

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

2S.

We have a fit, I show the fit, this does not imply add. strength.

Without any agreement, North may not have known, if 2S instead of 1S
showed aynthing add., or if a 2S bid could still be based on a min.
opener.

Even if we end up in a 7 card fit, this is not the end of teh world,
partner is the one short in hearts.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

I could only post in reply what I had already posted before so I hope one day you will read my posts, rhm, when you reply to them. Good luck in the future.

[Codo]

gwnn, on 2012-October-24, 05:33, said:

MrAce was very clear that 1♣-(1♦)-x promised 4 hearts and 4 spades. Opener does not 'need' to introduce a 3-card suit but he can. That will help partner compete if he doubled with 5 spades and 4 hearts.

Of course this helps if you have 5 spades and 4 hearts- but it costs when you need to distinguish between a real good hand a a normal 4135 hand - or the like- because opener cannot jump to 2 ♠ to show a good hand with spades.
Now, you can put all these real good hands into the overcall, but in this case you will overload this bid. Or do you want to jump to 3 Spades with say AKxx,x,Qxx,AKxxx?
In the meanwhile, you solve a problem for one single hand type which many people simply bid natural...

[dake50]

I see 2 tricks certain and a likely C-ruff. I have a trick above a minimum Neg-X. So 2S.
I hate the Kiss-of-death D:xxx, but partner is still there.

[aguahombre]

Apparently, I made some wrong assumptions. I assumed that:

1) When OP said the double of a 1♦ overcall showed 4-4 in the majors, he meant 4-4 in the majors ---not maybe 5-4, but 4-4.

2) It doesn't take a special set of fancy agreements for opener to realize he can pretend he is rebidding after a 1♠ response, and "raise" it to the appropriate level with 4 spades as if partner had bid 1♠.

3) That since it was posted in this forum, opener would realize that the neg double and the 1H advance have given him obvious choices he might otherwise not have had. (pass, for instance).

4) A rebid of 1♠ under these conditions, by logic, would show a decent minimum opener with 3-1-4-5 or 3-2-3-5; the second possibility unlikely because of the heart raise by the opponents.

5) With 4-card spade support for responder, opener would not want to give the opponents all that room between 1s and 2S to further compete.

And, yes, we would have alerted 1♠ or 2♠...not because the meanings of those bids should be considered highly unexpected, but because we realize some people might not have given the logic any thought and they should know we raise spades with spades. We also alert the double itself, since it is very specific about being exactly 4-4 in the majors.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-October-24, 07:10