[han]

Does this auction exist, and if so, could you give a hand with which you could conceivably bid this way when playing with your favorite partner?

(1D*) - p - (1H) - p
(2H) - 4S

1D was a nebulous precision 1D opener. You passed initially and then jumped to 4S on the next round.

[Fluffy]

you mean this shows 4 spades 7 diamonds?, well maybe, but I never agreed that

[helene_t]

If we treat the 1♦ (initially) as natural then I might bid like this with a diamond monster with four spades on the side. Well, at least I would bid like that if I had an agreement to do so

Edit: hey Fluffy, I was before you!

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2013-February-28, 10:24

[lalldonn]

My favorite partner would never make that bid, nor me playing with him.

[billw55]

lalldonn, on 2013-February-28, 10:37, said:

My favorite partner would never make that bid, nor me playing with him.

OK then. So what would you do with a strong 4171? Sure it is very rare but if the bid for it is unused anyway, what would be the harm?

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2013-February-28, 10:49, said:

OK then. So what would you do with a strong 4171? Sure it is very rare but if the bid for it is unused anyway, what would be the harm?

Pass then 4♦ ? pass then 4♠ is 5161 ?

[gnasher]

Doesn't exist for me.

With 5-7 or similar I'd always have bid on the first round. With 4-7 I wouldn't offer spades as trumps. The only other possible meaning is as a self-fit bid on the way to 5♦, but if I wanted to play 5♦ I would have overcalled it on the first round.

If it came up at the table, I'd just assume partner's hand had mutated from 3xx4 to 7xx0.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-February-28, 10:51, said:

Pass then 4♦ ? pass then 4♠ is 5161 ?

Since 1D is nebulous, you could have a Leaping Michaels agreement over 2H.

Namely, 4D-jump showing (5/5)+ in ♠/♦ .

Edit: If you just wanted to show 4 cd ♠, wouldn't you just DBL 2H ?

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2013-February-28, 11:14

[JLOGIC]

5S 7D seems normal to me. I don't see why it is a bad or weird bid, you pass first to show longer diamonds, then you jump to show a strong hand and the fifth spade.

Similarly, with 5S and 7C I would overcall 2C then jump to 4S.

[Cyberyeti]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-February-28, 11:10, said:

Since 1D is nebulous, you could have a Leaping Michaels agreement over 2H.

Namely, 4D-jump showing (5/5)+ in ♠/♦ .

Edit: If you just wanted to show 4 cd ♠, wouldn't you just DBL 2H ?

We have concrete agreements that pass then a bid over one of these nebulous minors shows diamonds as well. Thinking further on this:

Dbl of 2♥ would be 3 suited without ♥.

6+♦ = P then 3♦
5♠/4♦ or any 6+♠ = just overcall ♠
5♠/5♦ = P then 2♠
5♠/6♦ = P then 3♠
7♦/4♠ = 4♦

So 4♠ would be 5/7 or too big a 5/6 to risk partner passing.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2013-February-28, 11:05, said:

Doesn't exist for me.

With 5-7 or similar I'd always have bid on the first round.

Why though? Even if you get to bid 4D next, we will have the problem of partner correcting with 2 spades and playing the wrong suit. Passing then jumping to 4S gets partner to go back to diamonds rather than us getting tapped in a 5-2, and it also makes it more likely we will get both of our suits in economically (ie, our last bid being 4S Not 5D) before getting preempted.

[jallerton]

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-28, 11:27, said:

5S 7D seems normal to me. I don't see why it is a bad or weird bid, you pass first to show longer diamonds, then you jump to show a strong hand and the fifth spade.

Similarly, with 5S and 7C I would overcall 2C then jump to 4S.

I agree, although I would describe the auction as abnormal, on the grounds that it does not come up very often!

[han]

The hand that caused this discussion was

AQ9xx
-
AQJ8xxx
A

Do you think that this a suitable hand?

[Cyberyeti]

han, on 2013-February-28, 14:29, said:

The hand that caused this discussion was

AQ9xx
-
AQJ8xxx
A

Do you think that this a suitable hand?

Yes, might even be a bit good.

[kenrexford]

This thread is my absolute favorite of all time. I agree of course with the theory. The question, though, is whether it is being taken far enough.

I mean, clearly the leap sounds like a spade-diamond canape. That much is obvious.

I am curious what (1♦)-2NT shows. If both minors, then a leap to 4♣ in this sequence would not logically shows a club-diamond canape unless the canape is extreme, like 7-4. With even 6-5, surely 3NT now shows that hand?

But, 4♥ has a meaning (1♦-P-1♥-P-2♥-4♥), and this must help to define this sequence.

One possibility for 4♥ is a shortness bid, suggesting that 4♠ (instead) looks like 5-2-6-0. But, that seems wrong to me.

Instead, it seems to me that 4♥ is the alternative way to show the spade-diamond canape (especially if 2NT would have taken care of the minor 6-5 and 4♣ the minor 7-4). Typically, the artificial means shows the shorter holding, while bidding shows the longer holding (e.g., Stayman versus bidding 2♠ as a means to show spades).

Thus, it seems that 4♥ would show the 4♠/7♦ type of hand, while 4♠ shows more of a 5-6 layout. Still canape, but less severely so.

Now, I could be sold on 4♥ as a sort of Last Train concept, as well, but this seems like a strain-before-level issue to me.

[JLOGIC]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-February-28, 15:10, said:

Yes, might even be a bit good.

Obv the hand if you are in first seat is a near slam force on it's own, but after a 1D opener it is no longer as good, I think it's a fine hand for bidding that way.

[Fluffy]

han, on 2013-February-28, 14:29, said:

The hand that caused this discussion was

AQ9xx
-
AQJ8xxx
A

Do you think that this a suitable hand?

I wasn't expecting any defense, but extra strenght shouldn't matter.

[Cyberyeti]

JLOGIC, on 2013-February-28, 17:23, said:

Obv the hand if you are in first seat is a near slam force on it's own, but after a 1D opener it is no longer as good, I think it's a fine hand for bidding that way.

Except that given that you have 7 diamonds and one club, the odds of opener having clubs rather than diamonds in his precision diamond are much higher, (3)4(2)4 or similar is very likely depending on NT range. Partner is hardly going to work out that K, xxxxx, 109, xxxxx is dynamite.

[PhilKing]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-February-28, 11:27, said:

5♠/6♦ = P then 3♠

Pass then 3♥, I think.

In a perfect world, Pass then 3♠ should be 5-7 but weaker. I think (hope) my generic rules would cover this.

[Cyberyeti]

PhilKing, on 2013-March-01, 06:49, said:

Pass then 3♥, I think.

In a perfect world, Pass then 3♠ should be 5-7 but weaker. I think (hope) my generic rules would cover this.

I would use pass then 3♥ as one of the both minors 2 suiters.