[analysismi]

No bidding agreement but SAYC.

What would 4D mean in

1S 1NT
3S 4D


Is it forcing?

[peachy]

Diamond ace. Opener set spades as trumps and showed a strong (but not GF) hand. Responder options were Pass, 4S, or a cuebid, rarely 3NT.

[jillybean]

wrong post

[ArcLight]

Cue Bid of Diamonds, probably the Ace. This assumes no mixed cue bididng (i.i could be a Diem ace, and denies the A or K of Clubs)

I'm guessing responder had a 3 card limit raise. Since opener has 6+ Spades and more than a minimum responder knows they belong at least in game. I think the responder also has mor ethan a minimum, not a 4333 10 HCP hand.

[lexlogan]

Opener has something like AKJxxx Axx KJx x , give or take a bit. This is SAYC, so responder has at most 10 hcp and two spades. It makes little sense for responder to argue with opener's suit, but can 4D possibly be a slam try? Yes -- try
Qx xxx AQxxx xxx .

After 1S-1NT-2S, 3D is presumably long diamonds and short spades, so 4D in this sequence might be of the same ilk, but I wouldn't pass as opener.

[ahri]

Yes, there is no reason to play 4D as nonforcing - responder can always pass 3S with very minimal hand. IMO it should be spade fit and something like AK, AQ in diamonds, showing max.

[Winstonm]

It should be a question of frequency - how often will you really need to show a weak diamond hand versus the time you will want to show a maximum 1N or a 3=card limit raise with a diamond control.

This is a spade raise, simply on a frequencay basis.

[skjaeran]

It's a cuebid, suggesting a spade slam.

[Cascade]

Winstonm, on Jul 6 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

It should be a question of frequency - how often will you really need to show a weak diamond hand versus the time you will want to show a maximum 1N or a 3=card limit raise with a diamond control.

This is a spade raise, simply on a frequencay basis.

You put a 3-card limit raise in a non-forcing 1NT?

[helene_t]

I would have thought it was COG. Something like seven diamonds and a singleton spades. Maybe 5-5 red suits would be a more useful treatment but that is obviously not something to assume with a pick-up partner.

[Gerben42]

8 diamonds and no ♠, I guess...

[655321]

helene_t, on Jul 6 2008, 08:10 AM, said:

I would have thought it was COG. Something like seven diamonds and a singleton spades. Maybe 5-5 red suits would be a more useful treatment but that is obviously not something to assume with a pick-up partner.

You are Ken Rexford and I claim my £5.

[lexlogan]

Winstonm, on Jul 6 2008, 01:07 AM, said:

It should be a question of frequency - how often will you really need to show a weak diamond hand versus the time you will want to show a maximum 1N or a 3=card limit raise with a diamond control.

This is a spade raise, simply on a frequencay basis.

This is SAYC, not 2/1. 1NT was not forcing, and partner does NOT have a 3-card limit raise. In SAYC, he's supposed to bid 3S with that.

That limits the frequncy of 4D as a slam try. Frequency isn't everything, however -- an infrequent bid which shows a large gain may well be preferred to a frequent bid which shows, at best, a small gain.

Both slam tries and hands which rate to play two or more tricks better at diamonds will be quite infrequent; but the gain from playing 4D vs. 3S is much smaller than the potential gain from bidding and making 6S. I'm sure 4D ought to be a slam try but I wouldn't make such a bid without discussion.

[the hog]

helene_t, on Jul 6 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

I would have thought it was COG. Something like seven diamonds and a singleton spades. Maybe 5-5 red suits would be a more useful treatment but that is obviously not something to assume with a pick-up partner.

The numerical one is correct. Helene has metamorphed into Ken.

4D shows a decent D suit and a S fit, something like Q(J)x ? AQxxx ?

[blackshoe]

I have not looked, but I strongly suspect that the answer to the original question (what is the meaning of 4♦ in this auction in SAYC) is "there is no defined meaning".

[mikeh]

This is a situation well worth a more detailed analysis.

We have considerable information: opener has 6+ spades, usually of good quality. While his hand is not game-force, it may yield slam or even grand slam opposite some holdings.

We need to cater to these holdings.

Thus with Jx Axxx x Axxxxx, a holding just short of a 2♣ response, opener could hold AKQ10xx x Ax Kxxx and now we need to find the grand.

Using 4♦ as a cue bid of an Ace or as natural obsfuscates the issue. It is obvious that using 4♦ as a SPLINTER, showing Hx or maybe even Hxx in trump, and first round control of the other two suits will be of far more benefit to partner.

This is an extension of the empathetic splinter.

We can then use 4♥ by opener as LTTC, with 4N being a request for responder's 6 card side suit, which he presumably has for the 4♦ call.



PS I didn't mean a word of this, but I thought that I'd take Han off the 'being Ken' hook

[ASkolnick]

1) It needs to be forcing. I think stopping at 4 of a minor on a dime in general is a losing proposition.

2) 4H can be temporizing indicating heart control.

If he has the diamond hand, he can bid 5D or pass a 4S bid or raise 4S to 5S. If he has the diamond hand, he wil just rebid diamonds.

[kenrexford]

I would have assumed that the debate here was between natural and fit-bid. My tendency would be to assume fit-bid. Something like the suggested Hx support with HHxxx on the side.

Sure, a "cuebid," but not just of a card but of a trick source. Sort of a picture jump without the jump. Nothing on the outside; great internal values.

Now, Mikeh's interesting analysis of the intricacies of the situation (or, Rexford-induced B.S. as he would call it) is almost a good guess of an alternative possibility. He mentioned E.P. analysis, which makes some sense here, but he gets it backwards. If anything, I could imagine Responder making Bluhmer/EP calls here (4♦ as showing a COV in hearts and clubs, for instance). But, this sequence is SAYC, and that approach would not work well here. Not enough stuff. Opener is expected to have about a five-loser hand, and Responder cannot legitimately have four covers unless he has a trick source (HHxxx or HHJx).

The problem would be more pronounced, though, if using 2/1 GF, as Responder could easily have a limit raise, or a fairly bulky hand, where there are more options. More options with the same space means less ability for precise defintions.

Thus, whereas "cue" makes sense if 1NT is forcing, the actual parameters seem to force fit-bid (if not just natural and long as hell).

[analysismi]

blackshoe, on Jul 7 2008, 12:28 AM, said:

I have not looked, but I strongly suspect that the answer to the original question (what is the meaning of 4♦ in this auction in SAYC) is "there is no defined meaning".

I am sure there is no defined meaning. In fact I told my pickup partner that it probably shouldn't be bid without discussion. But the bid happened and chaos ensued. But in any case, I'd be inclined, with agreement to treat it as something like

♠JX ♥xx ♦AQxxxxx ♣xx

possibly one less diamond and one more club. But slam possibilities based on a double fit seems right.

[SoTired]

I thot this auction in 2/1 GF auctions DOES have a defined meaning. It shows that the original forcing 1N was a 3-card limit raise with a Diam q-bid.

How else are you going to show that your original F1N was a 3-card LR?

sheesh

ooops SAYC. ..... Never mind

This post has been edited by SoTired: 2008-July-07, 15:18