[lycier]

---

One day I remembered that I played with my friends,occasionally we ran into a trouble.
After 3♠,opener apply the principle of fast arrival,directly bid up to 4♠.However the responder was not content to 4♠ as a final contract,so rebid 4nt to ask RKCB,while the opener answered 5♣,I doubled ! Actually it was just a psychological interference double with threats !
My friends know redouble showed the first control,but the east seat can unable to bid up to 6♠ without authorization decision since he also fear I maybe hold CAQ,the responder had no alternative and then had to return 5♠.The final result was 5♠E+1
How to resolve this problem?
I think the principle of fast arrival is a wrong style,it is best to cuebid 4♣ in advance after 3♠.Is that a good idea?

Thank you very much.

lycier

[Codo]

1. I think 4 ♠ is a horrible bid in the times of serious/nonserious 3NT. But even without this tool: You have already limited your hand with 1 ♠/2♠, so you should cuebid.
2. RCKB is horrible Partner may possess the ace of clubs instaed of the King of spades and you are in big trouble.
3. The usual contract missing a keycard and the trump queen is 5 spades.
4. Over your double, they should use some gadgets to sort out their problems. F.E. pass shows no club control and opener is obliged to show his...

[Free]

Agree with Codo:
4♠ is horrible, you should play serious/frivolous 3NT combined with cuebids instead of fast arrival, RKC sucks because you know you have the power to go to slam but not the controls, and after 5♣x West can just pass to figure out more about East's hand. Moreover, slam with a missing keycard and missing trump Q is poor, especially in only an 8 card fit.

Something that Codo didn't mention: 2♦ is also horrible imo.

[Vampyr]

 Codo, on 2013-July-24, 05:13, said:

4. Over your double, they should use some gadgets to sort out their problems. F.E. pass shows no club control and opener is obliged to show his...

I usually play that redouble shows first round control and pass shows second round control.

[000ffj]

I'm not a very good player,but I want to talk about my idea.
1.I don't think 2s is better than 3d or 2nt,though many experts recommend 2s with this hand.since west will never know how many cards of spade east has from 2s.SQ isn't so important if east has 6 cards spade in slam or grand slam trying.
2.I wonder if east is too weak to open 1s.

[ArtK78]

 000ffj, on 2013-July-24, 07:05, said:

I'm not a very good player,but I want to talk about my idea.
1.I don't think 2s is better than 3d or 2nt,though many experts recommend 2s with this hand.since west will never know how many cards of spade east has from 2s.SQ isn't so important if east has 6 cards spade in slam or grand slam trying.
2.I wonder if east is too weak to open 1s.

1. Bidding 2♠ is a matter of style. It also depends on whether the 2♦ response was game forcing. Many play that the 2♠ bid says nothing, but denies the ability to bid anything else. So, it denies 4 hearts. Also, many play that a 2NT rebid shows extras, and that a 3♦ rebid shows 4 card support. So opener has no choice but to rebid 2♠.

2. If this hand is too weak to open 1♠, all I can ask is whether you are Roth or Stone? I do not know any experienced player who thinks this hand is too weak to open the bidding (some might open a weak NT rather than 1♠, but everyone would open).

[billw55]

 ArtK78, on 2013-July-24, 07:39, said:

2. If this hand is too weak to open 1♠, all I can ask is whether you are Roth or Stone? I do not know any experienced player who thinks this hand is too weak to open the bidding (some might open a weak NT rather than 1♠, but everyone would open).

I agree to open, but I understand where 000ffj is coming from. It's a pretty crummy 12 count with no aces, short suit honors, no shortness and a ragged "long" suit. I consider it a bare minimum opener.

[000ffj]

 ArtK78, on 2013-July-24, 07:39, said:

1. Bidding 2♠ is a matter of style. It also depends on whether the 2♦ response was game forcing. Many play that the 2♠ bid says nothing, but denies the ability to bid anything else. So, it denies 4 hearts. Also, many play that a 2NT rebid shows extras, and that a 3♦ rebid shows 4 card support. So opener has no choice but to rebid 2♠.

2. If this hand is too weak to open 1♠, all I can ask is whether you are Roth or Stone? I do not know any experienced player who thinks this hand is too weak to open the bidding (some might open a weak NT rather than 1♠, but everyone would open).

Thans,my teachers and experpts told me those like you .but I still don't like the 2s rebid,as I always can't hold the process if I were west,maybe 4s/6s with 6-2 spade fitting or 3nt or other contract is better.but all are so difficulty from unsure of 2s rebid,especially west don't know if he should suport spade when he has 2 cards spade with slam try power.

[ggwhiz]

 Free, on 2013-July-24, 06:22, said:

Something that Codo didn't mention: 2♦ is also horrible imo.

A trick I was told was to bid 2♣ with this shape and (more usually) 2-4-4-3 hands where if pard raises you know you most often belong in notrump or if they bid 2♦ you know you may belong there. That way we can raise a minor with 3 pieces on suitable hands.

[ArtK78]

 000ffj, on 2013-July-24, 08:19, said:

Thans,my teachers and experpts told me those like you .but I still don't like the 2s rebid,as I always can't hold the process if I were west,maybe 4s/6s with 6-2 spade fitting or 3nt or other contract is better.but all are so difficulty from unsure of 2s rebid,especially west don't know if he should suport spade when he has 2 cards spade with slam try power.

After the 2♠ rebid, responder assumes that opener has 5 spades and makes a descriptive call. He should not raise spades with a doubleton unless every other call is worse. If opener has 6 spades, he will bid them again or make some other descriptive call. Responder can support spades with 2 cards after the first two rounds of the auction.

[mikeh]

I don't understand the criticisms of 4♠ as 'horrible'. I'll go further: I think the criticisms are appallingly bad.

Firstly, those who criticize it write as if the entire world plays serious or frivolous 3N. Most bridge players don't and it is the height of condescension to write posts, even in the expert forum, on the basis that only bad players don't. I haven't played it in any of the partnerships with which I have won my country's team trials, and I don't think that my failure to do so made either me or my partners non-experts.

Secondly, even if one were to play it, my understanding is that one is still permitted/required to simply bid 4♠ when holding a bad hand.

Here, East has no aces. Yes, the diamonds are nice but the diamond J is often wasted, since partner rates to hold Axxxx. Meanwhile the trump are very weak and we have no singletons, no Aces, no texture and no shape. Playing 2/1 gf, the East hand is close to horrible and 4♠ is a reasonable choice. Personally, IF I had a gadget, I might use it because of the diamonds, but to call 4♠ horrible is silly.

In my view, West ought clearly to respect 4♠ and pass. Bidding on suggests that he doesn't trust partner. KQxxx xx KQx Kxx is definitely not a 4♠ call, gadget or no gadget, and that's what he needs (or equivalent values) for slam to be decent.

S shouldn't double. He is on lead, so why double? He's looking at the trump Q, so why would he want to talk EW out of slam? Yes, they may have a 9 card fit and be about to drop the Q, but that's far from certain.

Finally, I agree with the criticism of the 2♦ bid. I far prefer 2♣, and I would expect most experts to use that call, unless they had a systemic alternative.

[aguahombre]

 Codo, on 2013-July-24, 05:13, said:

4. Over your double, they should use some gadgets to sort out their problems. F.E. pass shows no club control and opener is obliged to show his...

 Vampyr, on 2013-July-24, 06:40, said:

I usually play that redouble shows first round control and pass shows second round control.

I can't imagine creating an agreement to allow RKC in a "suit" auction when we could be off the cashing A/K of a side suit or when the asker might be concerned about a lead through partner's King in time for it to be a problem.

[fromageGB]

Furthering Art's comment on 000ffj's dislike of (or unfamiliarity with) opener's 2♠ rebid that does not show 6 cards but shows instead a weaker hand, many people play that responder's rebid if he has no clear shape-showing bid (as here) is 2NT. This is not an immediate suggestion to play in NT, but is a relay for opener to bid out his shape. He can bid a second suit (that would have been above 2♠, hence would have needed a hand with greater strength), support responder's suit, or rebid spades to show a 6 card suit. Failing all those, opener can rebid 3NT. On this hand I would bid 3♦, but there again I would not have bid 2♦ as West.

[gnasher]

It seems to me very sensible to dislike having to bid 2♠ on the East hand. I'd far prefer to be able to show a balanced hand, or diamond support.

But anyway, we can only use the tools we were given. Let's assume that 2♠ is systemic. Over that, West really wants to know about things like a sixth spade, a club suit, or secondary diamond support in an unbalanced hand. So why doesn't he bid 2NT to find out? Then we could have the sequence
      1♠
2♦-2♠
2NT-3NT
4♦
where we have discovered that:
- Both hands are balanced
- East is, therefore, minimum
- West is still interested in slam
- West has spade support
- West has no club control
- West has a diamond control

On these two hands we'd probably still get to the five-level, but at least we'd avoid getting there when we have no club control.

[quiddity]

 gnasher, on 2013-July-24, 13:12, said:

      1♠
2♦-2♠
2NT-3NT
4♦
where we have discovered that:
...
- West has spade support

Never seen this before.. is it commonly understood that 4♦ shows 3-card spade support? Why can't it show a balanced slam-try with especially good diamonds?

[aguahombre]

 quiddity, on 2013-July-24, 15:52, said:

Never seen this before.. is it commonly understood that 4♦ shows 3-card spade support? Why can't it show a balanced slam-try with especially good diamonds?

I assumed Gnasher meant 2-card spade support, still not knowing if Opener has six. With 3, Responder should have supported Spades by now.

[gnasher]

 aguahombre, on 2013-July-24, 16:11, said:

I assumed Gnasher meant 2-card spade support, still not knowing if Opener has six. With 3, Responder should have supported Spades by now.

No, I meant 3-card support. Why would opener start cue-bidding when we don't have a trump suit? And if your methods force you to bid 2♠ on Kxxxx, opener should bid 3♠ on more-or-less any 6-card suit, so responder should know it's a 5-3 spade fit.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-July-24, 16:29

[gnasher]

 quiddity, on 2013-July-24, 15:52, said:

Never seen this before.. is it commonly understood that 4♦ shows 3-card spade support? Why can't it show a balanced slam-try with especially good diamonds?

I suppose it could do, but it doesn't seem terribly useful, whereas being able to distinguish between balanced hands with spade support (2NT and then cue-bid) and unbalanced hands with spade support (raise immediately) seems very useful.

Don't assume that what I suggest is mainstream - I don't think I've ever knowingly agreed to play a system where 2♦ is game-forcing and opener rebids 2♠ on this hand, so I'm making it up as I go along.

[JLOGIC]

 quiddity, on 2013-July-24, 15:52, said:

Never seen this before.. is it commonly understood that 4♦ shows 3-card spade support? Why can't it show a balanced slam-try with especially good diamonds?

I don't think it's normal at all, I would take 4D as 6 diamonds and a slam try. I think it is normal to bid eg x AQx AKxxxx AJx like this, or basically most hands with 6 diamonds and ~18 points.

Bidding over 4S with the west hand is a common error. For whatever reason, people fall in love with 18 or 4333 19 counts with a fit opposite an opening bid like it is a slam force.

Where does west think twelve tricks are coming from? If partner had a hand such as KQxxx xx Kxx Axx then obviously he would have cuebid, but even opposite that hand slam is on 3-3 diamonds and a club hook. Basically, I totally agree with mikeh, I don't understand some of the criticism of 4S, seems like a good bid to get to a totally fine contract if west would just pass. Even playing serious or non serious, 4S bids exist, they show a very bad hand for slam. The primary purpose of these cuebids and gadgets is to decide if you have enough values for slam, not if you have enough controls for slam. I don't think cuebidding is the right way to shut west up.

[JLOGIC]

 gnasher, on 2013-July-24, 16:29, said:

I suppose it could do, but it doesn't seem terribly useful, whereas being able to distinguish between balanced hands with spade support (2NT and then cue-bid) and unbalanced hands with spade support (raise immediately) seems very useful

You are assuming partner will bid 3N so you will get to complete this description. If partner does not bid 3N, your next spade bid (or cuebid over 3S) will sound like a doubleton spade. Obviously whether or not you have 3 spades or 2 is going to be very important to partner in evaluating his hand and it seems like a bad thing to lie about. I can see your point if you have a slam force and are going to take over anyways and just want to leave room for more info, but if you don't have that and need to involve partner in the decision then I think the fact that you will usually not get to show whether you have 3 spades or not is a big deal.

I don't think this is circular either, even if you know you can have 3 spades to bid 2N, you still need to be able to bid 2N and then 3S when you have 3. Maybe you can have artificial methods over different continuations to show 3 spades and a slam try balanced like 4C over any bid from partner other than 3C shows that hand. But obviously there are a lot of artificial things you could do to improve 2/1 auctions (popular right now is to respond 2C and relay with balanced hands obv).