[Stephen Tu]

---

Seeking people's thoughts on this auction:

Questions:

• What shape should 4♥ guarantee? Should 4♥ be forcing?
• Should 4-6 in the reds always start with double instead of 3♦ regardless of strength? Same with 4-5 reds? Or do you at some point want to bid 3♦?
• What do you do with 5-6 in the reds, for game only/slam inv/slam force?
• What should 4nt mean?
• Should 4♦ be forcing here? At both MP and IMPS?
• Same questions, only now you also have agreed kickback, would anyone assume 4♥ is kickback for diamonds? How about with discussion, should it be kickback? If it is kickback, what is 4nt, and how does it alter what you do with the red two suiters?

[apollo1201]

Lots of questions! From someone whose advice is usually very clear and well explained, which proves it is not such an easy set. Here is my go anyway.

1) 5+D, 4(+ but rarely)H. No reason it should be forcing. Partner’s pass over 4C is forcing (right?) but could be a minimum hand (right?).

2) With a GF hand, I prefer natural bidding (better picture for partner’s judgment), so 3D rather than X. With an average hand not worth a GF, X is probably more flexible (esp. if there is a tolerance for S). Over X, 3S, I play 4D as NF, logically, probably 6 good D 4H and strong misfit with limited strength (x Axxx KQJxxx xx). Different answer to question 1 might elicit different answer to this question.

3) 5-6 or 6-5 might fare better by bidding H first. Slam invitational hands will’have limited space to expxlore, though. Even if advancer passes. At least you can see if opener bids NT or repeats his S, persists with NT or S after your 2nd bid, or gives a false preference with a H doubleton. Or, jackpot, bids 5D. In all cases, all cues will look like natural bids somehow, except the very high positioned 5C...

4) Natural? With a hand unsuitable for 3NT (too strong, too long D and S or H shortage?). There could be merits for adapting to vulnerability, though. Red vs Green you need 4 down for a profitable X.

5) Theoretically it is NF but there could be merits for making it F. Especially at IMPs.

6) Hard, undiscussed, to assume it is kickback, but questions 1 and 2 might influence that one if 4H is « freed ».

All this illustrates how difficult it is when opps crush our bidding space. Scientific approach is harder to unfold.

Good set Stephen. Did you find the right contract at the table?

[DavidKok]

It is always tough when opponents preempt the bidding. In my (limited) experience, the most expensive mistake is to end up in the wrong suit after a high-level auction. I therefore prefer to have as many shape-showing bids as possible in auctions like this, and lots of forcing bids. This increases flexibility on games where there might be large swings at the cost of partscores and potentially sharp games (although these are relatively uncommon without a fit in partner's first suit).

• With most hands with 4 hearts and 5 diamonds I would double instead of bid 3♦, so I think 4♥ over partners forcing pass would instead show a 4-6. If you have a 4-5 and are slammish I suppose your best call is 4NT or 5♣ (on the second round), over which partner will show hearts if they have some.
  
• Already covered above, with a GF hand and a long good diamond suit I want to bid them.
  
• 5-6 in the reds is of course a problem hand. It is probably unrealistic to expect to show this much length in the two unbid suits with only GF values in a preemptive auction, so I would bid 3♥ to get to the most likely game. With a hand that is strongly suggesting slam (so basically slam-going) I would bid 4NT - as I said shape comes first, so all Lackwood/Kickback/Keycard methods are off for me on this auction, and this shows at least slamgoing 5-5 reds (since I bypassed 4♥). Alternatively you could bid 3♥ into 5♦ if you don't have this agreement. The slam invitational hand is a serious problem, I would start with the longest suit at the 3-level and pray for some positive response. If you had exactly that hand on this auction you now have to decide if you want to try another slam invite with 4NT over 4♣ (again this cannot possibly be natural/to play/spades, so it seems to me to suggest an invitational hand for 6♦ with also 4+ hearts).
  
• I keep getting ahead of myself, but covered above. If you have club values and diamonds but not hearts I think it is wise to start with 3NT, or X into 3NT/4NT with extra values. If you were asking about 4NT on the first round, instead of 3♦, for me it would show both red suits and a slam-invitational hand, but mostly it would also be bad bridge. Since all of 3♠, 4♣, 4♦, 4♠ and even 5♣ show some level of spade support I think 4NT should deny a spade fit, and with shape and points but no fit we try not to jump the auction too much.
  
• 4♦ is 100% forcing for me, 3♦ is already GF.
  
• I don't play ace-asking methods in preemptive auctions unless a trump suit has been bid and raised (sometimes through artificial bids). I don't have an answer for this one, sorry.

[nige1]

Stephen Tu 'Seeking people's thoughts on this auction:
Struggling and guessing, IMO ...
1. What shape should 4♥ guarantee? Should 4♥ be forcing?
- 6-4, N/F.
2. Should 4-6 in the reds always start with double instead of 3♦ regardless of strength? Same with 4-5 reds? Or do you at some point want to bid 3♦?
- 4-4 or 5-4 double.
3. What do you do with 5-6 in the reds, for game only/slam inv/slam force?
- 3♥ or 4♦.
4. What should 4nt mean?
- S/T 2-3 places to play e.g Ax Axxx AKxxxx x
5. Should 4♦ be forcing here? At both MP and IMPS?
- Yes at IMPs - at MP, you might take a view
6. Same questions, only now you also have agreed kickback, would anyone assume 4♥ is kickback for diamonds? How about with discussion, should it be kickback?
- Some might. I'm not one of them. It could be but I don't think it should be.
7. If it is kickback, what is 4nt, and how does it alter what you do with the red two suiters?
- Quantitative S/T. Over 3♣, you'd double or bid ♥ more often.

---