[broze]

---

In this and similar spots I have often thought that playing 4C as a relay would be a good idea, but without any special agreements what would you bid?

System is 2/1, 1D is 4+ unless 4=4=3=2. Team match.

[whereagles]

4NT RKCB for diamonds would be a nice choice, if available.

If not, or the bid is prone to mixup, then just a pragmatic 5♦.

[PhilKing]

4♣ is not even forcing in my book.

[Jinksy]

I don't necessarily want to be in slam, even if P has both missing aces. Also, 4N to me looks more like two places (though far from sure about this. Could we just bid 4H, 5C or 5N with any such hand?).

Anyway, for want of anything more descriptive/a clear idea of whether I'd be on the same page as P even if I'm on the same page as myself, I'll bid 4♠ and let him take the blamecredit.

[keithhus]

What would be your comments if I said I would open 2D?

[steve2005]

 keithhus, on 2015-January-18, 09:57, said:

What would be your comments if I said I would open 2D?

Your playing old-fashioned Acol.




If playing Acol 2D would be perfect. course you lose all weak 2's

[keithhus]

 steve2005, on 2015-January-18, 11:34, said:

Your playing old-fashioned Acol.

I take it that it would not be a good bid. What about 4D. Opening 1D does not seem to fully describe the hand. I know this is a responding question but would be interested in thoughts.
Thanks

[akwoo]

 keithhus, on 2015-January-18, 15:21, said:

I take it that it would not be a good bid. What about 4D. Opening 1D does not seem to fully describe the hand. I know this is a responding question but would be interested in thoughts.
Thanks

In 2/1, a 2♦ opening bid shows 6+♦ and 5-10 high card points. It is a pre-emptive bid, showing a relatively weak hand.
(Exception: Some 2/1 players play the Flannery convention, where a 2♦ opening shows 5-6♥, 4♠, and 11-15 high card points.)

In almost every system I know of, 4♦ is a preemptive bid, showing a weak hand with a long diamond suit. (Exception: A few people play Namyats, where 4♦ shows a good 4♠ preempt, so long spades and something like 9-12 (more like 9-15 in 3rd seat) high card points.)

I could imagine opening 2♣ (strong and artificial) with this hand, but most would prefer a hand with more defense for that bid.

[broze]

 PhilKing, on 2015-January-18, 09:00, said:

4♣ is not even forcing in my book.

Gotta say, I was surprised by this.

 Jinksy, on 2015-January-18, 09:21, said:

I don't necessarily want to be in slam, even if P has both missing aces. Also, 4N to me looks more like two places (though far from sure about this. Could we just bid 4H, 5C or 5N with any such hand?).

Not necessarily but you aren't going to find out much else and if you can find out that p has both Aces slam must be odds on. I don't think 4N can be 2 places (i.e. minors - how can you have H?) since as you say you can bid 5C, or 5N to pick a slam. If you have 3♥ and doubt about strain you can dbl and bid H.

[PhilKing]

 broze, on 2015-January-18, 16:08, said:

Gotta say, I was surprised by this.

If you have ♦s and ♣s and a very good hand you can:

1. Double with lots of high cards.
2. Jump to 5♣ with 55+ with good playing strength.
3. Jump to 4NT if your are 64/74/75.

But if I have:

♠-
♥KT2
♦KQJ98
♣A9876

Then I want to be able to bid 4♣ non-forcing.

This hand was not chosen entirely at random - it is from the Year End Swiss teams. The auction was slightly different in that partner responded 1NT, but the point is that after a raise to 3♠, you have to be able to get stuck in without partner hanging you.

A total of 31 pairs sold out to Three or Two (!) Spades whilst cold for 5♣.

[PhantomSac]

I would not have thought 4C non forcing was at all controversial?

[broze]

 PhilKing, on 2015-January-18, 16:24, said:

This hand was not chosen entirely at random - it is from the Year End Swiss teams.

Yes funnily enough I held that hand and bid 4C over 3S on the auction you describe. I don't think I formed an opinion about whether it was forcing or not tbh!

 PhantomSac, on 2015-January-18, 16:37, said:

I would not have thought 4C non forcing was at all controversial?

I guess it just goes against my faltering bridge logic. You have opened, partner has shown values and you have free-bid a new suit at the 4-level. Having an agreement to stop in 4C when p is raising nearly all the time with 4 clubs and can give a safe NF preference to 4D if he doesn't have clubs seems odd to me but it's certainly not the first time I've found I am wrong about that kind of thing.


As for a 4N bid, obviously there is some ambiguity but I can't believe that having it show both m longer D in such a cramped auction is optimal. I bet I have a hand that wants to ask keys in hearts much more often.

[Fluffy]

I will bid 4♠. Partner will understand a slam try with spade control in a red suit.

[fourdad]

This hand is a great example of wy I use romex Gerber in all cases except where clubs have been bid twice, naturally. It discovers the Aces with room to stop at 5!d.

[nekthen]

To make 6 p must have 2 As and a K or an A and 2Ks.
I will bid 4♠ but no confidence that I will get to the right level.
I believe that in ACBL land this is not strong enough to open 2♣ legally
With my p I open 2♦ multi he will probably bid 2N and I bid 4♦ showing 9 tricks with ♦ as trumps
If p can only respond 2♥ or 2♠, I bid 3♦
Either way hopefully p knows what to do

[ArtK78]

 nekthen, on 2015-January-19, 05:51, said:

To make 6 p must have 2 As and a K or an A and 2Ks.
I will bid 4♠ but no confidence that I will get to the right level.
I believe that in ACBL land this is not strong enough to open 2♣ legally
With my p I open 2♦ multi he will probably bid 2N and I bid 4♦ showing 9 tricks with ♦ as trumps
If p can only respond 2♥ or 2♠, I bid 3♦
Either way hopefully p knows what to do

It is a perfectly "legal" 2♣ opening in ACBL land. Whether it is a good idea is an entirely different question.

The following is from "Rulings FAQ" on the ACBL Website:

Rev. 9/14/13

Opening 2♣ with Tricks Not Points

BARRING PSYCHIC ARTIFICIAL OPENING BIDS

All psychic openings of artificial bids are prohibited at ACBL sanctioned events. This also applies to the SuperChart. (Board of Directors - Summer 1992)
Opening an artificial and forcing bid without an "abundance" of high card values is acceptable under the following circumstance: If, in the view of the bidder, there is a reasonable chance for game in hand with little help from partner.

The following hands would qualify:

1.
♠ A K Q J 10 9 7 6 5
♥ 7 5 4
♦ 2
♣ ---

or 2.
♠ A K Q 10 9 8
♥ J 10 9 8 7 6
♦ 4
♣ ---

These hands may be accepted as artificial 2♣ openers if the opening bidder thinks they are reasonable. On the first hand opener needs only one trick from partner. On the second hand, two small spades and a heart honor probably would be enough to produce game.

What is NOT acceptable is the use of a strong, artificial, forcing 2♣ opener holding:

♠ 6
♥ 2
♦ Q J 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 2
♣ 5

There would be good reason for a director to conclude that the opening bidder's prime motive is to confuse the opponents rather than to reach the right contract constructively. It is clear that opener is psyching what is ordinarily a well defined bid in an attempt to intimidate the opponents. This is exactly what the rule is intended to prevent.

If a pair thinks that Examples 1 and 2 are 2♣ openers, then their convention card should have some notation about playing strength in the appropriate place. Also, if a pair marks their card with HCP limits for their 2♣ openers, they should note if it only refers to balanced hands. (Directions - April 1992)

[nekthen]

 ArtK78, on 2015-January-19, 06:17, said:

It is a perfectly "legal" 2♣ opening in ACBL land. Whether it is a good idea is an entirely different question.

Thank you for the clarification. I have seen lots of opinions stating that there is a minimum hcp value for 2♣. As no one would really consider opening 2♣ on these hands it seems that the ruling is not as restrictive as some believe

[fourdad]

 ArtK78, on 2015-January-19, 06:17, said:

It is a perfectly "legal" 2♣ opening in ACBL land. Whether it is a good idea is an entirely different question.

The following is from "Rulings FAQ" on the ACBL Website:

Rev. 9/14/13

Opening 2♣ with Tricks Not Points

BARRING PSYCHIC ARTIFICIAL OPENING BIDS

All psychic openings of artificial bids are prohibited at ACBL sanctioned events. This also applies to the SuperChart. (Board of Directors - Summer 1992)
Opening an artificial and forcing bid without an "abundance" of high card values is acceptable under the following circumstance: If, in the view of the bidder, there is a reasonable chance for game in hand with little help from partner.

The following hands would qualify:

1.
♠ A K Q J 10 9 7 6 5
♥ 7 5 4
♦ 2
♣ ---

or 2.
♠ A K Q 10 9 8
♥ J 10 9 8 7 6
♦ 4
♣ ---

These hands may be accepted as artificial 2♣ openers if the opening bidder thinks they are reasonable. On the first hand opener needs only one trick from partner. On the second hand, two small spades and a heart honor probably would be enough to produce game.

What is NOT acceptable is the use of a strong, artificial, forcing 2♣ opener holding:

♠ 6
♥ 2
♦ Q J 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 2
♣ 5

There would be good reason for a director to conclude that the opening bidder's prime motive is to confuse the opponents rather than to reach the right contract constructively. It is clear that opener is psyching what is ordinarily a well defined bid in an attempt to intimidate the opponents. This is exactly what the rule is intended to prevent.

If a pair thinks that Examples 1 and 2 are 2♣ openers, then their convention card should have some notation about playing strength in the appropriate place. Also, if a pair marks their card with HCP limits for their 2♣ openers, they should note if it only refers to balanced hands. (Directions - April 1992)

I agree that this is a perfectly legitimate 2♣ opener.

[jdgalt]

Lacking any special convention for this type of hand, I would have opened it 5D. I doubt I have to handle any opposing bidding then.

[B Meow]

I am just curious

Would the rebid been
1♦ P 1♥ P
4♦ P ...
Had the opponents not interfered?

Anyway it is a 4♠ for me.

BTW it is legal to make this as 2♣ opener. Given an extra diamond, many pairs would have a 2♣ opening.