[gnasher]

Quote

Let's suppose the bidding had been:

2♣-2♦
3♣-3♦*
4♣-???

3♦ asks about Majors and 4♣ denies any 4-card Major (and the desire to play 3NT), what would you bid then with the hand in question?

4♠ sounds like a cue-bid, so I'd do that.

[mikeh]

I agree with everything Andy has written on this thread.

[kenrexford]

Just 'cause I like theory stuff...

In theory, 4♣ in this auction should, as gnasher said, show a super-accept of BOTH majors. (The same 4♣ super-accept should also apply even if Opener's minor were diamonds.)

When both majors are in focus, and where only one bid can super-accept them both, and where that call is 4♣, and where there is a need for some re-transfer (a re-transfer being needed to right-side spades), then re-transfers should apply, which also solves the RKCB problem.

Thus, systemically and theoretically (requiring either specific discussion or really outstanding default agreements), it seems that Responder should bid 4♥ as a re-transfer to spades.

BTW -- the reason why 4C is the "only" way to super-accept is the re-transfer problem. Hence, sort of looping logic at work here.

[OleBerg]

kenrexford, on 2010-December-06, 11:27, said:

Just 'cause I like theory stuff...

In theory, 4♣ in this auction should, as gnasher said, show a super-accept of BOTH majors. (The same 4♣ super-accept should also apply even if Opener's minor were diamonds.)

When both majors are in focus, and where only one bid can super-accept them both, and where that call is 4♣, and where there is a need for some re-transfer (a re-transfer being needed to right-side spades), then re-transfers should apply, which also solves the RKCB problem.

Thus, systemically and theoretically (requiring either specific discussion or really outstanding default agreements), it seems that Responder should bid 4♥ as a re-transfer to spades.

BTW -- the reason why 4C is the "only" way to super-accept is the re-transfer problem. Hence, sort of looping logic at work here.

Touchdown, the crowd is cheering.

[Free]

While we're thinking theoretically when 4♣ should be a superaccept of both suits, why not start a discussion if 4♦ should really be a transfer to ♥. Since ♥ is already wrongsided, you might want to have a fast arrival 4♥ natural signoff not to give away an extra lead directing Dbl. 4♦ could then be RKC ♥ (lower, which is perfect for slam exploration), while 4NT can be RKC ♠ (with 4♠ also natural). Or, if you still want to rightside ♠ you can use 4♦ as a transfer to ♠ (so opener can bid 4♥ re-rightsiding). Or even combine both methods, but when opener has a superaccept of both Majors and wants to rightside ♠ he should bid 3♠ and later 4♥ if responder signs off in 3NT. If there's no need to rightside ♠ he can bid 4♣ immediately. All these extra possibilities!

[pooltuna]

Hanoi5, on 2010-December-05, 21:24, said:

Playing 2/1, you hold:

♠KQxx
♥xxxx
♦xxxx
♣Q

And it goes:

1♣-1♥
2NT-3♣*
4♣!-???

3♣ is checkback, asking about Majors. 4♣ does not exist in your system. What do you bid?

I will later ask what you bid on another sequence.

Since this shows a good source of tricks/qbid and I have no qbid to make I will settle for 4♠ as partner promised 4 with a slam try. Sorry Nigel but those hands are grit your teeth 3NT calls.

[phil_20686]

nige1, on 2010-December-06, 06:38, said:

4♦ is a cunning bid but I don't think it's "standard" to rebid a (non-forcing) 2N with 4♥, although, I suppose partner could be 3433

Fluffy, on 2010-December-06, 08:40, said:

Standard or not, there is a high enough fraction of the players of the world who do it to be worth considering it.

I think nigel hasnt played with enough LOL's. They have a bid that shows 18-19 balanced, and that's what they have! Many advanced players end up with bad habits left from learning from sub-standard teachers, and if they are on rare auctions then they might not get corrected for years.

[straube]

gnasher, on 2010-December-06, 03:08, said:

Perhaps partner thinks that the benfits of making such a descriptive bid outweigh the disadvantages. Or maybe he just didn't think of this disadvantage. His action might be ill-considered, but I'm not going to assume he's stopped playing bridge.

So I need to give partner credit, but not too much credit?

I have the agreement with my partners that we don't invent system on the fly if we have a continuation available (because occasionally we don't and we really do have to invent on the fly). This means that if partner does something nonsystemic, I can safely assume that he's forgotten our method (or I have) because both have been known to happen.

So I don't have to worry about whether 1C-1H, 2N-3C, 4C-4H is a signoff in hearts or a transfer to spades...because we try not to put each other in such positions. If we don't like our continuations we can fix them after the hand is over. I think your suggestion that this particular sequence shows 4S/3H and club controls makes the most sense, but showing 4H and a club control makes sense for those who might rebid 2N with certain hands with four hearts...and those are incompatible treatments. And perhaps someone just never rebids 2N with four hearts...except just on this one particular hand and then of course 4C just had to show that hand...

[kenrexford]

Free, on 2010-December-07, 09:07, said:

While we're thinking theoretically when 4♣ should be a superaccept of both suits, why not start a discussion if 4♦ should really be a transfer to ♥. Since ♥ is already wrongsided, you might want to have a fast arrival 4♥ natural signoff not to give away an extra lead directing Dbl. 4♦ could then be RKC ♥ (lower, which is perfect for slam exploration), while 4NT can be RKC ♠ (with 4♠ also natural). Or, if you still want to rightside ♠ you can use 4♦ as a transfer to ♠ (so opener can bid 4♥ re-rightsiding). Or even combine both methods, but when opener has a superaccept of both Majors and wants to rightside ♠ he should bid 3♠ and later 4♥ if responder signs off in 3NT. If there's no need to rightside ♠ he can bid 4♣ immediately. All these extra possibilities!

Since we are in the Rabbit Hole already...

Opener's 4♣ call grabbed the spade contract by forcing the re-transfer sequence. Had Opener wanted to force Responder to play a spade contract, we would have bid 4♦ as the super-accept. This, of course, also forces 4NT to be RKCB for hearts and 5♣ as RKCB for spades. All of this is fairly standard.