Fragment or cuebid?
#2
Posted 2018-December-24, 09:56
#3
Posted 2018-December-24, 10:14
2♠ LSGT
Strong openings pretty standard
No agreement on 3NT.
#4
Posted 2018-December-24, 10:29
YesHoney, on 2018-December-24, 10:14, said:
2♠ LSGT
Strong openings pretty standard
No agreement on 3NT.
5M ? 2♥ often 3 ? different bid with 7-9 and 4 ?
I'd suggest something like AK(J/x)x, AKxxxx, void, QJx focussing partner's mind on the clubs (and major suit better than Js being gold dust).
#5
Posted 2018-December-24, 10:45
YesHoney, on 2018-December-24, 08:54, said:
2♠ 3♥
4♦
What could be opener's holding? What is 4♦?
I've never played fragment bids, but as I understand it they are unusual jump bids showing fit in partner's last bid suit and shortage in the fourth suit. If so, they seem unapplicable here, where you already have an agreed major fit and the bid is not an unusual jump. Do you have an agreement to play them, and if so how are they defined?
It doesn't look probable as a control-showing cuebid either, unless your agreement is that it does not deny control of skipped suits.
Perhaps some kind of last train, if you play that?
#6
Posted 2018-December-24, 11:21
As Cyber indicates, 4♦ is focussing responder on the ♣ suit and the quality (or lack of it) in the trump suit.
But responder has at his disposal 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♠, 3NT, 4♣, 4♦, 4♥ instead of 3♥ in reply to 2♠ then what all those bids mean in context of opener's 2♠ must be taken into consideration.
#7
Posted 2018-December-24, 11:46
#9
Posted 2018-December-25, 00:19
The_Badger, on 2018-December-24, 11:21, said:
As Cyber indicates, 4♦ is focussing responder on the ♣ suit and the quality (or lack of it) in the trump suit.
But responder has at his disposal 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♠, 3NT, 4♣, 4♦, 4♥ instead of 3♥ in reply to 2♠ then what all those bids mean in context of opener's 2♠ must be taken into consideration.
♠ suit is 3 or more cards.
3♥ is absolute minimum, no help in ♠ and no counteroffer.
#10
Posted 2018-December-25, 01:15
YesHoney, on 2018-December-25, 00:19, said:
Opposite, say, ♠ A K x x x ♥ A K x x x x ♦ - ♣ Q x. if responder holds
- ♠ x x ♥ x x x x ♦ x x x x ♣ K x x, then a small slam is reasonable.
- ♠ Q x x ♥ J x x x x ♦ x x x x x ♣ -, then a grand is excellent.
#11
Posted 2018-December-25, 03:50
3H sounds like a minimum with no help in spades or no interest opposite any singleton.
4♦ depends upon what the agreement is as to 2♠.
I would suggest a strong 6-4-3 hand with a void unsuitable for trying
Blackwood in so far as the auction forces to game.
#12
Posted 2018-December-26, 00:10
Cyberyeti, on 2018-December-24, 09:56, said:
Sir,i fully agree with you.It all depends upon the partnership understanding.Without any special agreements,NORMALLY this 4D bid must show(since this bid has avoided any other TEMPORISING bid like say 3NT) a first round control in Diamonds with no first or second round control in Club suit.
#13
Posted 2018-December-26, 04:05
msjennifer, on 2018-December-26, 00:10, said:
As asked to another poster, with these "normal" agreements what would 3 Spades show? If it shows some degree of control in spades then surely it would elict the same information about clubs, more economically.
#14
Posted 2018-December-26, 08:22
pescetom, on 2018-December-26, 04:05, said:
SIR,a 3S bid will confirm the distributional pattern which was earlier suggested by 2S reverse (I am assuming that it was not a LST which some pairs do play with a forced 2NT by responder after which opener shows his long suit by bidding 3C/3D with 3H showing a spade suit.) To ask partner to cue bid controls, opener bids a forcing 3NT and not 3S.
#15
Posted 2018-December-26, 08:26
#16
Posted 2018-December-26, 15:03