[jillybean]

---

[mike777]

Would have bid three spades not 2d for starters, then 4 hearts last round, pass now.

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry for the bluntness, but the first few pages of Robson & Segal put it so well I just want to quote it in full:

Robson & Segal (1993) said:

1. Support with support: the theory
Making life easy: avoid the last guess

[..]

Avoiding the last guess
Now, why was it that bidding 2♦ presented us with problems, while bid-
ding 3♥ did not? The simple answer is: because when we did not show
our support immediately we found ourselves taking the last guess –
whether to show it later when the enemy had forced up the bidding.

The idea of "avoiding the last guess" is the single most important con-
cept we shall address in this book. In short, most of the theory, most of
the methods we have undertaken to introduce are designed to enable
you to avoid taking the last guess.

It is often said that experts "guess well". In fact, what most character-
ises the bidding of a top partnership is that they rarely guess at all late
in the auction. For if you do take the last guess, you will get it wrong a
lot of the time, however good you are – and the error will be irrecover-
able. Whereas if you force your opponents to make the last guess, it is
they who will be conceding frequent losses to you.

It is a funny coincidence that, despite the hands being completely different, 3♥ instead of 2♦ is also the solution here (showing a fitbid: a 4-card spade raise with the offensive potential for at least the 3-level, along with a good 5(+)-card heart suit and also directing a possible lead. Well, look at that).

More crucially though, we did not arrive at this position at the 5-level out of nowhere. We had multiple rounds to take different actions, and so did partner. That space should have been used to describe the hands, anticipating further competition.

I would be happy to mention what this auction shows in my agreements, and what inferences there are. However, the hand is such a mismatch with how I would bid that instead I can't really comment. To me it seems most likely that all four players neglected to use their valuable opportunities to communicate in competition, and now we're taking the last guess basically blind.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2025-October-01, 08:03, said:

Would have bid three spades not 2d for starters, then 4 hearts last round, pass now.

3♥ not 3♠

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-October-01, 08:03, said:

Would have bid three spades not 2d for starters, then 4 hearts last round, pass now.

3♠ weak? it would be for me

[Huibertus]

DavidKok's reply contains all you need to know. Partnership Bidding: The Contested Auction is a mandatory study for anyone serious at the game, even if you never are going to use their bidding solutions, you'd still improve your hand evaluation a lot.

[Huibertus]

mike777, on 2025-October-01, 08:03, said:

Would have bid three spades not 2d for starters, then 4 hearts last round, pass now.

This and contains way too much playing strength for 3♠. If you have to insist on making life hard for partner by hiding ♥ then 4♠.

[jillybean]

David and Yeti, yes 3♥ fit bid is perfect, if you have that agreement. I do not. I would love to be able to show Spades and these chunky Hearts .
North has suggested a heart holding with his double, without FB I think a heart bid here could create confusion while hiding the spades.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2025-October-01, 10:36, said:

David and Yeti, yes 3♥ fit bid is perfect, if you have that agreement. I do not.

I understand, which is why I also added

DavidKok, on 2025-October-01, 08:24, said:

More crucially though, we did not arrive at this position at the 5-level out of nowhere. We had multiple rounds to take different actions, and so did partner. That space should have been used to describe the hands, anticipating further competition.

I was trying not to include too much information at once, but it wasn't too clear.

Plenty of people do not use fitbids. In the absence of such an agreement, 2NT (showing an inv(+) 4(+)-card raise) is a good idea, or even 3♦ (showing a mixed raise, though we're too strong for that).
But even barring those agreements, we need to be able to trust that partner's 3♠ denied the ability to instead double, bid 3♦ or 3♥. What would those have shown for you? Partner should have been anticipating further competition, and making the most descriptive bid conditional on wanting to raise to 3♠. Did this show a minimum with 6 spades, deny length in hearts, deny shortage in diamonds (we can infer that from the rest of the auctions), and deny shortage in clubs (this is surprising), for example?

On the one hand I'm sympathetic to not playing fitbids. The treatment isn't all that popular, and doesn't come up that much. On the other hand, I think even pairs without fitbids would have had a different auction. I don't know what your agreements are about 3♠ - if you have any specific ones, please tell us. To me it looks like all four players failed to make informative bids when they had the chance, and now we're all flailing around at the 5-level. I wanted to make it clear that we should have used our bidding space on the first two rounds to hassle out what to do if it gets to 5♣, regardless of what the actual gadgets are.
And if you have no agreements at all about these auctions, you pay up. That's the cost of not preparing for competitive auctions.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2025-October-01, 08:24, said:

More crucially though, we did not arrive at this position at the 5-level out of nowhere. We had multiple rounds to take different actions, and so did partner. That space should have been used to describe the hands, anticipating further competition.

In any sort of regular partnership I hope we wouldn't be where we are now at the 5 level, but I'd be wrong, these discussion take time and commitment.
Anyway, this is BBO pickup but I'm interested in methods and it highlights the discussions needed to stop playing shapely bingo

---

Poor bidding apparently loves company, 9 other East made the cue, one other took it to 5S and defended 6CX-2
Noone had the FB available, not one East bid hearts.

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2025-October-01, 10:16, said:

3♠ weak? it would be for me

That is ok to take it as weak, we are NV, partner can have a 4 card suit, partner can have very little....I can live with that on this round of bidding.

[mike777]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-October-01, 09:38, said:

3♥ not 3♠

Fit jumps by UPH, tiny steps in incorporating stuff....

Fit jumps may be common at top levels, bidding panels and perhaps at the club level in Europe....However I dont get to decide all the conventions and bidding system in real life, smile.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-October-01, 12:29, said:

That is ok to take it as weak, we are NV, partner can have a 4 card suit, partner can have very little....I can live with that on this round of bidding.

i'm ok with very little but do not expect a 4 card suit. 3S weak keeps partner out of the auction, I think you kill the auction here.
But what do I know, I have not won any tournament events recently.

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2025-October-01, 12:36, said:

Fit jumps by UPH, tiny steps in incorporating stuff....

Fit jumps may be common at top levels, bidding panels and perhaps at the club level in Europe....However I dont get to decide all the conventions and bidding system in real life, smile.

What would you play 3♥ as over 1♦-1♠-X ? most of the time, you can't possibly have a good hand (particularly with my overcalling style you's be really lucky to have a 10 count) and preempting in hearts when RHO has pretty much shown 4 doesn't seem right.

[mike777]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-October-01, 12:46, said:

What would you play 3♥ as over 1♦-1♠-X ? most of the time, you can't possibly have a good hand (particularly with my overcalling style you's be really lucky to have a 10 count) and preempting in hearts when RHO has pretty much shown 4 doesn't seem right.

Yes, we have bids that are empty or undiscussed such as your example. Yes, playing it as a fit jump would be a very efficient use of the bid

Hopefully down the road we can at least add fitjumps by a PH, tiny steps, but that is months away if ever.

Next up is getting Leb. and multi Landy down...smile

[DavidKok]

mike777, on 2025-October-01, 12:36, said:

Fit jumps by UPH, tiny steps in incorporating stuff....

Fit jumps may be common at top levels, bidding panels and perhaps at the club level in Europe....However I dont get to decide all the conventions and bidding system in real life, smile.

mike777, on 2025-October-01, 13:01, said:

Yes, we have bids that are empty or undiscussed such as your example. Yes, playing it as a fit jump would be a very efficient use of the bid

Hopefully down the road we can at least add fitjumps by a PH, tiny steps, but that is months away if ever.

Next up is getting Leb. and multi Landy down...smile

I just wanted to say a few things:

• In my experience, it is rare to find players who have agreed on fit jumps. Even at somewhat high level it is not a commonly seen agreement.
  
• In addition, the hand type is rare. Even if you agreed to play them, they likely won't come up all that often.
  
• Personally I fully support focusing on other questions in your partnership first. And I don't particularly mean conventions - also ranges and shape/strength/suit quality expectations and the likes. Either way, fitbids are not a priority.

In closing, while it's fun to debate a gadget, especially one that fits this example hand so well, I think there are also a lot of lessons to learn on this deal without the specific fitbid agreement. I think there are 7 poor calls on the auction (2♦, 3♠, North's second double, East's second round pass, South's 4♦, North's 5♣, South's double), with room for debate on whether the 5♠ bid striking gold should be added to the list. This is something a partnership can improve at without adding any new gadgets.

[awm]

The 2♦ bid is okay if you don't have a more descriptive raise available. It's right on values at least. I'm not actually a huge fan of fit jumps in general, but on this auction I can't really see a better use for 3♥. And of course some people would play 2NT as a raise here too.

I'd focus more on the 2nd round pass by the 2♦ bidder -- you have a very offensively oriented hand with the 4th trump, as well as some of your "invitational values" being in the form of distribution. Partner has volunteered 3♠, so he also has an offensively-oriented hand. I think it's clear to bid to the four-level here before opponents sort out their minor suit fit. There's a case for bidding four hearts to help partner with a possible five-level decision (assuming partner will understand this). In any case it seems inconsistent to pass here and then bid 5♠ -- if your hand is so offensively oriented that you want to bid five-over-five, you obviously should be bidding to the four level the round before to take away the opponents space.

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2025-October-01, 12:39, said:

i'm ok with very little but do not expect a 4 card suit. 3S weak keeps partner out of the auction, I think you kill the auction here.
But what do I know, I have not won any tournament events recently.

Mike Lawrence recommended 4 card overcalls in his book on the subject some 40 or 50 years ago. He says he still gets complaints for putting that into a general bridge book on overcalls. He still recommends them.

[pescetom]

mike777, on 2025-October-01, 12:36, said:

Fit jumps by UPH, tiny steps in incorporating stuff....

Fit jumps may be common at top levels, bidding panels and perhaps at the club level in Europe....However I dont get to decide all the conventions and bidding system in real life, smile.

Fit jumps are almost unknown at club level in central Europe at least (and declining in popularity at higher levels, is my impression too).
But a simple 2NT is club level standard and would already make things much simpler.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-October-01, 14:26, said:

Mike Lawrence recommended 4 card overcalls in his book on the subject some 40 or 50 years ago. He says he still gets complaints for putting that into a general bridge book on overcalls. He still recommends them.

Oh, "Mike Lawrence says..." I have just the partner for you.
There are some hands that I will make 4 card overcall but partner will expect 5. I do play 1m (1M) X denies 4oM with one partner.

Sent my partner a message Fit Jump? The reply was 'don't like FJ' so I have sent him the hand,

pescetom, on 2025-October-01, 15:37, said:

But a simple 2NT is club level standard and would already make things much simpler.

My simple 2NT would be an offer to play, 4 card limit raise is used here but not club std