[whereagles]

Playing 2/1, you hold, VULN:

♠ x
♥ T98x
♦ A9x
♣ KJT8x

Pard you
1♣ 1♥
1♠ ...?

Pard can still have a balanced hand. Your options are a weak preference bid of 2♣ or to invite in 3♣.

What is your call at IMPS and matchpoints?

[Gerben42]

If 2♣ is natural that describes my hand perfectly. I bid that

[Chamaco]

At MP, I'll try 1NT.

At IMPS, 2C if it's natural, otherwise, if playing some version of Checkback, I'll use whatever form of signoff to 3C used by the system.

[hrothgar]

Life would be much easier if partner would have rebid 1NT or raised Hearts with a balanced minimum. As is, I'm forced to rebid 2♣ to cater to the weak NT hand.

If partner is able to make 3NT he might start to see the light regarding the 1♠ rebid.

[Free]

I play 1♠ as unbalanced, so NT is not an option in imps. Invite is ok in imps, not worth it with MP's...

[Al_U_Card]

Call me crazy (again) but how about 2NT at Imps and 3C at MP? Gotta love those 4+ club tricks....pard will know you are inviting minimum at IMPS and pard will know that you are keeping the opps in the dark at MP. The minimum hand will still be safe to go back to 3C if doubled at IMPS and at MP to paraphrase Justin "nobody doubles the minors".

[mikeh]

Justin got here ahead of me: 2♣ at mps (protect the plus, and 110 beats 90 and 130 beats 120) and 3♣ at imps: I don't mind 5♣ contracts should he hold an unbalanced hand. If this doesn't work, I can blame it on my methods...for me, biddng up the line is an unconvincing way to play bridge. Wouldn't we all like to know whether partner has 9+ black cards (as I would have on this sequence)?

If we knew that, I'd vote for 3♣ at both forms of scoring.

PS I'll bite 2N is crazy!

[han]

I don't recall ever having 2C available asa natural, so now that I do I'm going to use it: 2C at both forms of scoring!

Even though I will compete to 3C if they balance, I think the hand is not good enough for a direct 3C.

[mike777]

Unusual hand, if we were playing XYZ or checkback and required to bid 3 clubs non force I would be happier with my bid, rather than 2 clubs non force, unusual.

[inquiry]

I must be crazy, but I am not bidding a natural, noforcing, 2♣ on this hand at any forrm of scoring.

1) My partner will be unbalcned for 1♠ (at least 4-4, and proably 5+-4)
2) My hand is a mountain, I see three spade ruffs in my hand, 3 or four club tricks in partners hand, the diamond ACE, so we are at 8 tricks with partner having as little as .... xxxx xx xx Axxxx, and come on, he did open. Give him as little as...

♠xxxx ♥x ♦Kx ♣Axxxxx and five diamonds role (note that is only 7hcp).

The opponents have also been strangely quite with our 9 plus club fit, and my weak hand, so I expect partner to have considerably more than this. What to bid, of course depends upon your style, But whatever it is, had better be at least Strongly invitational. I am thinking of a any bid that is quasi-GF (forcing to 4♣) is the right way to go myself.

[hrothgar]

Sorry, I didn't understand the purpose of this thread...

Apparantly, when Whereagles said that the 1S rebid didn't deny a minimum strength balanced hand, this meant that every should ignore the actual problem and start bidding the hand according to their own set of system rules.

I could tell what the auction 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ means playing MOSCITO
I don't because its irrelevant to the problem at hand...

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Oct 14 2005, 12:54 PM, said:

Sorry, I didn't understand the purpose of this thread...

Apparantly, when Whereagles said that the 1S rebid didn't deny a minimum strength balanced hand, this meant that every should ignore the actual problem and start bidding the hand according to their own set of system rules.

I could tell what the auction 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ means playing MOSCITO
I don't because its irrelevant to the problem at hand...

He said it did not deny a "balanced" hand richard. The word "minimum" was never used. And I allowed as he could be 4-4, that implies balanced is still possible. I would be sorely disappointed if he was 4333 and bid this way. This doesn't mean people don't bid that way, I saw a guy with 4333 bid all four suits "natural"... so I of course could only assume he was 4-4-4-4.

Back to this hand. Even if partner "could" have a balanced crappy hand, it doesn't mean he has to have one. So playing with a partner who bids such a poor way, I would issue an invite 3♣ bid. Then after te session we will talk about his hand and how rebidding 1♠ here with 4333 and 11-14 ponts could cost slam to all those who rebid a "weak 2♣" over 1♠ out of fear of the useless hand, were those who promised an unbalanced hand got to slam opposite

♠JTxx ♥A ♦Kx ♣Axxxxx

[whereagles]

Hum.. and I thought this was just a simple judgement problem: to sign-off in 2♣ or to invite in 3♣

[inquiry]

Jlall, on Oct 14 2005, 01:57 PM, said:

I freely admit it is possible to miss a game or slam by rebidding 2C, I hope the advocates of 3C will admit it is very possible to get too high by making that bid, and that pard might have some spade values.

Well, my appoach isn't quite to bid 3♣, what I was saying is I would not bid a non-forcing and discouraging 2♣. If I were to bid 3♣, however, and partner bid say 3NT, I doubt I would pass. The reason is clear. PArtner will not have the balanced yuck hand richard worried about (he would pass 3♣ with that, albeit possibly one level to high). In fact, he will not be balanced at all, not really. Why? Because he didn't open 1NT, but clearly has extra values to bid over an invitational 3♣. Just what the doctor ordered.

And yes, before you ask, I seldom win at matchpoints, so take my advice with a huge grain of salt. Also I am quite aggressive. Clearly any bid COULD be right.

Ben

[cherdano]

I sometimes do miss the natural 2♣ in this auction when playing xyz (which I play pretty much always). The reason is not so much that 2♣ might be the last making contract (unlikely that it's both true and the opponent's leave us to play there), but because it is often the best description of the hand and still gives partner some freedom to show a little additional strength with his so far very undefined hand. Playing xyz, he needs a monster to break the 2NT transfer to 3♣. Here, he could for example raise to 3♣ with a 6-4 hand of moderate strength, or bid 2♥ to show 3-card support and extras.

Saying "XYZ doesn't cost because you never want to play 2♣ exactly anyway." is missing the point in my opinion.

Arend

[luke warm]

i read the original post as meaning that opener could be 4(32)4 here (which is just another reason i hate that method)...

at MPs i'm with mauro and bid 1nt... at imps, 2C but i don't play xyz

[awm]

3♣ for me. The spots improve this hand substantially.

[HeartA]

2♣ without xyz, 3♣ with xyz.