[mikeh]

I voted for a close 2♠, because I took the xx's in trump as small. AK108xx is close 3♠, AK109xx is easy 3♠. While those differences may seem trival, a suit of AK109xx opposite x has a very good chance of playing for one loser: any 3-3, and many 4-2's, while AKxxxx opp x has little chance of avoiding 2 losers (64.5%, all else being equal, is the odds of a non-3-3 break).

[adhoc3]

I am lazy:), 2S, leaving the work for PD.

[Kalvan14]

There must be a minority position: 3♠. 4 quick tricks, and 6 losers. You can keep the T♠


Lol, it took me three attempts to get a ♠ symbol in!

[Winstonm]

I like double with this hand, indicating shortness. Now when I rebid the spades I think partner will have a better idea of the quality of my suit and my hand as I was prepared to play 2H doubled opposite a converting pass. 2S and 3S to me should have a different ODR, more playing strength.

Just seems that whatever partner bids I will be well placed to make another call after double but any bid I make leaves me guessing.

Winston

[Kalvan14]

Winstonm, on Oct 26 2005, 12:23 AM, said:

I like double with this hand, indicating shortness. Now when I rebid the spades I think partner will have a better idea of the quality of my suit and my hand as I was prepared to play 2H doubled opposite a converting pass. 2S and 3S to me should have a different ODR, more playing strength.

Just seems that whatever partner bids I will be well placed to make another call after double but any bid I make leaves me guessing.

Winston

A double in this position, after yr pd 1N bid, looks to me a penalty bid.
Suppose that I am wrong (but why keep t/o doubles even where they are not needed?): it is clear, at least, that a double might be misunderstood. You have a very clear cut bid (3♠), which not only describes yr hand, but has also a pre-emptive value toward RHO. Why bend backward to ignore it?

[Chamaco]

I voted "close 2S": I want better spade spots to jump to 3S in potential misfit with p.
The hand, as it is, is 6 losers, a *good* opening but not quite worth a reverse (reverse = 5.5 - 5 losers).
Give me the J ot T9 of spades or 6331 shape with the same values and I am a 3S bidder.

=====

EDIT: Oops, this duplicates mikeh's post, but I posted these views without having read his post !

[cherdano]

For me, this would be a sound opener without one of the two side suit aces. I can't lie about an ace. Yes I would love to have a better suit for 3♠ (I would rebid 2♣ without the intervention, planning to raise 2♠ to 3), but 2♠ is too much of a position for me.

Arend

[Chamaco]

cherdano, on Oct 26 2005, 12:25 PM, said:

For me, this would be a sound opener without one of the two side suit aces. I can't lie about an ace.

I think this depends on the range of the weak 2 openers:

A ) We open "sound weak 2s"
if we open weak 2s in the 8-11 range, then we have 2 ranges only of 1-level opening strength below a reverse:
..A1 "minimum openings"
..A2: "sound" openings.


B ) We open light weak 2s

If with 10 hcp and KQJxxx and a side ace we open at the 1 level and not a weak 2, then we need to differentiate 3 ranges of strength below a reverse:
..B1: the "I wish I did not open" range;
..B2: the sound opening but minimum;
..B3: the "sound opening" but maximum but still not worth a reverse

The difference between each range is about 1 trick.

I think that with one less Ace (2A + a K), as Arend suggests, the hand would qualify as A1 or B2, according to the style, whereas, the posted hand with 3 aces and a K would qualify as A2 or B3.

Bottomline, IMO we may have a hand stronger than a sound opening but still not worth a reverse :-)

[inquiry]

A plug for 1NT unloaded. My "forcing NT" denies as many as three spades, and my direct 2♠ raise is not constructive (I use a mulit kind of 2♣ bid that includes drury type hands). Also, my 1NT never includes any strong hand variants (balanced good 10+ hands go through same 2♣ or an initial 3NT response). Also eliminated are good one suited responder hands of about 10-12 hcp (invite jumpshifts used).

With those hands removed from the mixture, the desire to jump to 3♠ with this hand has been sapped from me making this an "easy" 2♠ which would be more than enough to show a six card suit (facing at most a doubleton) and some extra values.

Now playing a generic 1NT forcing which can include a lot of different hand varieties, 2♠ would just be competitive and showing six card suit. Here I am a little better than that, but suit quality still makes this a 2♠ rebid without much regrets,

[FrancesHinden]

This is related to an earlier discussion about whether you needed any sort of extras to bid 2S in this auction. I said you needed extra suit quality, although not necessarily extra HCP.

I think this is a close 2S, but I also play a style where 1NT denied 3-card spade support.

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2005, 01:47 PM, said:

This is weird... the 3S bidders seem to consider it an easy 3S while the 2S bidders consider it close?

Sorry, for me probably it was a language misinterpretation: I meant "close" meaning that for me this is a little less than a 2.5 S rebid.

So, as far as I interpereted it, "close" means in excess, but I might need to pull out my english book again

[Fluffy]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2005, 01:47 PM, said:

This is weird... the 3S bidders seem to consider it an easy 3S while a majority of the 2S bidders consider it close?

This is easy, wheneve peopel find it close they tend to underbid. I didn't find it close

[hrothgar]

OUCH! This is a really nasty problem.

The hand in question is phenomenally strong. K+R rates this as worth 18.2 HCP. Even if you downgrade the Ace of Hearts because it won't support and of partner's honors, its still very nice. In days of yore, when a free 2♠ bid promised extra values, life would have been much simplier. Today, we need to jump in Spades to show extra strength and, as MikeH pointed out, the Spade suit seems a bit weak.

I suspect that the "real" answer needs some kind of systemic adjustment. Reserve the expensive 3♠ jump as a picture bid promisng both strength and suit quality. Use a 2♠ advance as showing a six card suit. The natural consequence is that we need some kind of garbage bid to show a hand with values which is unsuited for other bids. Depending on partnership agreement, ths would be either double or 2NT

[Winstonm]

Kalvan14, on Oct 26 2005, 01:07 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 26 2005, 12:23 AM, said:

I like double with this hand, indicating shortness.  Now when I rebid the spades I think partner will have a better idea of the quality of my suit and my hand as I was prepared to play 2H doubled opposite a converting pass.  2S and 3S to me should have a different ODR, more playing strength.

Just seems that whatever partner bids I will be well placed to make another call after double but any bid I make leaves me guessing.

Winston

A double in this position, after yr pd 1N bid, looks to me a penalty bid.
Suppose that I am wrong (but why keep t/o doubles even where they are not needed?): it is clear, at least, that a double might be misunderstood. You have a very clear cut bid (3♠), which not only describes yr hand, but has also a pre-emptive value toward RHO. Why bend backward to ignore it?

Why? Partner bid a forcing NT so he can have many hand types and double is most flexible to show values: AQxxx, x, KQxx, AJx or AKxxxx, x, Axx, KJx.

This double has a higher frequency than a strict penalty double so IMO is more useful. It also useful when partner holds: x, KQ9x, KJxx, xxxx and coverts to a penalty double.

And I don't know why I would care about the preemptive value of a bid when I hold the master suit and a good hand with good defense.

Winston

[han]

Close 2S for me.

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Oct 26 2005, 02:05 PM, said:

Depending on partnership agreement, ths would be either double or 2NT

I do not mind double, could be the best bid IMO if for the standard of the pship the 2S rebids shows a weaker hand..