[han]

2/1:

I like to rebid 3M also with semi-solid suits. This way the jump comes up far more often and is still very descriptive. Waiting for the suit that can play for no losers opposite a void seems a bad idea. Certainly when playing a stile where 2M is a waiting bid and can be made on a 5-card suit this seems important. Here you will often need to bid 1H-2D-2H-2NT-3H with a decent 6-card suit, so if you don't jump immediately then you will never be able to show any of the suits that Chamaco gives.

I do like the 2NT gadget to show a 6-card suit and a sound hand in conjunction with the 2M waiting bid. I also like to play 3C as the raise in any 2/1 auction.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Nov 30 2005, 12:47 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Nov 30 2005, 12:26 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 30 2005, 04:37 PM, said:

For me, 3♥ would show a no-loser suit: AKQJxx or AKQxxxx. But I do not know what suit quality you specify for your 3♥ 'gf, single suiter'. If 3♥ could be a broken suit, then your bidding strategy has to be radically different than if it were a solid suit... which is why many partnerships reserve the jump rebid, after a 2/1 response, for such hands.

Mike, in a 2/1 GF context (sorry Acol-players for this deviation from the topic ), would you discourage rebidding 3H with suits such as:

AQJT8xx
KQJT9xx
AKJ98xx

yes, I would. I appreciate that using the jump rebid for solid suits reduces the frequency of occurence. That is not, for me, a negative, however, since bidding space, and the efficient utilization of it, is a pet theme of mine, and one of the reasons I love relays... but that is another topic altogether.

If we are going to consume an entire level of our own bidding space in a gf auction, it should convey a specific message: to me that message is 'I have set trump... are you interested in slam, and, if so, let's go'

I do not require any significant extras for the jump rebid outside of the suit, which does help increase its frequency to a modest degree: it would be more than Jx AKQJxx xx Qxx: I would expect at least one control outside the suit, but it does not promise 16+ hcp, as an example.

The point is similar to the sequence 2♣  2♦  3Major, altho I am aware both of the significant differences in the auction and the fact that some use this sequence for other purposes, such as 4Major and longer ♦.

I am not saying that my approach is clearly superior to jumo rebidding on lesser suits: different approaches will fare differently on different hands. However, on the posted hand, you can see the advantage of my approach if we can assume (as I could) that we have a trump suit that willl usually play for no losers.

This is interesting Mike, but how does partner know what to do when the jump rebid could be so weak? Jxx, AKQJxx, Qx, xx?

I agree with the picture bid concept - any space consuming jump must paint a very clear picture of the holdings. Seems to me though that the message conveyed should be: your 2/1 bid puts us in sniffing range of slam because I hold a good hand with good controls and a real good suit.

We can all make up hands that fit our systems, and that is not my point here; instead, a legitimate question:

AKJ10xxx, AQx, x, Kxx

Seems to me that 1S-2C-3S allows responder to look harder at some seemingly unappetizing group like: Q, Kxx, Qxxx, AQ9xx.

The other auction: 1S-2C-2S-2N-3C-3N-4S or the like just doesn't get this picture across in my opinion.

Therefore, IMO it is better to tell two stories with 1 bid. Solid suit tells 1: I have a solid suit. My style tells 2: I have an almost solid suit and strong slam interest in concert with your bid. Seems like 2 messages would be better than 1.

The aspect about this I don't care for is similar to an aspect of Fred's cue-bidding style I'm not fond of - forced cue bids at times. In both these cases - jumping on solid suit and little else and forced cue bids - the only time it is of real value is when you catch partner with a huge hand. The hard slams to bid are when each partner has a sniffer or one can sniff but needs precise cards in partner's hands. In these cases you are looking for partner's cooperation - i.e., opinion - on whether or not there may be a chance for slam. Two heads are supposed to be better than one - especially when neither of you ever holds a hand big enough to either force a cue bid or take charge opposite a minimum solid suit bid. Seems to me cooperative cue bidding is a better method as well as telling two tales with a jump rebid over a 2/1.

Winston

[adhoc3]

Jlall, on Nov 30 2005, 11:40 AM, said:

3S. Pard asked me to cuebid so I will oblige.

Also the cheapest bidding. 3♥ stated a self-sufficient suits, only side control could be helpful. Not necessary to jump with fragile suit after 2/1.

[Fluffy]

3♠, if partner bids 3NT I'll bid easy 6♣