[sceptic]

Hi,

This is me bidding x then 2 diamonds, I would like to know if

1/. 2 diamonds is forcing one round in sayc

2/. was my raise to 4 spades poorly judged after the 2 spade rebid?

here is the hand

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♥
 Dbl   Pass  1♠    Pass
 2♦    Pass  2♠    Pass
 4♠    Pass  Pass  Pass
 

[FrancesHinden]

1. No. It shows extra values, but is not forcing.
2. If you thought 2D was forcing, then you are not worth raising 2S to 4S as this is bidding your hand twice. I would say you have a raise to 3S, which partner will happily accept.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 15 2006, 05:56 PM, said:

If you thought 2D was forcing, then you are not worth raising 2S to 4S as this is bidding your hand twice. I would say you have a raise to 3S, which partner will happily accept.

It's always somewhat risky to leave it to a hand with 3-4 hcp the decision whether or not to bid a game Pard will tend to devaluate them for psychological reasons.

[mikeh]

I agree with Frances: the double shows a big hand but is non-forcing. I also agree that 4♠ was then an significant overbid, and that 3♠ would serve to get to game if partner has any clue about bidding (an area in which the vast majority of the bridge populstion appears inept)

My other point is a comment on East's problem over 2♦. I am uncomfortable with 2♠: I think it is right on total hcp values and right on suit length, strength, but I don't like the failure to show the excellent, in context, ♦ support, which includes not only unexpected length but also a probably valuable ♣ ruffing possibility. I think that East could consider a 2♥ cue bid at his second turn. That would fetch a ♠ bid, and lead to the ♠ game, but on other hands could lead to a good 5♦ contract that would be missed after 2♠.

Thus, after, say 2N by West, east continues with 3♦, and it is still possible to back into ♠ or 3N or 5♦.

[pclayton]

Some (Jeff Rubens for instance) play a new suit after a double as a one round force, but its not standard.

2♠ tends to show a complete yarb. 2♦ tends to show the kind of hand you have; you have a little extra, but not much. But the AQT-5th is nice and you have great controls, so 3♠ is reasonable.

I much prefer 3♠ over 2♦, however. 2♥ is possible, but 3♠ really speaks to where you live.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 15 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

1. No. It shows extra values, but is not forcing.
2. If you thought 2D was forcing, then you are not worth raising 2S to 4S as this is bidding your hand twice. I would say you have a raise to 3S, which partner will happily accept.

Amen! Agree 100% with Frances.

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

an alternative to 2D would be 1NT,
which shows a bal. hand to strong
to overcall 1NT direct,
i.e. +18/19-20HCP.

It is unclear if partner should make
another move, e.g. 2NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Mar 15 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

2♠ tends to show a complete yarb.  2♦ tends to show the kind of hand you have; you have a little extra, but not much. But the AQT-5th is nice and you have great controls, so 3♠ is reasonable.

I much prefer 3♠ over 2♦, however. 2♥ is possible, but 3♠ really speaks to where you live.

2♠ does not show an absolute yarb, unless 2♦ was forcing. By definition, if 2♦ showed a good hand with a long suit (the actual suit is rock-bottom minimum imho), and is non-forcing, east's call with 'an absolute yarb' is the 'magic word': pass. So 2♠ shows a constructive bid with 5+♠: my issue with it is that, in context, it is a sin to ignore that ♦ holding.

Since 2♠ is constructive, 3♠ seems mis-guided. However, it might well be useful to agree that in this auction 3♠ is a fit-showing jump: it is an unusual bid and so should (I suggest) show an unusual hand: one that has grown up based on a fit with partner. Or am I rationalizing too much, based on seeing the hands? I am NOT claiming I would take the bid that way, merely that perhaps it would be a useful, if rare, agreement.

[hatchett]

1NT is possible. Defects are that with Ax it might wrong side NT, and I consider the hand to be equivalent to about 21 count, so I consider it too strong in the context of an 18+20 1NT rebid.

[joshs]

sceptic, on Mar 15 2006, 12:37 PM, said:

Hi,

This is me bidding x then 2 diamonds, I would like to know if

1/. 2 diamonds is forcing one round in sayc

2/. was my raise to 4 spades poorly judged after the 2 spade rebid?

here is the hand

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♥
 Dbl   Pass  1♠    Pass
 2♦    Pass  2♠    Pass
 4♠    Pass  Pass  Pass
 

2D is not forcing. If partner's bid had shown values (e.g. 1N or if it was a free bid or a jump) then a new suit would be forcing, but 1S here didn't promise anything, and 2D showed about what you have, a hand that is still interested in game opposite 0-8.

4S was a massive overbid. 3S is perfect (2S wasn't forcing either). Your partner should bid 4S over 3S with his hand (its only a 5 count but the KTxxx of spades and the Jxx of diamonds are known to be good cards). If he had much more than this 5 count he would have done something other than 2S at his second bid (maybe jump to 3S maybe Q-bid, maybe raise diamonds). I actually think his 2S bid was a slight underbid....

[luke warm]

i would have doubled then bid 1nt, 19-21 or so.. playing systems on, partner can xfer to spades then do whatever

[Wsue601]

Beginner here (studying Fred Gitelman's BB tutorial) but I'd like to take a stab....and learn from any kindly critiques on my approach...

I wonder if partner should just pass your diamond bid?

1. Partner already showed a poor hand after your dbl by bidding his "best" suit at lowest possible level (showing zero to 7 pts and promising no more than 4 spades).
2. Partner could not bid 2NT after your diamonds since couldn't promise a heart stopper.
3. I wouldn't want to rebid Spades--might be thought as 6 card length.
4. I would have understood your diamond bid as forcing and showing pt strength (18 or more). I would expect diamonds to be your best suit but possibly only 4 diamonds.
5. BUT "you can't get blood from a turnip." I have 3 diamond support and have already shown my poor point count. Not wanting to make matters worse, I would pass.

Sue

[Walddk]

Wsue601, on Mar 16 2006, 09:35 AM, said:

Beginner here (studying Fred Gitelman's BB tutorial)  but I'd like to take a stab....and learn from any kindly critiques on my approach...

I wonder if partner should just pass your diamond bid?

1.  Partner already showed a poor hand after your dbl by bidding his "best" suit at lowest possible level (showing zero to 7 pts and promising no more than 4 spades). 
2.  Partner could not bid 2NT after your diamonds since couldn't promise a heart stopper.
3.  I wouldn't want to rebid Spades--might be thought as 6 card length.
4.  I would have understood your diamond bid as forcing and showing pt strength (18 or more).  I would expect diamonds to be your best suit but possibly only 4 diamonds. 
5.  BUT  "you can't get blood from a turnip." I have 3 diamond support and have already shown my poor point count.  Not wanting to make matters worse, I would pass. 

Sue

1. You are right that responder showed a poor hand (0-7/8) by bidding a suit as cheaply as possible, but in context he has a pretty good hand with 5 hcp and a decent 5-card suit.

2. 2♦ is not forcing right enough, but responder's hand is too good to pass. By rebidding his spades he has shown a decent hand within his 0-7 hcp range.

3. 2♠ does not promise 6 cards. As you point out yourself, the 1♠ bid didn't promise more than 4 cards, so 2♠ can easily be 5.

4. Double followed by a new suit shows something like 18-21 and hence non-forcing since responder could have very little for his forced response. New suit is always at least 5 cards and shows a hand that was too good to overcall 2♦ over 1♥ (something like 9-17 hcp). Vulnerable often an opener. If doubler wants opener to bid again, he will either have to make a jump bid in a new suit or cue bid opener's suit (2♥).

5. That is too timid opposite 18-21. Looking at 5 hcp you could very well miss a game if you pass 2♦, so you are definitely worth another bid. By bidding again you don't force partner to game; you merely tell him that you have more than he could expect from your initial 1♠ bid.

Roland

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Mar 15 2006, 07:53 PM, said:

2♠ does not show an absolute yarb, unless 2♦ was forcing. By definition, if 2♦ showed a good hand with a long suit (the actual suit is rock-bottom minimum imho), and is non-forcing, east's call with 'an absolute yarb' is the 'magic word': pass. So 2♠ shows a constructive bid with 5+♠

This is very logical. And then, since 2♠ was constructive with 5 spades, 4♠ stands out.

If one decides to "invite" with 3♠, pard will almost surely pass and one'll get what one deserves for failing to seize to one's responsibilities, i.e. to bid game when he knowsit will probably make.

Sceptic bid the hand correctly, with practical, simple and effective bids.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Mar 15 2006, 09:53 PM, said:

2♠ does not show an absolute yarb, unless 2♦ was forcing.

Allthough I've never seen this adressed in a textbook, I think it's a matter of agreement. There are two schools of thought when it comes to t/o doubles (with all kinds of gray-shades in between):
1) The double guarantees tollerance for the unbid major(s). Then 2♠ looks like a contract improvement, something like ♠xxxxx and out, no diamond tollerance.
2) An overcall has an upper limit of x HCPs (where x decreases with age, say 19 HCP for juniors and 13 HCPs for my grandpa). Thus, 2♠ should be a positive (but non-forcing) call since a yarborough would pass 2♦.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Mar 15 2006, 11:53 AM, said:

pclayton, on Mar 15 2006, 02:17 PM, said:

2♠ tends to show a complete yarb.  2♦ tends to show the kind of hand you have; you have a little extra, but not much. But the AQT-5th is nice and you have great controls, so 3♠ is reasonable.

I much prefer 3♠ over 2♦, however. 2♥ is possible, but 3♠ really speaks to where you live.

2♠ does not show an absolute yarb, unless 2♦ was forcing. By definition, if 2♦ showed a good hand with a long suit (the actual suit is rock-bottom minimum imho), and is non-forcing, east's call with 'an absolute yarb' is the 'magic word': pass. So 2♠ shows a constructive bid with 5+♠: my issue with it is that, in context, it is a sin to ignore that ♦ holding.

Since 2♠ is constructive, 3♠ seems mis-guided. However, it might well be useful to agree that in this auction 3♠ is a fit-showing jump: it is an unusual bid and so should (I suggest) show an unusual hand: one that has grown up based on a fit with partner. Or am I rationalizing too much, based on seeing the hands? I am NOT claiming I would take the bid that way, merely that perhaps it would be a useful, if rare, agreement.

Yes of course.

A 2♠ rebid over a cue bid shows the yarb. 2♠ with this hand looks about right. I don't know what 3♠ shows; it would seem to be a hand that forgot to bid 3♠ the first round: KTxxxx, xx, xx, xxx.

I don't play new suits as forcing after a TOx, so I don't know what 2♠ would specifically show. Perhaps some sort of Lebensohl / Ingberman would make sense.

Never mind

[Wsue601]

Walddk, on Mar 16 2006, 04:05 AM, said:

5. That is too timid opposite 18-21. Looking at 5 hcp you could very well miss a game if you pass 2♦, so you are definitely worth another bid. By bidding again you don't force partner to game; you merely tell him that you have more than he could expect from your initial 1♠ bid.

Roland

Thanks Roland....Very clear explanation. A good exercise for me to attempt to reason out these problems and then learn where my reasoning goes askew--in this case poor arithmetic 18 - 21 pts plus my meager 5 HCP does present game possibilities!

[1eyedjack]

Others have commented that 2H by East is preferred over 2S because of the D support. I agree with the sentiments but prefer 3D by East rather than either of 2H or 2S