[Walddk]

luke warm, on Jul 3 2006, 06:35 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jul 3 2006, 05:11 AM, said:

Could the people who don't bid 3♠ on 4 explain why?

is 2♦ forcing there? neither 2 nor 3♠ is bad, but what if 3nt is right and opener is afraid of diamonds?

Sure, 2♦ is forcing.

Roland

[luke warm]

cherdano, on Jul 3 2006, 11:39 AM, said:

If you start with 2♦, you can't even show a game force and club support below 3N, not mentioning the spade shortness.

Arend

maybe you're right arend, we'll know when we see both hands... i have a feeling we'll still be able to gf below 3nt, but maybe not

[bid_em_up]

#1) 1H. Who cares that RHO made a neg X. Showing partner where your values are located will leave them better placed later in the auction when you compete in diamonds.

#2) 3N. I dont think I can take enough tricks to be profitable in 3C x'd to beat the game bonus. 4C is a close 2nd choice, continuing with 4H over 4D to imply both majors.

#3) If 2♣ was g/f, 4♦ appears to stand out by a mile, with 4♣ a distant second. Since the problem says, 2♣ is a standard one round force, I think 4♣ is slightly better. Partner may pass 3♠ on a spade stiff or void, thinking the hand is a misfit (he will be unaware of our club holding) and we dont really care about his spade holding. I dont really care if we end up in clubs or spades, but we must at least reach game somewhere.

#4) 2S, with X a close second. (Yes, I know its not perfect, but I think it will work on this hand).

#5) 2S

#6) 3N. Partner will be unable to bid 3N due to his lack of a club stop. Bid it now while I have the chance.

#7) 1S

#8) 9H. I see no reason to lead the JD. as it is only likely to help declarer. He had no four card major, so rates to be longer in the minor suits.

[mikeh]

1. 2♣: no number of ♦ directly seems correct: I don't yet know whose hand it is, so let's help partner.

2. 3N: I am NOT going to look for a major suit game after LHO shows 7 or 8 ♣'s. 3N may fail on the ♦ suit, but I like my chances of +600 (or 630) enough... and if LHO is 7-5 minors with enough to beat 3N, maybe I'm not beating 3♣.

3. 2♠: enough for now. Splintering is putting a lot of faith in partner's 2♣ call, which, in standard, need not be with ANY real length. I can usually get back to ♣ later if that suit should be trump.

4. 3♠: colour me simple, but I truly do not understand any other call: ok, I understand them, but I don't like or agree with them. This IS a game force when partner shows 4♣'s.

5. 3♦. I am looking at AJ in a suit he rebid. Admittedly, he may play me for longer ♦, but this holding will play better than Jxx. He can still get us to 3N when it is right, and we may still end up in a moysian 4♠ contract (altho the sequence to get there will be slow and anguished)

6. Pass: wtp???? On a more serious note, 3N may work, but my partner's rebid 3♦ on Ax xx AKQJxx Qxx or worse.... I hate missing games, and don't miss many, but this hand is just barely too weak for me... ask me tomorrow, and I might bid 3N Toughest hand of the group (by far)

7. 1♠. If I bid anything else, I would be betraying the habits, and beliefs, of a lifetime. I especially like this because after a 1N response, I can haul out Jeff's Magic Elixir, and rebid 3♣, about to show a gf hand with 5+♠ and precisely 4♥

8. ♠2. I would like to know if LHO promised a major, but I don't really care. I'm not going conservative via a ♦, a ♥ is too random, and a ♣ is silly (leading from Jxxx against 3N is a very, very tough way to make a living). So the obvious ♠ is clear (to me anyway)... so it allows a make (I assume, else why the problem?) So what?

[Winstonm]

Quote

MikeH: 6. Pass: wtp???? On a more serious note, 3N may work, but my partner's rebid 3♦ on Ax xx AKQJxx Qxx or worse.... I hate missing games, and don't miss many, but this hand is just barely too weak for me... ask me tomorrow, and I might bid 3N  Toughest hand of the group (by far)

Barry Harper told me the definition of a "good Canadian slam" was 10 tricks and an American on lead. I would think this probable 8 trick hand with anyone on lead would be a "good Canadian game".

Winston

[Walddk]

mikeh, on Jul 4 2006, 09:18 PM, said:

6.  Pass: wtp???? On a more serious note, 3N may work, but my partner's rebid 3♦ on Ax xx AKQJxx Qxx or worse.... I hate missing games, and don't miss many, but this hand is just barely too weak for me... ask me tomorrow, and I might bid 3N   Toughest hand of the group (by far)

OK, so I'll ask you tomorrow. Not sure what more partner could have done with

x
AJx
AKQxxx
xxx

But you are of course right in the sense that it depends on his major holdings. Perhaps his 3♦ was based on spade fit:

AQx
x
AKQxxx
xxx

Non-vulnerable I would have passed 3♦, but I just can't bear staying out of a 68% game vulnerable at IMPs. Tough call as you and others point out.

Roland

[TheoKole]

1) 2 ♣ - Cue bid promising good hand with fit after an overcall by partner (90% of the time) or a good hand with my own solid suit (10% of the time). Promises a rebid.

2) 3NT - majors are splitting badly, and partner could have bid with a five card major suit and Texas transfers are still on after 3♣ overcall. It is very tempting to pass though.

3) 4 ♦ - Splinter bid.

4) 3 ♠ - Splinter bid.

5) 2 ♥ - The points are there for game but we need a club stopper for 3NT. I don't want to play in the 4-3 fit in spades because the long trump holding will be forced to ruff. Maybe a 5-2 Heart fit game is makeable if I can throw some clubs on partners diamonds.

6) 3 NT - no need to highlight a ♥ lead with a 3 ♥ bid. Shoot out the game, this is IMP's.

7) 2 NT - if partner has a 4 card major, we will find it, if he transfers, I will super accept to 4. If not then I might get a major suit lead .

8) 2 of ♠, since spades weren't specifically mentioned, I don't like the way that ♦'s are breaking, though I may get a trick in ♣'s. I'd like to know if LHO promises a major suit or not.

[FrancesHinden]

1. 2C. This should be our hand, as partner's 1D overcall after 1C should be pretty sound. Let's find out where we are going.

2. 3H, but I want to know what "values" means. I play double as "take-out" and will take-out at the lowest relevant level. I expect partner to bid 3S over this with spades and not hearts, and partner to bid 3NT with game values without a club stop (he's already made a take-out double). If "values" could be a 3343 6-count then I pass, of course.

This depends a bit on the opponents: if you trust them to have their call then 3Cx will not go many off, because LHO knew he was missing the AK of the suit and it's not as if they are breaking badly.

3. If partner promises a rebid (SAYC style) then 2S. If partner doesn't promise a rebid, then 3C.

4. 2S. I don't mind 3S, but that feels a bit committal.

5. This seems to be a system question. Did partner promise 5 diamonds when he rebid 1S? I've seen people who think that 2D here merely shows a fifth diamond and would be the normal bid with a 4252. My partners have usually got 6 diamonds when they bid 2D, and if they haven't got 6D they have a singleton heart and no club stop: their default call with a 4252 is 2H.

It's also a system question because I also know some people play 3C now as natural. I play 3C as re-fourth-suit (I still don't know where we are going) which makes the the obvious call here: virtually a text-book hand for it. The fact you've posted that hand implies you don't play it that way..... or am I being too clever?

6. I hate these hands. I pass, in the certain knowledge I might be missing game. I have no objection to a 3S bid which I consider the only possible alternative (I play this as showing 5 spades).

7. 1S. No real second choice.

8. Low spade.

[Walddk]

I can't tell you what's right or wrong, because all the problems are from a bidding contest. However, all hands are from real life (presumably from Scotland since it's the SBU Magazine).

Frances and I are on the same wavelength on many hands, and I was particularly happy to see her repeated 4th suit on hand 5.. Here is what I sent to the moderator:

1. 2♣. We don't know whose hand it is, and mine is way too good for a diamond pre-empt. In fact, partner should have a good hand, because 1♦ doesn't take any room away. His diamond suit isn't great, so he must have excellent values outside. I am reluctant to reveal that a 1♠ psych crossed my mind for a brief second.

2. 3NT. Tough one. Pass and 4♣ (majors) are other options, and all have upsides and downsides. Majors are likely to split badly, AK in clubs not ideal for 3NT, and pass could easily be the biggest loser because it may make! 3♣ vulnerable without the two top honours; perhaps he is 7-5 or 7-4 in the minors. I considered 4♣ because of ♥109.

3. 4♠. Finally a hand that is perfectly suited for this bid. Many may miss the point, but 4♠ actually shows support for clubs! Why is that? Because 3♠ is forcing after 2-o-1 (remember that 2♣ was just a 1-round force). Therefore, 4♠ can only have one meaning: solid or semi-solid spade suit with club support. If responder can't move over 4♠, we are unlikely to have missed a slam.

4. 3♠. I don't have a problem with splintering in a 4-card major system when partner has at least 4 cards. Good hand, but not game forcing. I am entitled to pass 4♣ in my methods. If this is true or not in the system we use in that bidding contest I can't tell. In a 5-card major system I would bid 2♠.

5. 3♣. Repeated 4th suit seems best with this hand. It keeps all options open, including 3NT if partner has 3 small. This is the only way we can get to perhaps the only making game. It also gives partner the chance to bid 3♥ with Ax. Diamonds can wait if we belong there. We don't if he is 4-1-5-3 with nothing in clubs.

6. 3♥. The most difficult problem of the set. Non-vulnerable I would have passed, but I don't like to miss a vulnerable game at IMPs. The problem is that we don't know what his 3♦ rebid is based on. Heart values or 3-card spade support? By bidding 3♥ we can find out if he has the latter. It would look plain silly to bid 3NT opposite AQx x AKQxxx xxx.

7. 1♠. I see no reason to upgrade this hand to 2♣, or 2NT for that matter. Do we miss a game if I open 1♠? Rarely, and I am prepared to run that risk. Sometimes you have maximum for your bid and not the usual 9 or 10 counts people (me too) open these days.

8. ♦J. I don't know if dummy has promised a major or not, but I will still refrain from leading the (I guess) popular ♠2. The opponents have limited values; let them do the hard work themselves. There are 3 holdings I try to avoid leading from if I have a sound alternative: Jxxx, Axxx, A10xx. Too often did I experience that this cost a vital trick. At least ♦J doesn't give declarer anything he couldn't have done himself, but we may of course lose a tempo.

Roland

[Gerben42]

5. I think that 4th suit followed by 2♠ shows this kind of hand: 3-card support in ♠ so it leaves open 4♠ as a possible game. Slam interest in ♠ would bid 3♠ at this point.

[Walddk]

Gerben42, on Jul 6 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

5. I think that 4th suit followed by 2♠ shows this kind of hand: 3-card support in ♠ so it leaves open 4♠ as a possible game. Slam interest in ♠ would bid 3♠ at this point.

I disagree. 2♠ shows a hand that was too good to raise to 4♠. Mild slam try, whereas 3♠ would show a strong slam try.

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Jul 6 2006, 07:18 PM, said:

3. 4♠. Finally a hand that is perfectly suited for this bid. Many may miss the point, but 4♠ actually shows support for clubs! Why is that? Because 3♠ is forcing after 2-o-1 (remember that 2♣ was just a 1-round force). Therefore, 4♠ can only have one meaning: solid or semi-solid spade suit with club support. If responder can't move over 4♠, we are unlikely to have missed a slam.

As often when people claim a bid MUST show something, I disagree. For me 4S would show a hand that knows it wants to play spades, not good for slam, but a little too good to open 4S. Having said that, to play it as showing club support might be a nice agreement.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Jul 6 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

5. I think that 4th suit followed by 2♠ shows this kind of hand: 3-card support in ♠ so it leaves open 4♠ as a possible game. Slam interest in ♠ would bid 3♠ at this point.

I thought so too, but now I am not so sure. However, whatever it shows, I think it should leave open the possibility to play other strains, so it may well work out even if partner expects 4 spades.

Arend

[whereagles]

Walddk, on Jul 2 2006, 12:32 PM, said:

1.

Scoring: IMP

---

LHO opens 1♣, your partner overcalls 1♦ and double to your right (4-4 in the majors). You?

2.

Scoring: IMP

---

1NT (3♣) double pass
??
3♣ is pre-emptive, your partner's double shows values. Your bid?


3.

Scoring: IMP

---

1♠ - 2♣*
?

* standard, 1-round force.


4.

Scoring: IMP

---

1♣* (1♠) ??

* 4+ cards.


5.

Scoring: IMP

---

1♦ - 1♥
1♠ - 2♣*
2♦ - ?

* 4th suit GF.


6.

Scoring: IMP

---

1♦ - 1♠
3♦ - ?


7.

Scoring: IMP

---

What do you open?


8.

Scoring: IMP

---

Your side remains silent and the opponents' auction is (opening to your right):

1NT - 2♣
2♦ - 2NT
3NT

What do you lead?

Roland

Bit late, but here it goes:

1. Hum.. with so much hcp, I doubt opps will bid higher than 3♠. I don't know what my methods are, so I'll just bid naturally: 1♥ as lead-director, followed by outbidding opps up to the 3-level, maybe to 4. A direct 4♦ might lure opps into a hopeless 4♠, though.

2. "Values" is a bit vague, and that makes this one tough. I feel like passing, but it's almost a certainty pard has a 4-card major, so I might try 3♥ on some days, pass on others.. lol. Today I feel like passing, just in case RHO has some major suit stack lurking.

3. I'll make the systemic call, which should be 2♠ or 3♣.

4. Easy: 3♠. This seems more a more accurate description than a 3♦ fit bid.

5. If 3♣ now asks for a stop, I'll bid that. Otherwise 2NT, leaving pard room to bid 3♦ or 3♥ with a club singleton. This avoids 3NT.

6. 3♠. I take it this is forcing, no? If not.. *sigh* 3NT.

7. This one seems easy to bid via a 2♣ opener, so I open that. With majors reversed, I'd open 1♥.

8. Might try ♦J at matchpoints, but here I'll just open a spade.

Let's see how I did...

[whereagles]

Walddk, on Jul 6 2006, 05:18 PM, said:

3. 4♠. Finally a hand that is perfectly suited for this bid. Many may miss the point, but 4♠ actually shows support for clubs! Why is that? Because 3♠ is forcing after 2-o-1 (remember that 2♣ was just a 1-round force). Therefore, 4♠ can only have one meaning: solid or semi-solid spade suit with club support. If responder can't move over 4♠, we are unlikely to have missed a slam.

Hum.. I don't really agree. This sort of inference not only is open to technical debate, it is dangerous to take without discussion.

[han]

Good hands and nice discussion.

Walddk, on Jul 6 2006, 12:18 PM, said:

3. 4♠. Finally a hand that is perfectly suited for this bid. Many may miss the point, but 4♠ actually shows support for clubs! Why is that? Because 3♠ is forcing after 2-o-1 (remember that 2♣ was just a 1-round force). Therefore, 4♠ can only have one meaning: solid or semi-solid spade suit with club support. If responder can't move over 4♠, we are unlikely to have missed a slam.

6. 3♥. The most difficult problem of the set. Non-vulnerable I would have passed, but I don't like to miss a vulnerable game at IMPs. The problem is that we don't know what his 3♦ rebid is based on. Heart values or 3-card spade support? By bidding 3♥ we can find out if he has the latter. It would look plain silly to bid 3NT opposite  AQx  x  AKQxxx  xxx.

7. 1♠. I see no reason to upgrade this hand to 2♣, or 2NT for that matter. Do we miss a game if I open 1♠? Rarely, and I am prepared to run that risk. Sometimes you have maximum for your bid and not the usual 9 or 10 counts people (me too) open these days.

3. Pshaw! For me 4♠ shows a fairly minimal opener with 7-8 spades.

6. I also found this problem the most difficult. Are you not worried that opener will raise hearts with 3 good ones (or 4 bad ones) and weak clubs. Those are exactly the hands that you want to bid 3NT.

7. I see no reason to open 1S with this hand. There is a good chance that the auction will go 2C-2D-2S-something-3H-3S-3NT. Now I have said it all. After opening 1S you can never show this hand.

[mike777]

[quote name='Hannie' date='Jul 7 2006, 04:36 AM'] 7. 1[sp]. I see no reason to upgrade this hand to 2[cl], or 2NT for that matter. Do we miss a game if I open 1[sp]? Rarely, and I am prepared to run that risk. Sometimes you have maximum for your bid and not the usual 9 or 10 counts people (me too) open these days.
[/QUOTE]

7. I see no reason to open 1S with this hand. There is a good chance that the auction will go 2C-2D-2S-something-3H-3S-3NT. Now I have said it all. After opening 1S you can never show this hand. [/QUOTE]


My concern with opening 2Clubs is partner may play me for 9 playing tricks which I do not think this hand is worth.

I think I need from partner more than:
xx....xxx.....xxx....Kxxxx

With an Ace partner will find a response to one spade.

[mikeh]

Hannie, on Jul 7 2006, 04:36 AM, said:

7. I see no reason to open 1S with this hand. There is a good chance that the auction will go 2C-2D-2S-something-3H-3S-3NT. Now I have said it all. After opening 1S you can never show this hand.

This is circular reasoning: since you would open 2♣ with this hand, your partner will never expect this good a hand if you open 1♠. My response is that I DO open this hand 1♠ and I expect my partners to do so as well, so that I WILL cater to this hand as responder.

OTOH, I can never show this hand if I open 2♣: my partners would expect a slightly different hand if I were to treat this as a 2-suiter, and I would never treat this as a notrump hand or a single suiter.

So saying that you cannot show this hand after a certain opening is a statement about partnership style, rather than a statement about the best bridge bid. Obviously Roland, Frances, I and others believe that a style that permits (requires) a 1♠ opening is better than a style that requires a 2♣ opening.

[FrancesHinden]

Just to continue this debate about the 2C opening.

The approach I think is definitely wrong, rather than debatable, is to call this hand balanced (open 2NT/open 2C rebid 2NT or whatever). You will play in the wrong game too often, and will miss slam too often.

Personally, I don't open it 2C not least because I don't think it's worth a game force. While I might be prepared to drive game, there's no reason to suppose the auction will follow this pretty path (2C-2D-2S-3m-3H-3S/3NT - 3NT) - and if it did, my partners would expect me to have a better hand and would bid on when we are already high enough. However, as Mike says this is partly a style issue: if partner will play you for this type of hand when you open 2C, then fine - but mine won't.