[kgr]

Scoring: MP

---

Bidding (SAYC):
1♦-1♥
2♣-2♦
??
What do you think of this start and how do you continue?

[P_Marlowe]

I think the start is fine, altough a
bid conservative 3C instead of 2C
is an option.

Now, you can bid 2S as 4th suit,
followed by 3D / 4D.
Partner will cue the Ace of hearts
or the Ace of spades.

Another option, and better, but 2nd though,
would be 4NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Walddk]

4♣ would be my next bid, and it's forcing because 3♣ would have shown extras. 4♣ tells partner that my hand improved immensely when I got diamond preference. Accordingly, I must be 6-5 in the minors, so only an ace cue bid would be of interest.

If he has no ace, 4 or 5♦ will be his next bid. I'll raise 4 to 5 and pass 5♦. It may not be cold, but I can't stop below game now.

I don't mind the 2♣ rebid although I would understand 3♣ too.

Roland

[pclayton]

I strongly object to 2♣. How can we recover if pard passes with a very mundane: Axx, xxxx, xx, xxxx where SIX has a play?

Now that I have survived the last round, I rather like Roland's suggestion and bid 4♣.

[Blofeld]

I'm with Phil.

[neilkaz]

I think 2C is a very big underbid which a hand that may have 11 tricks opposite a passed PD. I jump to 3C all day long, and I am conservative about jump shifting to force game. The 2C rebid may get you passed out when slam makes.

In the sequence given you like your prospects even more after the 2D preference.

4C is obviously forcing and looking for ace Q's. But perhaps less cloudy is the direct 4NT bid. Even if playing 1430, you stop in 5D if PD is aceless.

.. neilkaz ..

[HeartA]

It is close to 2C opening, though I would open 1D as well. But I would certainly rebid 3C.

[whereagles]

Hum.. how about 4♣?

If you're weary of passing 3NT, try 2♠ and see what pard does.

[lowerline]

kgr, on Jul 12 2006, 04:30 PM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: MP

♠ x ♥ x ♦ AKJxxx ♣ AKQxx

Bidding (SAYC):
1♦-1♥
2♣-2♦
??
What do you think of this start and how do you continue?

Is the 2♣ rebid forcing? If it isn't, you really should have rebid 3♣! This is a very powerful hand.
It is a bit akward now... Any forcing bid will do. My strategy is to bid 6 if partner has one ace.

[Winstonm]

Would 4D now be Keycard?

[mikeh]

Walddk, on Jul 12 2006, 04:45 PM, said:

4♣ would be my next bid, and it's forcing because 3♣ would have shown extras. 4♣ tells partner that my hand improved immensely when I got diamond preference. Accordingly, I must be 6-5 in the minors, so only an ace cue bid would be of interest.

If he has no ace, 4 or 5♦ will be his next bid. I'll raise 4 to 5 and pass 5♦. It may not be cold, but I can't stop below game now.

I don't mind the 2♣ rebid although I would understand 3♣ too.

Roland

I agree 100%

I would add that the 2♣ is not as risky as you might think: look at your major length and the silent opps and the odds of partner passing 2♣, with a hand that makes game good, are low... but I would still understand 3♣

[kenrexford]

Having the advantage of a really hefty 2C start, why not a 3S call? Showing a stiff after the weakness of a simple preference to a simple rebid is extremely odd, screaming of 1165 pattern, something like you have. Why?

(1) You need great shape
(2) Your shape includes a negative feature in hearts, probably duplicated values in the form of a stiff there also

If partner holds something like a major Ace and a diamond Queen, with club shortness coupled with true diamond preference, something like xx-Axxx-Qxxx-xxx, he would be an idiot to not seek slam now. Ax-xxxx-Qxxx-xxx suggests a more hesitant 4S cue, which works also.

[kgr]

Maybe the biggest disadvantage of a 2♣ rebid is that partner will sooner give false preference:

---

What should partner bid after:
1♦-1♥-2♣
and after:
1♦-1♥-3♣
He will bid 2♦ after 2♣ and can bid 3♠ after 3♣, ...probably easier to avoid slam after 3♣?

[mikeh]

kgr, on Jul 13 2006, 04:32 PM, said:

Maybe the biggest disadvantage of a 2♣ rebid is that partner will sooner give false preference:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ xxxx ♥ AJxxx ♦ xx ♣ xx

What should partner bid after:
1♦-1♥-2♣
and after:
1♦-1♥-3♣
He will bid 2♦ after 2♣ and can bid 3♠ after 3♣, ...probably easier to avoid slam after 3♣?

1. Taking a preference to opener's 1st suit with xx xx is not a false preference. It is a normal preference based on the generally accepted principle that opener's first suit will be either the same length as or longer than his second: the sequence 1♦ 1M 2♣ gives rise to arguments about whether one opens 1♦ or 1♣ on some 4=5 minor holdings for precisely this reason: that responder is supposed to give preference to 2♦ with xx xx.

2. I do not agree that responder will give preference more readily over 2♣ than over 3♣.

Responder will/should give preference to 2♦ only when he is prepared to play 2♦. Thus, by definition, he gives preference only on weak hands unsuited for other action. By contrast, it is common to give preference over 3♣ with many hand types, including very strong ones. The idea is that opener has announced a game force and responder can buy some time by giving a preference and awaiting clarification.

Thus with Axx AJxxx Qx xxx, it would be routine to bid 3♦: allowing opener to reveal 3 card ♥ support when he has the nightmare 1=3=6=3 opener, too good to bid 3♦ over 1♥, or to bid 3N when appropriate. Yet this hand would never bid 2♦ over 2♣ for fear of being passed.

So while I believe I understand why many players prefer to jumpshift with this hand, the fear of a preference (false or otherwise) over 2♣ rather than 3♣ isn't a concern.

And on your example hand, I am not sure that all would agree on what 3♠ over 3♣ would mean, but I am morally certain that few would think that your example hand is included. I strongly believe that virtually all experts would instantly bid 3♦. (I might bid 3♠ on a good 4=4=2=3 intending to raise 3N to 4N or to explore a ♣ slam as an example.. bid 4♣ over 3N)

And there would be little risk of slam after 2♣ opposite your example hand: opener is sure never going to drive to slam without some sign of life from a weak hand opposite, and responder cannot possibly picture a slam across even from the biggest 2♣ rebid in history (which, admittedly, this comes close to being).

[kgr]

mikeh, on Jul 14 2006, 12:47 AM, said:

And there would be little risk of slam after 2♣ opposite your example hand: opener is sure never going to drive to slam without some sign of life from a weak hand opposite, and responder cannot possibly picture a slam across even from the biggest 2♣ rebid in history (which, admittedly, this comes close to being).

I'm afraid I was opener here. After 2♦ I asked for aces and did bid 6♦. -1

[mikeh]

kgr, on Jul 13 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 14 2006, 12:47 AM, said:

And there would be little risk of slam after 2♣ opposite your example hand: opener is sure never going to drive to slam without some sign of life from a weak hand opposite, and responder cannot possibly picture a slam across even from the biggest 2♣ rebid in history (which, admittedly, this comes close to being).

I'm afraid I was opener here. After 2♦ I asked for aces and did bid 6♦. -1

sorry... for my comments, then

Hey, we've all been in and (sometimes) made worse slams than this!

♣ 3-3 and ♦ 3-2 with the Q onside... wtp?... heck, that's more than 10%....and, for a Canadian slam, that ain't bad....

[kgr]

mikeh, on Jul 14 2006, 01:39 AM, said:

kgr, on Jul 13 2006, 05:53 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 14 2006, 12:47 AM, said:

And there would be little risk of slam after 2♣ opposite your example hand: opener is sure never going to drive to slam without some sign of life from a weak hand opposite, and responder cannot possibly picture a slam across even from the biggest 2♣ rebid in history (which, admittedly, this comes close to being).

I'm afraid I was opener here. After 2♦ I asked for aces and did bid 6♦. -1

sorry... for my comments, then

Hey, we've all been in and (sometimes) made worse slams than this!

♣ 3-3 and ♦ 3-2 with the Q onside... wtp?... heck, that's more than 10%....and, for a Canadian slam, that ain't bad....

...only ♦Q was off side

[HeartA]

mikeh, on Jul 13 2006, 10:17 AM, said:

I would add that the 2♣ is not as risky as you might think: look at your major length and the silent opps and the odds of partner passing 2♣, with a hand that makes game good, are low... but I would still understand 3♣

Well, do you really want pard pass 2C and opps join? I'd rather bid 3C to make the hand clearer with 2 bids.

[willow23]

I think a jump in ♣ is necessary(3♣) to show the shape and point range of the hand..

I am curious though..with that hand I would opt for a reverse to show a 17+ hand ..so I would start the bidding with 1♣..then bid 2♦..

That may give me enough room to find out what p holds..

Any takers on this line of bidding...although it may be harder for p to picture actual length in the two suits..

Just a thought..I am a precision fan:)

[neilkaz]

willow23, on Jul 14 2006, 09:05 PM, said:

I think a jump in ♣ is necessary(3♣) to show the shape and point range of the hand..

I am curious though..with that hand I would opt for a reverse to show a 17+ hand ..so I would start the bidding with 1♣..then bid 2♦..

That may give me enough room to find out what p holds..

Any takers on this line of bidding...although it may be harder for p to picture actual length in the two suits..

Just a thought..I am a precision fan:)

I really am not a fan of manufactured reverses. Opening this MONSTER of playing strength 1D and jump shifting 3C shows what is and that is a cold game vs almost anything any sane PD (that doesn't mean 3 HCP of Quackie junk) can respond to the 1D opening with.

By manufacturing a reverse here, you are 1) misstating your shape, and 2) missstating the GF and likely slamish nature of your hand, since this is hand is way better than the average reverse.

Just my opinion.. neilkaz ..