Help
1♥-P-1♠-P-
1NT(99% 5332)-P-2♦(GF, Artificial)-X-
3♣???
Partner opens a heart, you respond a spade, and partner rebid 1NT, which you play as showing some 5332 almost always. 5422 is possible if the four-card suit is horrible. 1NT with a five-card major is very frequent.
You then bid 2♦, part of two-way checkback, game-forcing and artificial.
This is now doubled, presumably for a diamond lead/suit.
Partner has several options, including pass, redouble, and a suit call. He opts for 3♣. What is this???
I asked two professional players, with different results. I have my own theory, different from these two experts. My partner had a completely different hand.
What would you expect?
Page 1 of 1
Undiscussed free bid
#1
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2006-August-08, 09:25
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 13,715
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2006-August-08, 09:40
I would expect 2=5=2=4 with bad ♣s, but would not be surprised to see something like 2=5=3=3 with xxx in ♦ and AQx or KQx or so in ♣....and maybe the third possibility, but certainly not one I'd spring on a partner without dscussion is that it shows a 3=5=2=3 with a maximum 
In fact, now that I think about it, maybe there is a case to be made that opener, without the double, should use the 'impossible' 3m rebid over 2♦ as showing that hand: 3=5=(32) max with tripleton in the bid minor.... I wouldn't use it, I think, because I prefer to stay out of partner's way as much as possible until I know why he bid 2♦.
So I have covered 3 possibilities, which isn't much help, but I would never 'expect' the third.
In fact, now that I think about it, maybe there is a case to be made that opener, without the double, should use the 'impossible' 3m rebid over 2♦ as showing that hand: 3=5=(32) max with tripleton in the bid minor.... I wouldn't use it, I think, because I prefer to stay out of partner's way as much as possible until I know why he bid 2♦.
So I have covered 3 possibilities, which isn't much help, but I would never 'expect' the third.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#3
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2006-August-08, 10:30
Why show a poor ♣ suit? You didn't do it at 2-level, so why at 3-level? Imo this should be 3♠ and cue, ♦ control unknown.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#4
- Limit bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,482
- Joined: 2004-November-02
- Gender:Female
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those
Posted 2006-August-08, 11:18
I wouldn´t be pleased trying to work this out at the table, but I would go for 3523 (in that order) with a low doubleton diamond and good clubs.
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2006-August-08, 12:22
I think we should pass the double with a lot of hands that have nothing to say (2533 for instance).
Why bid in front of CHO who wants to continue to describe his hand? The double actually helps us, since pard can bid out at the 2 level. It also gives us the opportunity to play 2♦ xx'd.
To me 3♣ is a hand that is in between a 1N and a 2♣ rebid. Something like: Kx, KJxxx, AJ, Jxxx. 1N is reasonable with the strong doubletons, especially at MPs.
I suppose the 5233 with strong clubs is possible; (Qx, Qxxxx, xxx, AKQ?), but it feels like a useless bid.
Why bid in front of CHO who wants to continue to describe his hand? The double actually helps us, since pard can bid out at the 2 level. It also gives us the opportunity to play 2♦ xx'd.
To me 3♣ is a hand that is in between a 1N and a 2♣ rebid. Something like: Kx, KJxxx, AJ, Jxxx. 1N is reasonable with the strong doubletons, especially at MPs.
I suppose the 5233 with strong clubs is possible; (Qx, Qxxxx, xxx, AKQ?), but it feels like a useless bid.
"Phil" on BBO
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,951
- Joined: 2003-September-07
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Bridge, poker, politics
Posted 2006-August-11, 17:37
i'd probably think it was either 2524 or 2533 with strong clubs, looking for no trump... i agree with phil that pass seems best
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,373
- Joined: 2003-March-15
- Location:Hamburg, Germany
- Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball
Posted 2006-August-14, 10:08
i hate partners who rebid 1 NT wiht 2524 but there are some (including me...) who do so at matchpoints. So I guess, this is what he has.
Kind Regards
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#8
- Group: Members
- Posts: 48
- Joined: 2006-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Northants, England
Posted 2006-August-14, 10:20
May I venture to suggest that this kind of mix-up only goes to show why a natural system (or as near natural as possible) usually pays dividends.
Page 1 of 1