[Echognome]

awm, on Sep 12 2007, 09:03 AM, said:

<snip> ... and that it's generally bad partnership to bid your hand based on a "guess" of what partner has rather than showing your hand and letting partner look at his own cards.
<snip>

Exsqueeze me?

Rebidding 3♦ on KTxxxx is 'showing' your hand?

My partners somehow imagine better suits. Do you think there would be such a discussion if responder's hand was xx xxx AKTxxx Ax?

I'm all for bidding games, but shouldn't my partner be as well? Shouldn't he think a holding such as a stiff Q and defintely Qx would lead to a source of tricks?

Edit: Note that I advocated 3♦, but I think it is a problem hand. What if our hand was AK xxx Txxxxx Ax? Now I find 3♦ unpalatable.

[pclayton]

joshs, on Sep 12 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 12 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

Quote

If we're after example hands, how about:

♠Kxxx
♥Ax
♦x
♣KQxxxx

where game is on a 3-2 club break even though opener holds a twelve-count with singleton diamond. Even if you add a couple cards to the hand (say the club jack and a major suit queen) I doubt you're getting to game after a 2♦ rebid.

I'd be willing to bet that neither of the 2♦ or 3♦ bidders are getting to 3N. At least the 2♦ bidders will keep their plus.

I think if you are trying to make a good argument for 3♦, look at 4=2=2=5 hands with a diamond honor like: ♠Kxxx ♥AQ ♦Ax ♣Jxxxx. Its this class of hands that I'm most worried about, not the ones where we have an undisclosed source of club tricks.

Would you really rebid 1S playing walsh with that hand? I would have bid 1N without even thinking. The clubs are like a 4 bagger....

Fair enough. Make the clubs a little stronger and the spades a little weaker then.

I hope you see my point.

[gwnn]

pclayton, on Sep 11 2007, 08:19 PM, said:

Csaba, does 1♠ promise an unbalanced hand? If yes, I'll content myself with 2♦.

If 1♠ is up-the-line bidding, I'll bid 3♦.

I don't know, unfortunately, cause I was kibitzing and a guy asked me about this bid. Therefore I don't know about your question and whether 4s is F or GF.

BTW, if 2♥ is only 1-round force, what are we doing after opener's 3rd bid?

[FrancesHinden]

SAYC and 2/1 covers a very broad church.

IF I am playing weak jump shifts "European style" (about 4-8) I comfortably bid 2D, constructive with a 6-card suit (that's part of the point of playing WJS that way).

I assume that's not available, or this wouldn't be a problem.

If 2♥ is a 1-round force, I bid 2♥ and pass partner's minimum rebid (OK, I won't pass 2♠ but you get the idea).

IF {2♥ is game forcing} and {1♠ guaranteed 5+ clubs} I also rather like 3♣ as a call.

If partner bids 'up the line' so could have anything from a 5=1=0=7 to a 4=3=3=3, AND we play 2♥ as forcing to game then, um, I really don't know. As I've never played this method it's hard to know how to bid in it... I suppose in that case I bid 2NT and hope for the best.

[joshs]

pclayton, on Sep 12 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

joshs, on Sep 12 2007, 10:11 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 12 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

Quote

If we're after example hands, how about:

♠Kxxx
♥Ax
♦x
♣KQxxxx

where game is on a 3-2 club break even though opener holds a twelve-count with singleton diamond. Even if you add a couple cards to the hand (say the club jack and a major suit queen) I doubt you're getting to game after a 2♦ rebid.

I'd be willing to bet that neither of the 2♦ or 3♦ bidders are getting to 3N. At least the 2♦ bidders will keep their plus.

I think if you are trying to make a good argument for 3♦, look at 4=2=2=5 hands with a diamond honor like: ♠Kxxx ♥AQ ♦Ax ♣Jxxxx. Its this class of hands that I'm most worried about, not the ones where we have an undisclosed source of club tricks.

Would you really rebid 1S playing walsh with that hand? I would have bid 1N without even thinking. The clubs are like a 4 bagger....

Fair enough. Make the clubs a little stronger and the spades a little weaker then.

I hope you see my point.

OK I will give you:
Qxxx Ax Ax KJxxx

Where its close between 1S and 1N. (If 1D actually showed diamonds, 1N is much more encoraging since it promised a semi-fit)

Maybe add the Club T, where you don't mind a preference to 2C on Kx Xxx Kxxxx xx

yeah yeah, I know, you play xyz with walsh, where after telling partner (and the opps) that you have have an unbalanced hand with clubs, you can't actually play in clubs. OK, I admit, hearts are 4-4 in this auction, so 1N isn't that bad a spot....

Seriously, its possible partner has Hx in diamonds. But you KNOW partner has a real club suit and 4S and there are only 4 cards unaccounted for and you also know the opps aren't bidding hearts, so partner almost certainly has 2/3 of them or substantional extras, so that doesn't leave a lot of room for 2 diamonds....