[jdonn]

mikeh, on Sep 26 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

Now, seriously, tell me which auction has the best chance of ending up in the correct spot....provided, and I concede that this is a non-trivial proviso, that the 'right spot' is not 3N.

I concede what you are saying, that a 2♠ rebid is more likely than 3♣ to reach the correct spot when we are excluding the main times that 3♣ is more likely to reach the correct spot.

Seriously I have no huge qualms with 2♠ or with thinking it's the best bid (I do not agree opener could be 2-2 in the majors for the other auction though. I would never bid that way just because I had xx of hearts, I show my shape first and foremost.) What I don't understand is your feeling that somehow bidding 3♣ is some anti-partnership shot that shows a lack of faith in partner and ourselves. That seems like some real hyperbole for a bid that one could very reasonably believe is more likely to work well, as I do. It seems to me you are just pulling that assertion from thin air.

But I agree with you that I would bid 2♠ as well if I was never going to pass 3NT.

[kenrexford]

I really don't get the Mikeh objection to a 3♣ call.

First, why is a 3♣ call a "distortion?" A 3♣ call is only a distortion if you have some strange requirement that, with 5440 shape, you must first bid the 4-card suit for which partner cannot have a fit rather than first bidding the 4-card suit for which partner probably has a fit, because the 4-card suit partner for which partner will not have a fit happens to be a major.

If many of us would bid 3♣ in this sequence, then a 3♣ call may be based upon a 4054 or 0454 pattern, and therefore the call is not a distortion. You cannot define your preference and then call anything else a distortion. That's arrogant, and frankly rather silly anyway. I, personally, like to bid suits that may be our strain rather than suits that will not be our strain.

Would it be a distortion to not bid out your two five-card suits with 3505 pattern just because of the happenstance that partner opened 1♠?

The silliness comes with extended auctions. If you open diamonds, reverse into spades, and then bid clubs, you may sound lijke you are showing 4153 or 4063 pattern. I'd rather not have that misread. I'd rather have partner think that I might have 3154 or 3064.

I'd even take this one more step. This is not a matter of trusting partner or something like that. It's a matter of not making a silly major-obsessed call that muddies the waters for no apparent reason and in fact creates a mis-description. Playing with anyone sane, I'd expect that the one pattern that cannot exist after a reverse to 2♠ is 4054, because you'd bid 3♣ with that hand.

If anything, if a pattern bidder, I'd be more like to bid 1♦...3♣...3♠...4♠.

[SoTired]

3C is the wrong rebid. It denies 4♠. You always bid majors before minors when you have a choice

[kenrexford]

SoTired, on Sep 26 2007, 08:49 PM, said:

3C is the wrong rebid. It denies 4♠. You always bid majors before minors when you have a choice

So, if RHO opens 1♠, then you should overcall 2♠ with 5-5 in the blacks?

How about if partner bids 2NT for the minors and you have four clubs and four spades?

1NT-2♣(Landy)-X(Stayman)?

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Sep 26 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

. Playing with anyone sane, I'd expect that the one pattern that cannot exist after a reverse to 2♠ is 4054, because you'd bid 3♣ with that hand.

This comment reveals an amazing ignorance about basic bidding theory.

Jumpshifts are gf. Reverses, as played by most, are not. Indeed, I know of no-one who plays that 2♠ after 1N is gf. I know of no competent player who, in a std approach, plays 3♣ as less than gf.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Sep 26 2007, 08:55 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 26 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

.  Playing with anyone sane, I'd expect that the one pattern that cannot exist after a reverse to 2♠ is 4054, because you'd bid 3♣ with that hand.

This comment reveals an amazing ignorance about basic bidding theory.

Jumpshifts are gf. Reverses, as played by most, are not. Indeed, I know of no-one who plays that 2♠ after 1N is gf. I know of no competent player who, in a std approach, plays 3♣ as less than gf.

OK, to be more precise.

The one pattern I'd never expect from a partner who first bid 2♠ as a reverse and who later forced game or showed an original holding of game-forcing values would be the 4054 pattern.

As we are about to make a slam move, I suspect, proving thereby an ability to make a game force initially, I want my entire sequence to make sense.

There is no "amazing ignorance about basic bidding theory" to that idea. Not understanding that idea suggests some ignorance on your part of more advanced bidding theory, perhaps.

This is very similar to the idea, for instance, played by some where a one-level major opening might be canape if weak. If you turn out to have a weak hand, partner might expect a canape. If you turn out to be strong, partner knows that your call was not canape.

Same thing here. If you have 4054 pattern, you might start with 3♣ or with 2♠. If the late bidding proves you to have started with 2♠ and to have 4054 pattern, partner will know that you were strong enough for a reverse but not strong enough to force game. If you start with 2♠ and late bidding proves that you were strong enough to force game, partner will know that you do not have a fourth club, or perhaps that your clubs suck. If you start with 3♣, partner immediately knows that you have GF values, and you may later confirm or suggest a fourth spade.

That seems rather simple, IMO.

[han]

I've been convinced by the 3♣ bidders. We know that we have a club fit, it's probably right to show immediately that we have a GF hand with clubs.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Sep 26 2007, 05:27 PM, said:

So I suspect that the argument as to 3♣ or 2♠ is, in the real world, largely irrelevant.

I remain of the view that 3♣ is a call that reveals a lack of faith in partner (or ourselves).. while it may lead to the correct contract with equal or almost equal frequency as does 2♠, 2♠ has the huge advantage of involving partner at the low cost of forgoing a problematic 3N.

As for Josh's concern that the auction 1♦ 1N 2♠ 2N 3♣ may be artificial (as it would be for me), my solution is to bid 4♣ over 2N.. a bid that cannot possibly be misunderstood.

Let me suggest this thought experiment.

Imagine we have been given xxx Kxx xxx Axxx.

We are told that partner opened 1♦, reversed into 2♠ and jumped to 4♣. Please describe partner's hand... wouldn't we all describe a huge 4=0=5=4, gf values opposite a minimal hand?

Compare this with 1♦ 1N 3♣ 3♦ 3♠

what does partner's hand look like? Well, it might be 4=0=5=4, altho we'd wonder why he didn't bid 2♠, but it might well be 3=1=5=4 or even 2=2=5=4 or even 2=2=6=3 with no heart stopper.

Now, seriously, tell me which auction has the best chance of ending up in the correct spot....provided, and I concede that this is a non-trivial proviso, that the 'right spot' is not 3N.

Now, 3N MAY be the right spot, although my cursory simulation suggested that it will rarely be... but bear in mind that responder will/should rebid 3N on MANY hands after the 3♣ then 3♠ sequence where it is wrong to play 3N and I fail to see how opener is going to guess right. When you bid 3♣ then 3♠ you must know, in advance, whether you are going to guess to pass 3N or bid on.

If you are going to bid on, then I think it is incontrovertible that the natural auction that takes you to 4♣ over 2N is the better.

Josh also worried about 1♦ 1N 2♠ 3♦.

I am not worried about that: why wouldn't I bid 4♣? Maybe this could be construed as a cue, in that 3♠ is unavailable as a cue (it shows 5=6 or better), but my preference (and maybe I am being guilty of Red Queen bidding) is that it should be patterning out. If so, then I am clearly making a slam move and partner can evaluate accordingly. Frankly, if partner bids a constructive 3♦ over 2♠, I doubt that any rational sequence would get us to the wrong spot provided that I am allowed to bid naturally.

But, at the end of the day, I repeat my suspicion that while 2♠ begins more honest and co-operative bidding, and would result in an enhanced feeling of partnership trust and esprit, either approach will usually arrive at the same end position provided that we exclude 3N... which I suspect most of us would, at the table.

Mike now that I just read your comment again, it actually annoys me. Why can't you do without this "bid X shows a lack of faith in partner"-talk when we are just discussing about the best way to show this hand?

Anyway, you are in essence arguing that it is easier to convince partner we have real clubs by not bidding clubs first. This sounds like a contradiction in theory, and I think it is one in practice too.

Of course if you bid 1C 1N 2S 2N 4C that is natural, but assuming 3C is artificial why can't it be a huge 4153 hand? If you bid 1C 1N 2S 3D 4C then of course you are bidding out your shape, but again you are just suggesting a 4153 so far, and of course the difference between 4153 and 4054 is huge when partner's suit is clubs. (Oh and couldn't we have a 3163 fake reverse...)
OTOH, I claim that partner will always be able to read our club suit for real after a 3C jump rebid AND the followup auction.

And if we want to have a mastermind accusation competition, I am sure it is much easier to argue that it applies to showing length in a suit partner can't have than to showing length in partner's main suit (aka supporting)

[kenrexford]

Here's a thought:

You are allowed to open 1♦ with five spades and six diamonds, right?

You presumably may raise the reverse with three-card spade support, as a descriptive call, right?

If you had 5♠/6♦, reversed, and then heard partner make a descriptive raise of your spades, which establishes a fit, you'd like to cuebid or pattern out or do whatever you do, right?

So, this 2♠ reverse could cause some very serious problems if partner's next call, with something like QJx-xxx-xxx-Axxx or QJx-Axx-xxx-xxxx, is 3♠.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Sep 26 2007, 08:55 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Sep 26 2007, 08:06 PM, said:

.  Playing with anyone sane, I'd expect that the one pattern that cannot exist after a reverse to 2♠ is 4054, because you'd bid 3♣ with that hand.

This comment reveals an amazing ignorance about basic bidding theory.

Jumpshifts are gf. Reverses, as played by most, are not. Indeed, I know of no-one who plays that 2♠ after 1N is gf. I know of no competent player who, in a std approach, plays 3♣ as less than gf.

Mike,

Do you agree that partner must have a minor suit fit after the 1N call?

Shouldn't your objective after 1N be to find your best fit? And reveal the fit you have with either minor immediately, rather than hiding it with 2S?

Do you agree that the given hand is worth a game force after 1N knowing that you have a fit in at least one, if not both minors?

Assuming you do, why are you insisting on making a bid (2S) that, according to your own words, is not game forcing? And it does absolutely nothing to help partner evaluate his hand for a minor suit game/slam.

I'm sorry, but anybody that bids 2S here reveals an amazing ignorance of basic bidding theory. The scissors cut both ways.

After the 1N rebid, I would expect the 2S rebid to be used explicitly for either 4-5, or 4-6 hands of reverse strength, or 5-6 hands, and not some hand where you are already known to have a fit with game forcing values and yet for whatever reason are refusing to show it.

mikeh, on Sep 26 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

Late to the thread, but I don' t like 3♣ over 1N: it smacks of masterminding... distorting the hand because you think that you have to be in charge.

I also think that 2S is more of the masterminding bid, than the natural GF bid of 3C, but what the heck, to each their own.

EDIT: If I remember correctly, earlier in the thread you stated you preferred 2S because the jump shift to 3C might be made on a 3 card suit. While I somewhat understand this sentiment, I think you are making a mistake trying to use the reverse to prevent this possibility, instead of just bidding what you actually have. If you have jump shifted into a 3 card suit, the later auction should reveal that possibility, but I don't believe partner should be catering to that fact in his response after the 3C jumpshift. He should be treating it as a suit and natural, unless you have specific agreements otherwise.

jmoo.

[SoTired]

deleted

[SoTired]

deleted

This post has been edited by SoTired: 2007-September-27, 10:06

[mikeh]

cherdano, on Sep 27 2007, 01:47 AM, said:

Mike now that I just read your comment again, it actually annoys me. Why can't you do without this "bid X shows a lack of faith in partner"-talk when we are just discussing about the best way to show this hand?

Anyway, you are in essence arguing that it is easier to convince partner we have real clubs by not bidding clubs first. This sounds like a contradiction in theory, and I think it is one in practice too.

Of course if you bid 1C 1N 2S 2N 4C that is natural, but assuming 3C is artificial why can't it be a huge 4153 hand? If you bid 1C 1N 2S 3D 4C then of course you are bidding out your shape, but again you are just suggesting a 4153 so far, and of course the difference between 4153 and 4054 is huge when partner's suit is clubs. (Oh and couldn't we have a 3163 fake reverse...)
OTOH, I claim that partner will always be able to read our club suit for real after a 3C jump rebid AND the followup auction.

And if we want to have a mastermind accusation competition, I am sure it is much easier to argue that it applies to showing length in a suit partner can't have than to showing length in partner's main suit (aka supporting)

Fair enough I got carried away in 'arm-wrestling' with Phil and overbid my hand...my apologies.

Turning to the meat of the argument, I remain of the view (since I am 'determined' ) that 3♣ needlessly assumes captaincy and prevents responder from ever knowing what our hand looks like. I have still seen NO explanation of how opener announces a strong 4=0=5=4 hand after 3♣. No spade bid thereafter is length showing. Threrfore, responder cannot usually appreciate how his hand meshes.

As for the argument that jumping to 4♣ over an artificial (or natural) 2N after the 2♠ reverse might be on a 3=1=5=4 hand... I simply don't agree...even tho I do recognize that this is an awkward hand, I don't see how opener could meaningfully insist on an 11 trick contract on a 4=1=5=3 hand...how he could bypass 3N. It is the purity of the hand for a minor suit contract that permits, indeed requires, imo, giving up on 3N... and a 4=1=5=3 hand is not so pure.

Strangely enough, I could be easier talked into a 3♣ call on a monster 4=1=5=3 than on the actual hand, because I would expect to pass 3N if we got there with me on a 4=1=5=3 than on the actual hand.

Now, as I said in the post that ruffled feathers, on my modest simulation, it seemed at first blush that on most hands where the opps are silent either 3♣ or 2♠ work, so I'm not going to get bent out of shape over the difference.

I guess my main point is that 2♠ helps partner...obviously not immediately, but on the next round...while 3♣ leaves responder partially in the dark...it helps more immediately, but then forecloses (from the posts I have seen) providing an accurate picture of opener's hand....however, in most (all?) cases, this doesn't seem to matter much. But the leaving partner in the dark aspect, which seems to me to be wrong in principle, is what triggered the offending comment. Again, it was an overbid (misbid?)