[gwnn]

Scoring: IMP

---

If you open 1♣ it will go

1♣-p-1♥-p.

a) What would you bid with an intelligent but "2/1 udca ok p?" partner?
b) How would you bid this with your favorite natural system?

[P_Marlowe]

#1 3C
#2 As you did, but if you happen to play a system,
which allows you to stop in 3C after a 2C opening
(e.g. Benjamin twos, as I do), than this would be perfect
for this hand. As it is, I would not mind dropping
Benjamin, playing 2D as weak, but my partner likes
Benjamin, so we play it.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

1) 3c
2) 3c

jump rebid in a minor always shows exactly what I want it to show. typical 2/1 problem.

[foo]

gwnn, on Nov 18 2007, 06:08 PM, said:

South,Both,IMP

Jx,A,Ax,AQJT9xxx


If you open 1♣ it will go

1♣-p-1♥-p.

a] What would you bid with an intelligent but "2/1 udca ok p?" partner?
b] How would you bid this with your favorite natural system?

In SA or 2/1 GF as documented in places like Truscott's _Bidding Dictionary_ and as usually taught, the sequence 1m-foo;3m shows a hand of medium opening strength. Say 15-17 HCP or 16-18 Playing points.

Jx/A/Ax/AQJT9xxx evaluates to ~20 Playing points.

Your hand is too strong for 1m-foo;3m according to standard sources.
(for one thing, 1m-foo;3m is nf. How are you going to feel if CHO passes 3m?)

The "book" bids holding this hand are

A= open Acol 3N with it (you have 9.5 tricks in hand.)
(This of course assumes you play Acol 3N)
or
B= open 1C and rebid 3N (your C suit is certainly good enough.)
or
C= open 1C and rebid 4C (I dislike this one because it bypasses 3N)

Some poorly informed players might open this hand a strong artificial and nigh unto GF 2C *shudder*. As a tribute to Paul Soloway, I repeat his old advice that a single suited SA or 2/1 GF 2C opener should have more Quick Tricks than losers.

The given hand has 3.5 QT and 4 losers. Therefore it is not strong enough to open a SA or 2/1 GF 2C.

[P_Marlowe]

foo, on Nov 19 2007, 04:35 AM, said:

<snip>
The "book" bids holding this hand are

A= open Acol 3N with it (you have 9.5 tricks in hand.)
(This of course assumes you play Acol 3N)
<snip>

I am pretty sure a Acol 3NT opening is a solid minor
without a side card value, at least from 1960 onwards.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kfay]

foo, on Nov 19 2007, 04:35 AM, said:

B= open 1C and rebid 3N (your C suit is certainly good enough.)

I disagree. Your club suit is not solit. It's semi-solid. Bidding like this shows 7 solid clubs and although you have 8... they're not solid. My holding in every other suit leads me to believe that whatever is led against 3NT is going to break the contract when I find the ♣K offsides.

All that said I don't think that 3NT is terrible. But this hand looks more like clubs to me. And I agree with Justin that with opponents passing that 3♣-float seems impossible.

[ArtK78]

This is an interesting thread.

There is a small minority of players who have decided to play a jump rebid of a minor suit as forcing. It solves problems with strong hands with long minor suits that are either not suited (no pun intended) for a 2♣ opening bid or would be very difficult to handle after a 2♣ opening bid. Playing the jump rebid as forcing would help on this hand, although it is not typical of the forcing jump rebid hands. The type of hand that the forcing jump rebid is meant for is an 18-19 HCP hand with 6 or 7 solid of a minor.

Given that the 3♣ rebid is not forcing, one is forced to either invent a forcing rebid over 1♥ or bid 3♣ and hope that (1) partner bids again; or (2) if partner passes it turns out to be right. This hand is particularly ill suited (again, no pun intended) for the invention of a focing rebid, so you have little choice but to rebid 3♣ and hope for the best.

[foo]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 05:31 AM, said:

foo, on Nov 19 2007, 04:35 AM, said:

<snip>
The "book" bids holding this hand are

A= open Acol 3N with it (you have 9.5 tricks in hand.)
(This of course assumes you play Acol 3N)
<snip>

I am pretty sure a Acol 3NT opening is a solid minor
without a side card value, at least from 1960 onwards.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I thought the primary difference in definition between Gambling 3N and Acol 3N was the presence or absence of side suit stoppers (Gambling having none and Acol having some)?

Also, as I was taught Acol 3N, it didn't matter whether the long running suit was a Major or a minor. The goal was to have 8.5 - 9.5 tricks in hand with some side suit stoppers.

Am I out of touch with modern definitions here?

[jdonn]

Seems obvious 3♣ rebid, there are no reasonable alternatives to me.

[foo]

kfay, on Nov 19 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

foo, on Nov 19 2007, 04:35 AM, said:

B= open 1C and rebid 3N (your C suit is certainly good enough.)

I disagree. Your club suit is not solit. It's semi-solid. Bidding like this shows 7 solid clubs and although you have 8... they're not solid. My holding in every other suit leads me to believe that whatever is led against 3NT is going to break the contract when I find the ♣K offsides.

All that said I don't think that 3N is terrible. But this hand looks more like clubs to me. And I agree with Justin that with opponents passing that 3♣-float seems impossible.

The rule I learned long ago for the sequence 1m-1foo;3N was that you should have a hand that rates to take 7.5 - 9.5 tricks containing a suit that rates to play for no more than 1 loser opposite a small stiff, and that you should have a way to get back to your hand if the suit was not solid (duh...).

By those standards, Jx/A/Ax/AQJT9xxx qualifies nicely. Albeit at the top of the expected range.
YMMV.


As for the opponents competing after 1m-foo;3m here, =with what=? If they had long or biddable ♠'s, They would have been in the auction already. Ditto having much in the way of shape and values in any other way.
GOP rates to have Major suit length and values on this auction.

IMHO, if we rebid 3m and CHO passes, We rate to have missed a game.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Nov 19 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

Seems obvious 3♣ rebid, there are no reasonable alternatives to me.

Considering we'd make the call with two less clubs, 3♣ is hardly 'obvious'.

Nevertheless, no other call makes much sense.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Nov 19 2007, 01:13 PM, said:

Nevertheless, no other call makes much sense.

Phil, I know you should know what "obvious" means

[brianshark]

While I don't know what modern standards are regarding the 3N jump rebid, but the way I would always play it is showing a solid suit, highly likely to run 9 tricks opposite a small stiff, and at least one stopper in the other suits except nothing in your partner's suit. The reason being that if you have only a semi-solid suit, you need a double stop in every suit to rate to make 3N with no help from partner (except the stop in his own suit). And a semi-solid suit with a double stop in the side suits is a tad strong.

I guess my 3N jump rebid is more a more descriptive variety than the more gambling/flexible version foo plays.

[the hog]

This hand is the reason i like to play a 2NT rebid as an artificial gf with multi meanings - strong balanced, or s/suited with or without 3 card support for responder. (3C is a checkback over this)
3C is an underbid on this hand and a 3NT rebid has obvious flaws.

[foo]

One of the more interesting ideas I saw for this sort of hand was to have
1m-1foo;2m show a min or med hand and 1m-1foo;3m show a Max.

This is a variation of the ideas ArtK78 posted of having 3m be Forcing, and appears to have its roots in KS or KS derived systems.

The price here is that the widening of the range for the 2m rebid makes it necessary to add some form of range finding checkback after 2m on many hands, which may increase the odds of Us bidding to the 3 level when We might not want to or of playing a low level Moysian rather than NT.

The most common such checkbacks I've seen are
1C-1foo;2C-2D!
and (taken directly from KS)
the use of 1D-1foo;2C! as an artificial bid which may contain a medium or non-maximum 6+D hand as well as other hand types.
(1D-1foo;2D shows a minimum when using this method.)

If these gadgets are in place, one can rebid 3C confidently on this hand.

[RogerGe]

in our variation of blue team club (SAMUS CLUB) its very eassy:
open 2NT (12 -17, 6+ solid clubs, at least one one outside stopper, 7 - 8 1/2 tricks)
Responder has the options:
3♣ = sign off
3♦ = relay or preparing a reverse with stopper in diamonds
3♥ = relay or preparing a reverse with stopper in hearts but not in diamonds
3♠ = same as above but spades
3nt, 4♣, 5♣ = sign off
4♦, 4♥, 4♠ = 15+ points, 6+ solid suit, SLAM INTEREST
After relays the opener shows the stopper or stoppers
to whom it may be interested i can e-mail a nice presentation of our system

[pclayton]

foo, on Nov 19 2007, 11:10 PM, said:

One of the more interesting ideas I saw for this sort of hand was to have
1m-1foo;2m show a min or med hand and 1m-1foo;3m show a Max.

In this month's Challenge the Champs, Gaviard / D'Ovidio invert 2 minor and 3 minor.

2 minor becomes a one round force. 3 minor is a minimum and acts as a preempt.

[zasanya]

foo, on Nov 19 2007, 12:56 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 19 2007, 05:31 AM, said:

foo, on Nov 19 2007, 04:35 AM, said:

<snip>
The "book" bids holding this hand are

A= open Acol 3N with it (you have 9.5 tricks in hand.)
(This of course assumes you play Acol 3N)
<snip>

I am pretty sure a Acol 3NT opening is a solid minor
without a side card value, at least from 1960 onwards.

With kind regards
Marlowe

I thought the primary difference in definition between Gambling 3N and Acol 3N was the presence or absence of side suit stoppers (Gambling having none and Acol having some)?

Also, as I was taught Acol 3N, it didn't matter whether the long running suit was a Major or a minor. The goal was to have 8.5 - 9.5 tricks in hand with some side suit stoppers.

Am I out of touch with modern definitions here?

"Acol 3 No Trump is a long and strong minor with at least 2 suits stopped"
Reference http://bridgeinindia.homestead.com/files/A...ding_system.htm


But another referene gives"Broken preempt in either Minor."
http://www.bridgehan...Acol_System.htm

There seem to be different versions of acol.