[G_R__E_G]

Playing standard, what would you rebid (and why) after opening 1♥ and partner responding 2♣?

♠KJxx ♥KQTxx ♦A ♣Jxx

[ArtK78]

Playing "standard", unless you consider this hand to have "extras", this is a 2♥ rebid. I don't think the hand is quite good enough for a raise to 3♣, but it is close.

Playing 2/1 GF, it becomes a matter of style how you want to approach this hand. You could raise to 3♣, or you could bid 2♠ intending to bid 3♣ over partner's expected 2NT rebid. Rebidding 2♥ would not be right if you are in a game forcing auction unless you have an agreement that the other choices show a better hand than this. I would bid 2♠ intending to raise clubs at my next turn (unless partner does something unexpected, such as raising one of my major suits).

[Apollo81]

2♠, I think this is enough to force game.

[jdonn]

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Apr 4 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

What he said

[Cascade]

I am not so sure that an ordinary 5-4-3-1 with 14 points including only one ace is enough for a game force. That leaves 2♥ as the only option.

[neilkaz]

jdonn, on Apr 4 2008, 09:32 AM, said:

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

Me too and I like my T in ♥ if I end up in a 5-2 fit and it won't hurt to hold this card in 3NT.

[han]

I like this hand.

[mikeh]

I don't understand what 'liking this hand' has to do with bidding 2♠.

Put me down for 2♥, the bid that maximizes the chances of a good auction.

3♣ is wrong: even in 2/1 a 2♣ call can be on a 3 card suit: with a good 3=3=4=3, for example, 2♦ is often the right call, especially if the diamond suit is not a slam-appropriate holding. In standard, 2♣ is even more suspect... and note that we haven't even got into a rexfordian discussion of semi-artificial 2♣ responses

2♠ is unnecessary if the object is to find a spade fit: 2♥ allows partner to bid 2♠.

2N is obviously a misdecription

So 2♥ is what is left.

And it is forcing: in standard, 2♣ forces beyond 2♥ (at least, in the standard that I am familiar with..if 2♥ is nf, then 2♠ is the only logical choice and I change my bid)

If the auction proceeds 2♠, I raise to 3♠.... forcing since 2♠ was itself a gf

If the auction proceeds 2N, I bid an easy 3♣... well, I claim it is easy, and I think it is forcing, but if not, I just bid 3N... after all, if 2N is nf, we ain't missing a slam by my ignoring clubs

If the auction proceeds 3♣, I bid 3♠, forcing, pass 3N and otherwise raise to 5♣

So I get to game all the time anyway.

Meanwhile, I don't think this hand justifies the very strong sequence of 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ then later, over anything, a club bid. That's how we'd bid with the same shape and 2 or 3 more hcp.

[han]

I don't understand your argument against 2S Mike. 2H is forcing therefore you won't bid the more descriptive 2S?

On a good day you'll be able to bid 1H followed by 2S followed by 3C, showing a 4-5-1-3 pattern with extras. Sounds good to me! Since I would open with about a king less I consider this extras.

I also agree that the hand looks better after 2C than after a 2D call by partner.

Edit: was too hasty and now notice your last line. If you think that 1H.. 2S.. 3C shows at least a 16-count then I agree that we are not worth it obviously. I don't know what is standard and I don't really care but I thought 2S just showed enough to force to game.

[cherdano]

I don't understand any bid except 2♠ here.

[jillybean]

jdonn, on Apr 4 2008, 08:32 AM, said:

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

What ♣ fit?

Easy 2♥

[655321]

Agree with mikeh.

[jdonn]

jillybean2, on Apr 4 2008, 07:10 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 4 2008, 08:32 AM, said:

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

What ♣ fit?

Easy 2♥

Haha, I think your confidence is growing jilly!

[mikeh]

han, on Apr 4 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

I don't understand your argument against 2S Mike. 2H is forcing therefore you won't bid the more descriptive 2S?

On a good day you'll be able to bid 1H followed by 2S followed by 3C, showing a 4-5-1-3 pattern with extras. Sounds good to me! Since I would open with about a king less I consider this extras.

I also agree that the hand looks better after 2C than after a 2D call by partner.

Edit: was too hasty and now notice your last line. If you think that 1H.. 2S.. 3C shows at least a 16-count then I agree that we are not worth it obviously. I don't know what is standard and I don't really care but I thought 2S just showed enough to force to game.

I would bid 2♠ if my diamond Ace were in any other suit..same shape, same count, but a far, far stronger hand. While I understand the desire to commit to game (I am doing so as well) I think that the reverse then clubs (which has to be the bidding plan unless partner bids a major over 2♠) shows a hand of more playing strength than we hold. At the risk of sounding condescending, and recognizing that all the 2♠ posters so far KNOW this, honour location is an often overlooked consideration for a lot of players...maybe I am giving it too much weight here, but (obviously) I don't think so.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on Apr 4 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

han, on Apr 4 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

I don't understand your argument against 2S Mike. 2H is forcing therefore you won't bid the more descriptive 2S?

On a good day you'll be able to bid 1H followed by 2S followed by 3C, showing a 4-5-1-3 pattern with extras. Sounds good to me! Since I would open with about a king less I consider this extras.

I also agree that the hand looks better after 2C than after a 2D call by partner.

Edit: was too hasty and now notice your last line. If you think that 1H.. 2S.. 3C shows at least a 16-count then I agree that we are not worth it obviously. I don't know what is standard and I don't really care but I thought 2S just showed enough to force to game.

I would bid 2♠ if my diamond Ace were in any other suit..same shape, same count, but a far, far stronger hand. While I understand the desire to commit to game (I am doing so as well) I think that the reverse then clubs (which has to be the bidding plan unless partner bids a major over 2♠) shows a hand of more playing strength than we hold. At the risk of sounding condescending, and recognizing that all the 2♠ posters so far KNOW this, honour location is an often overlooked consideration for a lot of players...maybe I am giving it too much weight here, but (obviously) I don't think so.

I think the difference is just that you require more for the sequence 1H 2S 3C than the rest of us.

[Cascade]

I really don't get that this hand is a game force.

Maybe I have misunderstood the conditions which stated 'standard'. I assumed this was not 2/1.

The vulnerability is also not stated which might make a difference in a close call.

Given so many excellent posters have suggested Game Forcing I did a simulation with these parameters:

Partner has 12 hcp and four or five clubs or 11 hcp and six clubs - i think this is generous as partner will often have less than this (unless 'standard' now means 2/1 as I commented above);

Partner has three or fewer hearts;

Partner is 4=4 in the minors or has longer clubs;

Partner has more clubs than spades.

Here is the exact code:

((hcp(south)==12 and clubs(south)>=4) or
(hcp(south)==11 and clubs(south)>=6)) and

hearts(south)<=3 and

((diamonds(south)<=clubs(south) and clubs(south)==4) or
(diamonds(south)<clubs(south))) and

(spades(south)<clubs(south))

Any game (spades, hearts, no trumps or clubs - I didn't actually check diamonds) made only just over 35% of the time. It would be worse when partner has only 11 hcp without extra length or 10 hcp with extra length.

[han]

What did you mean by "any game made just above 35% of the time"?

The usual objections to double dummy analysis apply, it is not hard to imagine that 3NT makes more often in practice.

I don't make a habit out of avoiding games with 25+ HCP. The form of scoring was not given and may matter.