[jdonn]

I really don't understand 2♥. If you are calling this a game force then I don't see the gain over 3♣, merely added risk that partner raises and insists on hearts. If you are not calling it a game force then 3♦ is easy, as the only reason to avoid that bid is you consider the hand too good.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

I really don't understand 2♥. If you are calling this a game force then I don't see the gain over 3♣, merely added risk that partner raises and insists on hearts. If you are not calling it a game force then 3♦ is easy, as the only reason to avoid that bid is you consider the hand too good.

2♥ saves spaces. If partner bids 2N, then depending on agreements you might be able to show your 6th diamond with a GF by bidding 3♦. If he bids 2♠, then you can show a GF with a 3-suiter by bidding 3♣.
I am not sure whether I would bid 2♥ or 3♣, but I certainly see the advantages of 2♥ (in particular since this hand has such great diamond slam potential -- 2♥ might find a diamond slam after 2H 2S 3C 3D 4D when the other auction would go 3C 3D 3H 3N).

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2008, 01:00 PM, said:

If you are calling this a game force then I don't see the gain over 3♣, merely added risk that partner raises and insists on hearts.

If you are not calling it a game force then 3♦ is easy, as the only reason to avoid that bid is you consider the hand too good.

That's part of the issue.

Is there a range (along with a hand type) that is:

--too good for a jump rebid, yet

--not enough for a GF?

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Apr 9 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

Is there a range (along with a hand type) that is:

--too good for a jump rebid, yet

--not enough for a GF?

No

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 9 2008, 04:18 PM, said:

Is there a range (along with a hand type) that is:

--too good for a jump rebid, yet

--not enough for a GF?

No

Quote

It's a maximum but perhaps reasonable 3♦ bid, and likewise partner has a maximum but acceptable pass over that. I have some sympathy.

That doesn't seem to fit.

My choices are to force to game across a misfit 0 count or watch partner pass with a balanced 7 count? Considing the ridiculousness of some of the "tennis" game tries and the need to differentiate between, say, a 'good' nine and a 'bad' nine, how can we have a 7 point spread between forcing game and a strong invite?

[jdonn]

Lol what the....ok by your logic you need 26 in your hand to force to game, after all partner could have 0. Sorry every bid doesn't have a 1 point range. If you show 16-18 and partner has a pretty good 7 or terrible 8 or something, he has a bit of a guess what to do. There is no inconsistency. What would you have someone do with a 2272 hand that is too good for 3♦ but not a game force, if there is room in between?

[helene_t]

Matthew, I think Josh was referring to GF in the context of p's response, not a GF opening of 2♣. Obviously this hand is nowhere near GF opposite a misfitting 0-count, but playing standard you don't play p for a misfitting 0 count when he responds to your 1♦ opening.

[kenrexford]

Echognome, on Apr 9 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 9 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

1. After 1♦-1♠-2♥-3♥, yes, everything is a slam try.  Partner's 3♥ call showed GF and slam interest, with hearts.  So, 3NT is serious, and 4♦ is a non-serious cue.

Is 3♠ a cuebid agreeing ♥ for you? Or could it be my example from the other thread of a 3=3=6=1?

If the sequence was 1♦-1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠, this is also a slam try, but I would agree that it should probably be re-setting trump focus. A direct 4♠ would be weaker.

[mikeh]

Given that this is in the B/I forum, I think we need to recognize that there will always be hands that fall within the seams of any method. The simpler the method, the greater the number of hands that cannot be adequately described... which is why virtually all established expert partnerships play methods that are far more complex than we teach or encourage B/I players to use.

These hand types are rare... this prime 1=3=6=3 18 count with plentiful controls is a rare hand.

Once we recognize that our methods are imperfect, we can more readily accept that we cannot always bid to the optimum spot.

Thus, if the choice is between 3♦ and 2N, 3♦ is (I think) slightly superior to 2N. 2N will often lose the diamond suit for slam purposes, since responder will not expect a 6 card suit, while 2N will also often commit us to spades, since partner will not expect a stiff. So 3♦ is the best way to get to the best strain IF partner can bid again. On the given hand, N is fixed.. 3N would be a real gamble with that hand.

Of course, hands like this are why a lot of pairs play non-standard methods. A forcing club system or inclusion, within a standard method, of an artificial 2♣ rebid by opener are some of the ways to avoid this problem. All methods, however, have seams...Gazilli is not a panacea, nor is Precision and so on.

I would never commend, to anyone, a reverse into 2♥. Such a bid is ok with 3=3=6=1, because, if partner insists on hearts, he will hold 5+ spades and we can always correct. But on this 1=3=6=3 shape, we almost certainly do not want to play in hearts unless (and even then, not always) partner introduces the suit.

3N, for me, shows a different hand... better diamonds, and not quite as much outside.

3♣ is the bid I would make if this were a gf, but I don't think it is. I'd force to game had partner bid 1♥, but his call opposite my stiff is mildly discouraging at this stage of the auction.

2♣ is call that has no support so far, and the knock on it is clear: 2♣ will probably not be a good spot if he passes... as, indeed, he would with the actual hand. In real life, tho, 2♣ will often work out even when not artificial... if he bids 2♦ next, we bid 2N as a strong invite, strongly suggesting short spades. However, I think this hand is just a bit too strong.

So my scoring of the bids would be 3♦ 100 2N 90 3C 70 2C 60 2♥ 30

I could be talked into reversing the scores for 3♦ and 2N.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

Lol what the....ok by your logic you need 26 in your hand to force to game, after all partner could have 0. Sorry every bid doesn't have a 1 point range. If you show 16-18 and partner has a pretty good 7 or terrible 8 or something, he has a bit of a guess what to do.

Yes, but that's a one point spread. If you invite after 1NT, you expect partner to accept with 17, decline with 15, and do either with 16, after adjustment of course.

Now apparently people have to decide after 1♦-1♠ whether to end up in game across 0 or a part score across 7. It is inconsistent. It could very well be a systemic inconsistency, not your inconsistency. You could be very consistently describing something very inconsistent.

Quote

What would you have someone do with a 2272 hand that is too good for 3♦ but not a game force, if there is room in between?

I don't think there is a hand too good for 3♦ but not enough to game force. But then, I think that

♠ AT92
♥ 54
♦ 987
♣ K652

isn't even close to a pass over 3♦. In fact, if the auction went

1♦ 1♠ 2♦

it wouldn't hurt my feelings if partner bid 3♦.

But as I'm sure we all know by now, what I think is 'standard' often isn't.
So the fact that that's how I play it doesn't mean much by itself.

Here's another way to phrase it. I think 3♦ is a stronger bid than 2NT, at least in offensive playing strength (not necessarily hcp). There are 2272s which I would consider too strong for 2♦ and too weak for 3♦ that I would make a 2NT call with. Therefore, any hand that would consider 3NT after

1♦ 1♠ 2NT

should be able to bid 3NT after

1♦ 1♠ 3♦

with confidence. And surely this hand should consider 3NT after a 2NT rebid, yes?

[vuroth]

mikeh, on Apr 9 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

Given that this is in the B/I forum, I think we need to recognize that there will always be hands that fall within the seams of any method. The simpler the method, the greater the number of hands that cannot be adequately described... which is why virtually all established expert partnerships play methods that are far more complex than we teach or encourage B/I players to use.

So my scoring of the bids would be 3♦ 100 2N 90 3C 70 2C 60 2♥ 30

Thanks Mike. I was afraid for a minute there that this whole convesation was going to go over my head.

It's hands like this, I think, that are the reason I want to be playing vanilla SAYC at this point in my development (ymmv). It doesn't make sense for me to be taught the solution until I understand (come face to face with) the problem.

I think discussion like "If I were a bit stronger I'd bid Y instead of X", or "A shows same strength but more concentrated values than B" are very helpful. These are the tools, I think, that B/I need to grow....

0.02

V