[kfay]

Uncontested Auction:

1♦-1♥
2♦-2♠
3♠-...

Does opener virtually guarantee a stiff heart?

[ArtK78]

No.

xxxx
Kx
AKQJxx
x

Bidding 2♦ makes a lot more sense than introducing 4 small spades.

In the alternative:

KQx
xx
AKQJxx
xx

Even with only 3 spades, bidding 3♠ seems obvious, doesn't it?

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Apr 10 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

No.

xxxx
Kx
AKQJxx
x

Bidding 2♦ makes a lot more sense than introducing 4 small spades.

In the alternative:

KQx
xx
AKQJxx
xx

Even with only 3 spades, bidding 3♠ seems obvious, doesn't it?

Lol your first example is impossible. 2♦ denies four spades, if you decided to pretend like you don't have four spades (something most people would consider pretty ridiculous) then that was your decision but you can't undo it later.

Your second example is very plausible, or a hand like it. Which also goes to show why you can't bid that way on your first (and why bypassing spades is silly), because they are such different types of hands.

[Apollo81]

Qxx Ax AKxxxxx x

?

[cherdano]

Apollo81, on Apr 10 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

Qxx Ax AKxxxxx x

?

I don't like this example, I would rather rebid 3♦, as it leaves more room and is no less descriptive. If partner rebids 3♥ I am very very happy to raise (with 4♣).

[Fluffy]

Agree with arend, 3♠ shows overweight in spades.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Apr 10 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 10 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

No.

xxxx
Kx
AKQJxx
x

Bidding 2♦ makes a lot more sense than introducing 4 small spades.

In the alternative:

KQx
xx
AKQJxx
xx

Even with only 3 spades, bidding 3♠ seems obvious, doesn't it?

Lol your first example is impossible. 2♦ denies four spades, if you decided to pretend like you don't have four spades (something most people would consider pretty ridiculous) then that was your decision but you can't undo it later.

Your second example is very plausible, or a hand like it. Which also goes to show why you can't bid that way on your first (and why bypassing spades is silly), because they are such different types of hands.

There are a lot of good bridge players in this world who do not consider xxxx to be a 4 card spade suit, especially in preference to rebidding AKQJxx.

If spades is a playable spot, then partner should be able to introduce them.

How would you like to play a trump suit of xxxx opposite Kxx? That could happen if you bid 1♠ over 1♥.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Apr 10 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

There are a lot of good bridge players in this world who do not consider xxxx to be a 4 card spade suit, especially in preference to rebidding AKQJxx.

If spades is a playable spot, then partner should be able to introduce them.

What would you expect your partner to bid over 2♦ with KQJx QJxx xx KQx?

[cherdano]

gnasher, on Apr 10 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 10 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

There are a lot of good bridge players in this world who do not consider xxxx to be a 4 card spade suit, especially in preference to rebidding AKQJxx.

If spades is a playable spot, then partner should be able to introduce them.

What would you expect your partner to bid over 2♦ with KQJx QJxx xx KQx?

Where do you expect to land after a 1♠ rebid opposite Kxxx Axxx xx KQx?
Example hands are helpful if we try to construct typical hand types. Constructing extreme hands is only useful for the BBF-game of "proving" you are right and that another suggested bid is ridiculously wrong. I think a hand with not a single quick trick for 3N is just too extreme an example to consider, and I think the 2♦ rebid is entirely reasonable.
It wouldn't be my choice since you can hope to approximately show your hand after a 1♠ rebid and you can't after a 2♦ rebid, but if partner were to place the contract with his next bid I would much rather bid 2♦ than 1♠.

[655321]

ArtK78, on Apr 10 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

There are a lot of good bridge players in this world who do not consider xxxx to be a 4 card spade suit, especially in preference to rebidding AKQJxx.

If spades is a playable spot, then partner should be able to introduce them.

How would you like to play a trump suit of xxxx opposite Kxx?  That could happen if you bid 1♠ over 1♥.

Strongly disagree with bypassing any 4 card spade suit in favor of rebidding 2♦.

1) 'A lot of good bridge players...'?
2) Partner won't introduce spades once you have denied them.
3) Happy to play a 1♠ contract with this trump suit when partner has a hand suitable for passing 1♠, can't imagine an auction leading to a higher level spade contract.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Apr 10 2008, 04:29 PM, said:

If spades is a playable spot, then partner should be able to introduce them.

Why would he bother, you have already denied four.

I didn't mean to get into a discussion about that particular choice of rebids. My point remains if you decide not to rebid 1♠ on a rare hand with four spades, you have made your bed. System can't be designed to allow you to slither back into the spades you have already denied.

It's much the same as 1♦ p 1NT p 2♠ p ?. If you raise it shows something like AQx xxx Qx Jxxxx, or so. You can't say it could also show xxxx KJx Kx Qxxx. If you judged to bid 1NT on that hand, too bad for you.

I'm not all negative. I like your second example.

[the hog]

ArtK78, on Apr 11 2008, 04:29 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 10 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 10 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

No.

xxxx
Kx
AKQJxx
x

Bidding 2♦ makes a lot more sense than introducing 4 small spades.

In the alternative:

KQx
xx
AKQJxx
xx

Even with only 3 spades, bidding 3♠ seems obvious, doesn't it?

Lol your first example is impossible. 2♦ denies four spades, if you decided to pretend like you don't have four spades (something most people would consider pretty ridiculous) then that was your decision but you can't undo it later.

Your second example is very plausible, or a hand like it. Which also goes to show why you can't bid that way on your first (and why bypassing spades is silly), because they are such different types of hands.

There are a lot of good bridge players in this world who do not consider xxxx to be a 4 card spade suit, especially in preference to rebidding AKQJxx.

If spades is a playable spot, then partner should be able to introduce them.

How would you like to play a trump suit of xxxx opposite Kxx? That could happen if you bid 1♠ over 1♥.

Art there are a lot of very good BPs in the world who would not bypass a 4 card S suit in this auction for good reason. There are an even greater number who would not pass 1D 1H 1S because the play it as forcing.

[pclayton]

KQx xx AQJxxx xx

[gnasher]

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 01:30 AM, said:

gnasher, on Apr 10 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

What would you expect your partner to bid over 2♦ with KQJx QJxx xx KQx?

Where do you expect to land after a 1♠ rebid opposite Kxxx Axxx xx KQx?

I provided my example to refute the assertion that "If spades is a playable spot, then partner should be able to introduce them."

Your example shows that sometimes it's right to play in 3NT when we have a 4-4 spade fit. It doesn't tell us anything about the likelihood that responder will introduce a four-card spade suit himself.

Quote

Example hands are helpful if we try to construct typical hand types. Constructing extreme hands is only useful for the BBF-game of "proving" you are right and that another suggested bid is ridiculously wrong. I think a hand with not a single quick trick for 3N is just too extreme an example to consider, and I think the 2♦ rebid is entirely reasonable.

I haven't expressed an opinion about the relative merits of 2♦ and 1♠, so I don't know why you think I'd be trying to show that one is better than the other.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>