[Cascade]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 22 2008, 03:47 AM, said:

It takes up a little more room, but it's also a poster child for a 4D rebid showing 3=7 in the pointy suits.

That is my preferred treatment with this hand.

The room is often not an issue as if you have 10 cards in the two bid suits then 3NT would require partner to have a lot in the other two suits.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Oct 22 2008, 08:18 AM, said:

Very nice that three people in a row have managed to suggest three different methods that can solve the problem. I was worried we would get opinions about what should have happened with the actual agreements!

...

I have seen one where it was made on a void. Ax Jxx AKQJxxxx -, 1♣ P 1♥ P ? I'm sure it would get no points on this forum, but 3♣ is a completely valid bid.

Are these the actual agreements that the opening poster failed to mention in his initial statement of the problem.

Do you call this system "Natural"?

It maybe a valid bid but I can't think why anyone would ever want to make it.

[jdonn]

I don't mean to imply 3♣ shows 0+ clubs. I'm saying every bid is a misbid (I guess technically 5♦ isn't, but it's easy to see why one would want to avoid that choice), and it is reasonable to choose that particular misbid.

As for why anyone would want to bid 3♣, I bet you can imagine why anyone wouldn't want to bid any other particular bid. Which answers the question.

[rogerclee]

jdonn, on Oct 21 2008, 10:14 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 21 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

Bidding 3C with this is not fine, 2H is superior in every way. It is lower, it is less risky that partner will go crazy over it (since he will have 5 hearts if he does), and you have more in hearts.

2♥ is fine too, although I wish I could find in a dictionary what "in every way" means to post here. 2♥ is a major and a higher ranking suit than the one where you probably want to play, so it's not-superior in at least two ways.

Why is bidding a major necessarily inferior? That is silly.

As far as hearts being above the suit I most likely want to play thus that being a problem, that is a mirage. I most likely want to play spades if partner raises hearts. If partner does not raise hearts there is no danger with hearts being a higher ranking suit than diamonds.

Josh, why are you pretending to be dense and not understand that bidding hearts is less dangerous than bidding clubs when you have 3 spades? You are usually the one making this point in these threads.

If your two "arguments" for bidding clubs rather than hearts are because hearts are a major and because bidding a major is worse than bidding a minor, those are really poor arguments. Do you have any at all? I really doubt it because there are none, which is why I said 2H is superior than 3C in every way.

In this case I would say "every way" is more descriptive (Qx instead of x), cheaper (allowing us more room to sort out where we want to play), and less dangerous (because if partner likes hearts we have a spade fit, but if partner likes clubs he may raise to 4 and we have to play 5D rather than a superior 3N, or a poor 6D when partner misevaluates his clubs).

[jdonn]

I'm not pretending, I really am dense. Ok you win, I forgot that no matter how few times rogerclee has seen a situation in his life relative to anyone else, anyone who believes an idea he hasn't considered before is possible is an EFFIN MORON!

As a parting thought, have you considered there is a very good chance you want to play in diamonds, especially at slam, even with a 5-3 spade fit? That is the response to most of your silly arguments.

[rogerclee]

Josh, I don't understand why you cannot have a bridge discussion without the use of sarcastic comments and insults. Is it because you cannot form logical cohesive arguments, or rebuttals to others arguments? Your posts really follow this pathetic pattern of trying to bully people into not arguing with you by simply being mean rather than trying to argue logically.

So far in this thread your arguments for bidding 3C rather than 2H have been:

1) It is better to bid a major than a minor
2) Hearts is higher than diamonds

Now you are adding in that you might want to play diamonds rather than spades even with a 5-3 fit.

The first 2 are pretty ridiculous, your new argument seems to imply that bidding 3C makes you more likely to find diamonds on that small subset of hands than 2H would. There is no evidence that this is the case, and I would disagree with that.

Your arguments for why 3C are better than 2H other than "you are rogerclee and i am jdonn RAWRRRRrrrrrrrr" seem to be very weak. I think my arguments for why 2H is a better bid than 3C are very strong.

[jdonn]

Again my fault, I thought you were the one who called me dense! Ok I love you.

If you look at my first reply to you, I thought I was trying to garner some of your bridge insights, but then you only quoted the portion where you thought you could shoot me down. Oh wellll. What would you rebid with Axx x AKQxxxxx x? If you don't like that example, I'm trying to find one you wouldn't open 2♣, but want to force to game with after the response, and have a stiff club and stiff heart. Does such a hand exist for you?

[rogerclee]

jdonn, on Oct 21 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

Again my fault, I thought you were the one who called me dense! Ok I love you.

If you look at my first reply to you, I thought I was trying to garner some of your bridge insights, but then you only quoted the portion where you thought you could shoot me down. Oh wellll. What would you rebid with Axx x AKQxxxxx x? If you don't like that example, I'm trying to find one you wouldn't open 2♣, but want to force to game with after the response, and have a stiff club and stiff heart. Does such a hand exist for you?

I didn't mean to imply or say there is no hand where I would jumpshift with short clubs, but I just think that on this hand 2H stood out. Though probably there is no hand I would jump shift into a singleton club, I just find it toooo much of a distortion and puts too much pressure on partner but I would and have jumpshifted into a doubleton before. I do think there is a big difference between even xx and x because if partner likes his K or KQ or dislikes his lack of values in the suit that at least is correct with xx but not with x. Love you too !H

[the hog]

I think 3C is one of the worst bids I have ever seen. What a total misdescription. 2H is a little better, but not much. Why not play an artificial 2NT rebid?

[mike777]

I know some people who play 2nt jump rebid to show this type of long strong minor suit hand. But they also open balanced 17-19 with another bid which then affects other bids..... so it becomes a matter of system not judgement.

What I find more interesting is the discussion that some find reversing into a 2 card major or jump shifting into a stiff club winning bridge, at the table, in top flight bridge.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Oct 21 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

Again my fault, I thought you were the one who called me dense! Ok I love you.

If you look at my first reply to you, I thought I was trying to garner some of your bridge insights, but then you only quoted the portion where you thought you could shoot me down. Oh wellll. What would you rebid with Axx x AKQxxxxx x? If you don't like that example, I'm trying to find one you wouldn't open 2♣, but want to force to game with after the response, and have a stiff club and stiff heart. Does such a hand exist for you?

I haven't had one yet. Once I have been dealt a 3181 hand worth a GF after a 1S response I will think about it.
They must have a strange dealer at these best hand tournaments.

[kenrexford]

The_Hog, on Oct 21 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

I think 3C is one of the worst bids I have ever seen. What a total misdescription. 2H is a little better, but not much. Why not play an artificial 2NT rebid?

The response to this is simple. There are two things that you cannot do in bridge. First, you cannot stop mid auction and ask partner if he thinks that such-and0such convention would be a good idea to handle such-and-such problem, and then agree to that, and then use that convention to resume the sequence. Second, you cannot stop mid-auction to announce that you have no bid for the hand you were dealt, in the given auction, and then simply move on to the next board.

Quote

What I find more interesting is the discussion that some find reversing into a 2 card major or jump shifting into a stiff club winning bridge, at the table, in top flight bridge.

The problem that you (Mike) may have with a jump shift to 3♣ is that it sounds like a mis-description of your hand. That was, at least, what Hog felt. However, 3♣ does not show clubs. It is not a "misdescription" for a call to not show that which it does not promise. A Stayman 2♣ bid does not show clubs, even though it might be bid with clubs actually in one's hand. 3♣, instead, shows game-forcing values and is often bid with clubs. However, it is not always bid with clubs, as this hand illustrates.

It is really silly for Hog to suggest that 3♣ is a mis-description while advocating an artificial 2NT call. How about this -- 3♣ is, in fact, an artificial call. Tada! Problem solved. 3♣ shows a GF hand with either diamonds and clubs or just long diamonds and too strong to bid a NF 3♦; in either the former or the latter event, Opener might also have a spade fragment, or a heart fragment, or a club fragment.

This is, of course, also relevant to the Josh-Roger debate. If 3♣ is an artificial call, and if 2♥ is not (but Opener might lie), then 3♣ is superior to 2♥, in that making a lie with Qx rather than a 4-card suit has costs, whereas bidding 3♣, an artificial bid, never has the "you lied" problem.

And, don't anyone claim that 3♣ is not really and artificial bid. If a bid is routinely made despite not having any real suit, because the primary message dominates (the primary message being "= GF"), then the bid is artificial. A lack of appreciation of that fact does not make the call a natural call. Actually, I would suggest that people who really expect 3♣ to be natural should alert the call as an unusual agreement, almost "brown sticker."

[rogerclee]

Ken, if you want to make one of them artificial why not 2H? It makes sense (to me) to make the cheaper one artificial since there is more room to sort everything out. It seems arbitrary to say 3C is artifcial, but 2H is not, and also theoretically incorrect.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Oct 21 2008, 10:59 PM, said:

Ken, if you want to make one of them artificial why not 2H? It makes sense (to me) to make the cheaper one artificial since there is more room to sort everything out. It seems arbitrary to say 3C is artifcial, but 2H is not, and also theoretically incorrect.

Because, for better or worse, majors rule.

Also, I'm not so sure that clubs-as-artificial is so "theorectically incorrect." If I was able to pick a suit to treat as assuredly natural, it would be hearts, because a heart fit is most likely to be the fit where we can agree trumps at a low enough level (3♥) to effectively cuebid, and because it is wildly more likely that partner will actually raise the suit that he can raise below 3NT rather than the suit where he must bypass 3NT.

Also, keep in mind that a Jump Shift sets a GF, which per force establishes room to "work things out." In contrast, a reverse does not establish a GF, requiring that the partnership work out not just strain but also level, which takes more room.

Finally, space savings is only an asset if the space saved is useful. Sometimes it makes sense to dump all of the available space into one sequence line of two rather than to split the space evenly between the two lines if the split of space yields two "C" auctions but the concentration of space yields a "D" and an "A" auction. A 2.0 average loses in the end to a 2.5 average.

[cherdano]

3♣ is not really an artificial bid.

[han]

If I would want to make an artificial bid it would be 2C or 2H.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Oct 21 2008, 11:13 PM, said:

3♣ is not really an artificial bid.

That sounds like saying that the lady is somewhat pregnant. A bid if artificial if it does not promise the suit named. A 3♣ call does not promise the suit named. Hence, it is artificial.

Or, it is like the explanation that a bid is "semi-forcing." A call is either forcing or it is not. Er, wait -- the ACBL has defined bids as "semi-forcing." Never mind that...

[han]

Do you alert all your jumpshifts to the 3-level even if you don't have a special agreement about it? If not, why not if you think that they are artificial bids? If so, you are crazy.

[kenrexford]

han, on Oct 21 2008, 11:53 PM, said:

Do you alert all your jumpshifts to the 3-level even if you don't have a special agreement about it? If not, why not if you think that they are artificial bids? If so, you are crazy.

I do not alert them because it is standard.

What, are you denying that Opener can and occasionally does bid 3♣ (for example) with fewer than three clubs?

[mike777]

ok I try 3d here..as I said.

reversing into 2 card suit or jumpshift into one card suit I will leave for others.

If we agree we do not bid fake suits then...partner will know 3d is really a wide ranging but ...ok wide bid.......


1) unbalanced shortness somewhere..
2) I guess denies 4h or 4s or 4c....(reverse)
3) so far so good
4) range sucks.....not so good.
5) agree this bid not that great..random....
6) If I can just get past this round.