[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Oct 21 2008, 11:04 PM, said:

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?

Not sure what you mean by "occasionally", but I don't think I have done it so far, ever.

[pclayton]

Majors feh.

I will avoid a jump shift into a major, but I've never had a problem reversing into 2♥ like this hand and having a problem. It is a big space saver.

As far as Josh's fictional 3=1=8=1 hands and the like; I might jump shift into 3♣, but if i did I would sure as heck rebid my diamonds the next round. Why would I withhold an 8 bagger?

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Oct 22 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

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?

The ACBL alert chart says for conventional/artificial "All other conventional and/or artificial bids" under the heading "Alert".

If your 3♣ jump shift does not show anything particular in clubs then it is definitely conventional or artificial.

There is nothing in the alert regulations to say that because someone considers a conventional/artificial bid is "standard" that it does not need an alert.

Not alerting if you have an understanding to bid this way is simply hiding your understandings from the opponents.

[Codo]

Is there anybody out there who makes a bidding plan before he opens the north hand 1 Diamond?
Because if you do, you will know that you will have no rebid after your partners response.

Maybe you have an agreement that 2 NT or 3 ♦ is forcing. But if you don't have this tool avaiable, you know that the bidding will be a mess within 5 seconds.

I think you should open this hand 2 ♣ and take it from there. Not because it is the clearest GF ever, but because you will avoid more problems then you create.

[the hog]

kenrexford, on Oct 22 2008, 10:55 AM, said:

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."

That is a typical lawyer's comment. You criticise my artificial 2NT because I can't stop midway and ask partner, and then propose an artificial 3C. look, I don't mind 3c as some sort of artificial bid if thats what you want to play. I bet that is not what the op meant it to be.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Oct 22 2008, 06:04 AM, said:

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?

I don't think I've ever bid 3C on this auction with fewer than three clubs, and only very rarely with 3. As far as I'm concerned, 3C is natural, and partner is entitled to raise clubs. With 5-card support and a weak hand, partner is entitled to raise clubs to the 5-level.

I admit that I have discussed with partners some specific sequences where an ostensibly natural call might be made on a 3-card suit.

We alert 1D - 1S - 2D - 2H; we specifically play that 1D - 1S - 2D - 2H - 3H is forcing; we have agreed that 1D - 1S - 2D - 2H - 3H - 3NT shows not 4 hearts and doubt about the club stop, but all other continuations promise hearts.

Similarly we have agreed that 1D - 1M - 3C - 4/5C - 4/5D includes the possibility of a 3-card club suit, but nothing shorter.

I've never done a 2-card reverse either (although I admit I would do it on this hand, I've just never been dealt this hand).

While we're in the 'what would be bid if we were playing different methods' mindset, if I were playing them I would of course open an Acol 2 in diamonds.

[ArtK78]

Wow.

I didn't realize when I posted this problem that I would start such a vitriolic discussion.

Just thought I would add a little more information about what happened at the table.

After the auction was over and a diamond was led, my hand hit the table. Immediately, one of the opponents called for the TD (this was an ACBL matchpoint pairs game on BBO). After a short pause, the TD asked me if my 3♣ bid was natural. I told him that yes, ostensibly it was a natural call, and I did not alert it. I then added that my partner obviously thought it was natural, or else he would not have bid 6NT holding Qxx of clubs. The TD replied "Good point!"

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Oct 22 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

After the auction was over and a diamond was led, my hand hit the table.

jdonn, on Oct 21 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

Then again who says anything went wrong? Your lead opps...

hehehe

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Oct 22 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Oct 22 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

After the auction was over and a diamond was led, my hand hit the table.

jdonn, on Oct 21 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

Then again who says anything went wrong? Your lead opps...

hehehe

Did you note my earlier post, where I noted that diamonds were 4-1 and no squeeze developed?

Down 1, while 6♠ is easy.

[RichMor]

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

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.

Sorry I don't have any clever insults to add to the discussion. Guess I will just have to talk about bridge.

Ken,

OK 'majors rule'. But I don't see any evidence that 'a Heart fit is most likely to be the the fit where we can agree trumps............'.

The direct evidence from the auction is that responder has some cards in Spades and has more Spades than Hearts. The indirect evidence is that opener does not have a lot of cards in Hearts because of the choice to open 1♦.

So if we are going to use the rest of the bids to investigate degree of major suit fit, then we should focus on Spades.

I think it is better to lie with 2♥ than to lie with 3♣ becasue the lower bid makes it cheaper for responder to show extra Spade length and easier for opener to show Spade support.

As to 'a reverse does not establish a GF' and 'the partnership (must) work out not just strain but also level'; that's true. But the reverse gives the partnership much more room. So I don't see any upside for 3♣ just because it is a GF.

Lastly, when we dump or split available bidding space, doesn't it make most sense to assign more hand types to the lower bid (2♥) than to the higher(3♣) ?

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Oct 22 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 22 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Oct 22 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

After the auction was over and a diamond was led, my hand hit the table.

jdonn, on Oct 21 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

Then again who says anything went wrong? Your lead opps...

hehehe

Did you note my earlier post, where I noted that diamonds were 4-1 and no squeeze developed?

Down 1, while 6♠ is easy.

No I didn't. Boo!

[kenrexford]

RichMor, on Oct 22 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

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

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.

Sorry I don't have any clever insults to add to the discussion. Guess I will just have to talk about bridge.

Ken,

OK 'majors rule'. But I don't see any evidence that 'a Heart fit is most likely to be the the fit where we can agree trumps............'.

The direct evidence from the auction is that responder has some cards in Spades and has more Spades than Hearts. The indirect evidence is that opener does not have a lot of cards in Hearts because of the choice to open 1♦.

So if we are going to use the rest of the bids to investigate degree of major suit fit, then we should focus on Spades.

I think it is better to lie with 2♥ than to lie with 3♣ becasue the lower bid makes it cheaper for responder to show extra Spade length and easier for opener to show Spade support.

As to 'a reverse does not establish a GF' and 'the partnership (must) work out not just strain but also level'; that's true. But the reverse gives the partnership much more room. So I don't see any upside for 3♣ just because it is a GF.

Lastly, when we dump or split available bidding space, doesn't it make most sense to assign more hand types to the lower bid (2♥) than to the higher(3♣) ?

Think through the possible actual continuations.

If I bid 3♣, partner knows that I either have clubs and diamonds OR just clubs. He will usually bid 3♦ to find out, although a 3♥ or 3♠ call works, as this solves MY personal problem (I can agree spades either by bidding 3♠ over 3♥ or 4♥ over 3♠). If he bids 3♦, I can bid 3♠, which should clarify matters properly. If he bids 4♣, then I can rule out spades.

If I bid 2♥, partner might be able to bid 2♠, which helps me but to no real gain over the alternative auction. If he bids 2NT, I am well placed to focus diamonds. If he bids 3♣, GF, I am OK. If he bids 3♦, also GF, I am in better shape than after 3♣-3♦, because diamonds are clearly focused. However, I expect that this action is highly improbable. If he bids 3♥, I have the problem.

When he does bid 3♥, on this hand I want to bid 3♠ as a natural call, agreeing spades. If it means that, then we are well-placed for spade sequences. However, we would be equally well-placed in that event, because partner, over 3♣, could bid 3♦ or 3♥, allowing me to bid 3♠, placing us in the same situation.

However, what if I do have hearts? Now, because of this maneuver, I cannot cue a spade card at all. In fact, I think 4♦ would logically not be a cue either, as that would be my call with this hand. So, my only option is a general, meaningless 4♣ "cue," whatever that means. If my heart suit is assured, I have 3♠, 3NT, 4♣, and 4♦ available.

So, I am better in heart-based sequences if 2♥ is always real.

What about the club suit, then? Why not simply make 3♣ always real, which helps in club-based sequences?

The problem with that is frequency. For partner to be interested in exploring a club game, he would need to bypass 3NT. If you play that 3♣ is "semi-natural," meaning a three-bagger is possible, then he needs five clubs for this, maybe. But, even if he can raise clubs, his call of 4♣ does not really gain us anything. He could bid 4♣ after an artificial 3♣ anyway. Where it gains is in that slim area where a raise to 4♣ only makes sense if my clubs are real. That small situation seems to be of less frequency than the simple 4-4 heart fit.

I may be wrong, but it seems logical to me.

[oldman5757]

I will leave it to the theorists to slug it out. Out in the world I'd bid 4♦ and owe P a trump. It wouldn't occur to me to bid 3♣ as I play that it's a (more or less) real suit. To bid 2♥ would occur to me, but I see no reason to bid it when I can define my hand within a very narrow range with 4♦. P should have no difficulty in knowing how to proceed. Even if we end up in 4-3 ♠ fit, worse things have happened. As others have noted, showing strong 3-card support is always tricky.

[han]

A trump short is not a narrow range.

[mike777]

ArtK78, on Oct 21 2008, 10:28 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

1♦ - 1♠
3♣ - 3♥
3♠ - 4NT
5♠* - 6NT

* 2 key cards plus ♠Q

---

If you have specific criticism of any particular bid (other than the final call), please provide an alternative. The alternative to the final call is obvious.

Here is one email response. Much of this may have been said in other posts in this thread but I thought it was a nice summary.

"There is of course a simple solution to these hand types, and almost every regular partnership in the world has added such a solution to their methods. Have a way to show a strong undefined hand!

Method 1: Play a strong club. Now we just open 1C and let the fun start.

Method 2: Play Gazili, as many of the Italian pairs do. A 2C rebid is forcing for one round, either showing a strong hand (strong club up to a 2C opener) or minimum with clubs and the suit opened. By the way, a similar treatment was part of K-S.

Method 3: Play an artificial jump shift, as many top American pairs do. After 1D-1H, 2S is an artyificial jump shift, showing a variety of different game forcing hands. Responder relays on most hands to find out what opener is doing. After 1D-1S, 3C is the artificial game force.
Summary: Cheapest jump shift is an artificial game force (could be natural of course). Notice that this frees up the other jump shifts to show natural good hands (5-5) or better, that are less than a game force. Example: You hold x, AKJTx, AKxxx, xx. You open 1H and partner bids 1S. You can now bid 3D, getting the hand described perfectly. Notice that if you had the same shape and a game force, you will bid an artificial 3C, and partner would bid 3D to find out what you have (strong 1-suiter, strong 2-suiter with either clubs or diamonds, or strong with 3 card spade fit). "

[kenrexford]

Cheapest J.S. = 3♣

[CSGibson]

1♦-1♥,
3♣-5♣,
5♦-6♣,
6N - swish

---

This hand came up in the life master pairs, and my partner and I also invented a 3 club response on a similar hand type (we don't play Gazzili or an artificial 2N, and the last time I faked a reverse on a 3 card spade suit, I wound up playing a 3-3 fit at the 5 level. Both partners decided to play their 4-3 fit after careful exploration). Anyway, the nightmare auction came up where responder had a weak hand with 5 clubs, but the defenders led a spade, and 12 tricks wrapped up on a pseudo-squeeze when both defenders kept too many clubs.

Partner had:

1♦-1♥,
3♣-5♣,
5♦-6♣,
6N - swish

---

Just thought it was an eerily similar problem (not the same, obviously, since P responded hearts instead of spades)

[benlessard]

Quote

If I bid 2♥, partner might be able to bid 2♠, which helps me but to no real gain over the alternative auction. If he bids 2NT, I am well placed to focus diamonds. If he bids 3♣, GF, I am OK. If he bids 3♦, also GF, I am in better shape than after 3♣-3♦, because diamonds are clearly focused. However, I expect that this action is highly improbable. If he bids 3♥, I have the problem.

If the bidding goes

1D-------1S
2H-------3H
3S-------???

opener hand is

3451
3361
3271

Looks like you are very well placed here.

[kenrexford]

CSGibson, on Oct 24 2008, 01:38 AM, said:

1♦-1♥,
3♣-5♣,
5♦-6♣,
6N - swish

---

This hand came up in the life master pairs, and my partner and I also invented a 3 club response on a similar hand type (we don't play Gazzili or an artificial 2N, and the last time I faked a reverse on a 3 card spade suit, I wound up playing a 3-3 fit at the 5 level. Both partners decided to play their 4-3 fit after careful exploration). Anyway, the nightmare auction came up where responder had a weak hand with 5 clubs, but the defenders led a spade, and 12 tricks wrapped up on a pseudo-squeeze when both defenders kept too many clubs.

Partner had:

1♦-1♥,
3♣-5♣,
5♦-6♣,
6N - swish

---

Just thought it was an eerily similar problem (not the same, obviously, since P responded hearts instead of spades)

That is a 2♣ opener, IMO.

[RichMor]

kenrexford, on Oct 22 2008, 03:15 PM, said:

<snipping out me quoting you qouting me>
Think through the possible actual continuations.

If I bid 3♣, partner knows that I either have clubs and diamonds OR just clubs.  He will usually bid 3♦ to find out, although a 3♥ or 3♠ call works, as this solves MY personal problem (I can agree spades either by bidding 3♠ over 3♥ or 4♥ over 3♠).  If he bids 3♦, I can bid 3♠, which should clarify matters properly.  If he bids 4♣, then I can rule out spades.

If I bid 2♥, partner might be able to bid 2♠, which helps me but to no real gain over the alternative auction.  If he bids 2NT, I am well placed to focus diamonds.  If he bids 3♣, GF, I am OK.  If he bids 3♦, also GF, I am in better shape than after 3♣-3♦, because diamonds are clearly focused.  However, I expect that this action is highly improbable.  If he bids 3♥, I have the problem.

When he does bid 3♥, on this hand I want to bid 3♠ as a natural call, agreeing spades.  If it means that, then we are well-placed for spade sequences.  However, we would be equally well-placed in that event, because partner, over 3♣, could bid 3♦ or 3♥, allowing me to bid 3♠, placing us in the same situation.

However, what if I do have hearts?  Now, because of this maneuver, I cannot cue a spade card at all.  In fact, I think 4♦ would logically not be a cue either, as that would be my call with this hand.  So, my only option is a general, meaningless 4♣ "cue," whatever that means.  If my heart suit is assured, I have 3♠, 3NT, 4♣, and 4♦ available.

So, I am better in heart-based sequences if 2♥ is always real.

What about the club suit, then?  Why not simply make 3♣ always real, which helps in club-based sequences?

The problem with that is frequency.  For partner to be interested in exploring a club game, he would need to bypass 3NT.  If you play that 3♣ is "semi-natural," meaning a three-bagger is possible, then he needs five clubs for this, maybe.  But, even if he can raise clubs, his call of 4♣ does not really gain us anything. He could bid 4♣ after an artificial 3♣ anyway.  Where it gains is in that slim area where a raise to 4♣ only makes sense if my clubs are real.  That small situation seems to be of less frequency than the simple 4-4 heart fit.

I may be wrong, but it seems logical to me.

Ken,

Continuing to consider continuations:

1) I think you meant 'I either have clubs and diamonds or just diamonds'
Right ?


2) Agree that the sequence
1♦ - 1♠
2♥ - 3♥
3♠
is ambiguous when one is playing a could-be-false reverse. Is opener patterning out with 3-4-5-1 or control bidding for Hearts or cancelling the original message and showing 3-card Spade support and denying Hearts ?

But a similar ambiguity exists in the sequence
1♦ - 1♠
3♣ - 3♦
3♠
when one is playing could-be-false jump shift. Is opener showing Spade support or control bidding for Diamonds(or Clubs and Diamonds ?)

A partnership needs to resolve these questions based on explicit agreement or general principles('if it can be natural then it is natural') or their personal version of bridge logic.

I suggest that after
1♦ - 1♠
2♥ - 3♥
opener rebids 3♠ to cancel Hearts and show 3-card Spade support. If opener has Hearts then 3NT = ♠ control surrogate and 4 of a minor is a natural control bid for Hearts.

Over to you.