[han]

Yesterday I had the following hand:

Ax
10xxx
AKQJxx
x

I don't remember the colors, we were playing IMPs. I opened 1D, my partner bid 1S and I choose 2H. A strong player who was kibitzing told me he thought 3D was better beause of the suit quality and because 2H often promises a better hand than 3D and we are quite light. What do you think?

But that's not all, the auction continued:

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

2S was forcing with 5+ spades, 3S was also forcing. It seems to me that there are now two options, 4C and 4S. What exactly does 4C show and what would your choice be?

[Apollo81]

(1) I don't have a strong preference between 2♥ and 3♦.

(2) I would bid 4♠ as I have one of the best possible spade holdings here. I think 4♣ shows a hand that is less sure about which suit to bid.

[pclayton]

I agree with the Kib. I think 3♦ is better. I wouldn't think 3♠ is forcing, but if thats your agreement, fine.

4♣ should be a stronger raise to 4♠ within the context of a non-forcing 3♦ call.

[rogerclee]

I think 2♥ is a better call, since the shape that it will allow us to convey is more important than the discrepancy in suit quality. I also really like being 2461 as opposed to 1462. I'm not sure how a hand can be good enough to bid 3♦ but not good enough to bid 2♥.

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand, unless we somehow play 3♦ is GF, in which case 3♠ is also (obviously) forcing.

4♣ to me is a cuebid for spades. I would stretch and bid 4♣, since the alternative call, 4♠, will very often be made on 1462 shape, which will scare partner out of too many slams.

[ArtK78]

1) 3♦. This hand should not be played in hearts unless partner introduces the suit voluntarily. Furthermore, 2♥ overstates the strength of the hand and misdescribes the location of the values of the hand.

2) 4♠ seems right to me. I don't know why one would want to bid 4♣ here. It seems to me to be the bid of maximum confusion and accomplishes nothing.

[jdonn]

3♦ is a misbid, it denies four hearts and shows the same range as the minimum end of 2♥.

Certainly you should raise at the end, 4♣ would be a heart honor better in my opinion (although honestly I can see that could turn out to be irrelevant) so I bid 4♠.

[pclayton]

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 07:23 AM, said:

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠

Forcing or NF?

[rogerclee]

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 09:03 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 07:23 AM, said:

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠

Forcing or NF?

NF, now I get to ask, how are these two things the same?

[FrancesHinden]

ArtK78, on Oct 22 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

1) 3♦. This hand should not be played in hearts unless partner introduces the suit voluntarily. Furthermore, 2♥ overstates the strength of the hand and misdescribes the location of the values of the hand.

I understand the argument that says you want to conceal the heart suit because of the mismatch in suit quality.

However, you also make an argument - which I've seen from other North American players before on this forum - that the reverse is stronger than a jump rebid in the minor.

Unless you play some strange agreements, I don't agree with that. The bottom end of a reverse is the same as the bottom end of a jump rebid. Obviously a reverse might be stronger on average, because it's forcing, but I don't believe it has a higher minimum.

I don't feel that strongly about whether to bid 2H or 3D. It's easy to see either working well (e.g. 2H works spectacularly well when partner has Kxxxx Kxxx x xxx, while 3D is more helpful opposite KQJxx Axxx 10x xx)

As for part 2, I think I am just about worth 4C. As roger says, I might raise 3S to 4S on a singleton, and I do have a good hand for spades.

I don't think 4C promises a club control, it just shows enthusasim. If I had Ax Axxx AKQxx xx I would also bid 4C.

[mikeh]

I am one of those North Americans (and, thanks, Frances, for not saying 'Americans ) who think that the low end of a reverse is higher than the low end of a jump rebid.

yes, this comes at a cost, and I appreciate the logic in arguing that the lower limits should be the same.

I disagree with Art in suggesting that we can get to hearts after a 3♦ rebid... to my way of thinking, partner's 3♥ call over my 3♦ is not necessarily showing 4 hearts... what is he to do with KJxxx AJx xx xxx? 3N looks especially silly opposite our hand...not that any game bid is good... which leads me to my main point.

I disagree with a reverse, because, as I have posted numerous times before, I believe in strong reverses, and this hand is way short of that, and I disagree with a jump to 3♦. I don't think the hand is (quite) good enough. Add to that the loss of the heart suit, and I think that any stong rebid here is overly optimistic and will mislead partner.

In close cases (not that I think this is close), I try to imagine routine hands on which everyone nods after my 2♦... how likely is it that I have missed a game?

That exercise makes me very comfortable, on this hand, that 2♦ is the best rebid. Is it perfect? Are we never missing a game when partner passes? No. But surely no-one here believes that either 2♥ or 3♦ are perfect, either.

Having grossly overbid via 2♥, I would content myself with a raise to 4♠.

4♣, after a reverse, shows something like Kx Axxx AKQxxx x.... or does someone suggest that we would bid this differently, in the context of the methods given? I very much doubt that partner will play us for only 5th round heart control if we reverse into hearts, and then cue bid as a strong slam try.

Having moderately overbid via 3♦, I would be tempted to bid 4♣... opposite as little as KQxxxx Ax xx xxx, slam is very good. The flipside is that I don't like, as a rule, cuebidding shortness as my first slam try when that bid is also the way I set trump. I far prefer that such a cue be based on high cards... if partner has KQxxxx x xxx Kxx, 4♣ may cause him to fatally over-value that club holding.... wouldn't he properly play us for something like Axx xx AKJxxx Ax? How would we bid that hand after a 1♠ response? Surely, we'd at least think about 3♦?

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 07:23 AM, said:

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠

Forcing or NF?

Shouldn't you be asking yourself the question

1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 3♠

forcing or not?

[han]

Thanks for the responses so far.

I was playing with cherdano and it was clear to both of us that 3S must logcally be forcing, for the same reason that 1D-1S-3D-3S must be played as forcing. It was also clear that 4C is a spade raise, the only questions are whether it shows a club control and if this hand is worth it. I have two questions in response to Frances's post:

Is it right to rebid 3D on Ax Axxx AKQxx xx?

What would 4H be in the auction 1D-1S-2H-2S-3D-3S-4H?

[pclayton]

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 08:04 AM, said:

NF, now I get to ask, how are these two things the same?

Because they are parallels. Your argument was:

Quote

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

Why wouldn't this apply to the 2 level auction?

[han]

Quote

In close cases (not that I think this is close), I try to imagine routine hands on which everyone nods after my 2♦... how likely is it that I have missed a game?

That exercise makes me very comfortable, on this hand, that 2♦ is the best rebid.

I don't understand how you can be very comfortable bidding 2D with 7 top tricks. (I realize that that is not exactly what you said)

[han]

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 08:04 AM, said:

NF, now I get to ask, how are these two things the same?

Because they are parallels. Your argument was:

Quote

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

Why wouldn't this apply to the 2 level auction?

Phil you are way off. Even limit bidder Frances probably plays that 1D-1S-3D-3S is forcing and this auction is much more similar.

[rogerclee]

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 08:04 AM, said:

NF, now I get to ask, how are these two things the same?

Because they are parallels. Your argument was:

Quote

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

Why wouldn't this apply to the 2 level auction?

Phil please stop. You know as well as I do that passing 2♦ and passing 3♦ are very different.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Oct 22 2008, 08:51 AM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 07:23 AM, said:

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠

Forcing or NF?

Shouldn't you be asking yourself the question

1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 3♠

forcing or not?

This is a good point. I know historically, some have played this as NF, but it is now accepted that it is forcing.

I'm starting to reconsider this. We are very jammed (self-inflicted) at the 3 level, and I can see the logic of playing this as forcing, just like 3♠ over a jump to 3♦ is forcing.

Roger's argument of:

Quote

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

Still doesn't hold water however. I think a better way to say it is that:

Quote

3♠ must be forcing. Partner could have passed 3♦ with a bad hand, and we have no convenient way to show a good hand with spades over a 3♦ rebid

It is also true that responder could have bid 3♠ over 2♥, but this should be defined as a good suit I think in the context of this discussion.

[pclayton]

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 09:05 AM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 08:04 AM, said:

NF, now I get to ask, how are these two things the same?

Because they are parallels. Your argument was:

Quote

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

Why wouldn't this apply to the 2 level auction?

Phil please stop. You know as well as I do that passing 2♦ and passing 3♦ are very different.

Roger you aren't good enough to insult me.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 12:12 PM, said:

Roger's argument of:

Quote

3♠ must be forcing. Partner should have passed 3♦ with a bad hand

Still doesn't hold water however. I think a better way to say it is that:

Quote

3♠ must be forcing. Partner could have passed 3♦ with a bad hand, and we have no convenient way to show a good hand with spades over a 3♦ rebid

So now I'm a little confused, do you think his argument is wrong as you say, or correct but merely incomplete as you demonstrate? It seems to me like if anything he wasn't insulting you, he was giving you the credit that the later part of the argument (no other forcing way to bid spades) would be obvious to you.

[rogerclee]

pclayton, on Oct 22 2008, 10:13 AM, said:

Roger you aren't good enough to insult me.

I don't see where I insulted you ever. Could you please show me?

I am tired of these arguments based on personal premises rather than on bridge logic. Here is my argument:

3S must be forcing because there is no other way to show a forcing hand with spades, and partner must pass 3D with a weak hand.

This auction is very analagous to 1D p 1S p 3D p where it is universally agreed on amongst experts that 3S would be forcing for the same reasons. This auction is not at all related to 1D p 1S p 2D p where 2S can be non forcing because we have a wide range of bids with forcing hands with spades. Thus your argument that 1D p 1S p 2D p 2S is NF is irrelevant, and does nothing to counter my original argument.

At no point did I need to resort to name calling or insults because I had logic on my side. You very often resort to these tactics when you cannot use bridge logic to argue your point, such as "Roger you aren't good enough to insult me."

Anyways, I still welcome you to either:

1) Use good bridge reasoning to dispute any of my points (which everyone so far who has said anything about it has agreed with me about, and disagreed with you)

and/or

2) Show me where I have insulted you at all in this thread.

On a more general note I think the culture of this forum should change from one of name calling/bullying/OMG I'M BETTER THAN YOU posts to one that welcomes mature debate.