[655321]

I would rebid 2♥.

I belong to the light reverses school, so 2♥ is the obvious bid. For me, as Frances said, a 3♦ bid denies 4 hearts.

If you play very strong reverses, it does seem to make sense that there are hands not strong enough to reverse, but strong enough for 3♦.

But a 2♦ rebid is ... very restful bridge.

[mike777]

I would have rebid 3d, yes this has quite a wide range for me. (see other thread)
2h would be a better hand.

I thought playing reverse flannery takes away alot of worry about missing a 4-4 h fit.
1d=1s
3d=?

[cherdano]

Now that the sidethread has finally ended: What about 4♣? Is it a good raise, or is it a cuebid, as 4♥ would also be a cuebid?

[rogerclee]

cherdano, on Oct 22 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

Now that the sidethread has finally ended: What about 4♣? Is it a good raise, or is it a cuebid, as 4♥ would also be a cuebid?

With a very minimum 5-6 (which a lot of people would reverse with) are you committed to rebidding 3H next? Presumably a 3H rebid would be forcing, so you are now getting dangerously high on a potential misfit/no values hand.

I could see rebidding 3D with a minimum hoping to limit my hand/get out opposite a min with something like -- Qxxxx AKQJxx Qx. After 3S I would then bid 4H.

So I think 4H is natural making 4C the only good spade raise available.

[mikeh]

rogerclee, on Oct 22 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 22 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

Now that the sidethread has finally ended: What about 4♣? Is it a good raise, or is it a cuebid, as 4♥ would also be a cuebid?

With a very minimum 5-6 (which a lot of people would reverse with) are you committed to rebidding 3H next? Presumably a 3H rebid would be forcing, so you are now getting dangerously high on a potential misfit/no values hand.

I could see rebidding 3D with a minimum hoping to limit my hand/get out opposite a min with something like -- Qxxxx AKQJxx Qx. After 3S I would then bid 4H.

So I think 4H is natural making 4C the only good spade raise available.

Wow... I think that this is unplayable. I see the problem you are attemting to solve, but I think you are creating a nightmare scenario. You bid 3♦, distorting your shape, and then, when partner bids 3♠, and a huge misfit looms, you reverse into 4♥ and expect partner to (1) work it out and (2) be able to do anything useful? This is too much for me.

I am a simple soul, and would play (as, frankly, I thought was standard) that the sequence 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠/2N/3♣/3♦ 3♥ showed 5=6 or better. If over 3♣ or 3♦, the bid is forcing.. not because of our hand but because either 3♣ or 3♦ by partner established a game force.

if over either 2♠ or 2N, both of which are F1, but both of which carry no promise of strength and may be (very) weak, 3♥ is non-forcing... with a gf 5=6 or better, you have to jump to 4♥.

I have played this style for many years. It arises infrequently and I have not expressly discussed it except with 2 long-term partners, but I would expect any NA expert to recognize this treatment without discussion.

While I am a 'strong reverser', that constraint does not apply to reasonable 5=6 hands... I would freely reverse with x AQxxx AQJxxx x, as an example, but would require at least an additional Ace if I were 1=4=6=2 and at least an additional non-club K if 2=4=6=1.

As for the comment that a 2♦ rebid is 'restful', as made by another poster, I note that no-one has attempted to rebut the basis of my argument... that the chances of missing a game (or a slam, for that matter) by making a non-jump rebid of a hand containing no primary fit for partner and 14 hcp and silent opps are low... while the chances of things going sideways on us after either strength showing alternative seem somewhat high... heck, even all of you who gleefully reverse can't decide on followups after a completely forseeable auction. You guys are at the 4-level with no idea whether you are already too high, or how to investigate what may be a cold slam.

You may be facing KQJxxx Qxx x Jxx, where 3♠ has little play even when trump break 3-2 and you are worried about your slam move?

Poor old partner had to bid as he did, lest you actually have a reverse, such as Ax AKxx AQxxxx x

Consider: you bid 4♣ with the actual hand.... or with the one I suggested. How is partner to tell the difference?

I have considerably more sympathy for someone like Frances, whose methods are (I assume) tailored to light reverses, with lots of opportunity for either partner to get out at a reasonable level, but in NA, even with so-called light reversers, I suspect that your auction is already teetering on the brink of disaster... your last chance to salvage something has to be to bid 4♠.

Finally, and then I will shut up, I think that the aggressive bidders here fail to do an important step. Forget about the hand you actually hold. Posit some hands that you would expect partner to hold. Imagine that you hold those hands. Then imagine that your partner bid as you propose to bid and ask yourself... what kind of hand would PARTNER hold if he bid that way? I think that the hands you construct as probable holdings would rarely, if ever, resemble this hand. Obviously, if you can do this exercise with some degree of objectivity, and you disagree.. my criticisms of your sequence are ill-founded

But, using my KQJxxx Qxx x Jxx example, if my partner reversed into hearts and then cue bid clubs, I would expect something quite different.. and I would be extremely surprised to find that even game is too high.

Compare to my restful sequence: I rebid 2♦ and raise partner's 2♠ to 3♠. he may or may not pass... I think he should given his lack of aces and the diamond misfit.

[han]

mikeh, on Oct 22 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

As for the comment that a 2♦ rebid is 'restful', as made by another poster, I note that no-one has attempted to rebut the basis of my argument... that the chances of missing a game (or a slam, for that matter) by making a non-jump rebid of a hand containing no primary fit for partner and 14 hcp and silent opps are low... [skip]

How exactly is one to rebute a comment such as "I think that the chances of missing game by rebidding 2D are low"? The only thing I can think of is that it seems to me that you are wrong, but that's just my judgement against yours which doesn't bode well for me. I could say that this hand has too much potential in spades, hearts and diamonds to rebid 2D. That with your seven top tricks you have too much playing strength and there are plenty 8- or 9-counts with which partner will pass and game is virtually laydown. And that I don't want to miss those games when vulnerable at IMPs. That the 17 points requirement is too rigid when you have a suit as strong as this, and that this hand is better than many 1453 16-counts.

But of course it is reasonably close, and if I was a sound opener (which I am not) and a very sound reverser (which I am also not) then I would rebid 2D.

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Oct 22 2008, 06:07 PM, said:

As for the comment that a 2♦ rebid is 'restful', as made by another poster, I note that no-one has attempted to rebut the basis of my argument...

It seemed to me that you knew you were being conservative and could miss games, so what would be the point of repeating that? I don't find your one random example too credible, it's so easy to make them in both directions. My partner has KQJxx x Tx xxxxx and is passing 2♦, now we have both done it I find restful a rather nice way to put it. You have 7 tricks, is it really so much to hope partner has two and they can't (or don't) run five? You even have the right Ax/shortness. Are you saying partner would pass your 3♠ bid with KQJxxx Qxx x Jxx but not with KQJxxx xx x xxxx? I suppose they could defend brilliantly to beat you unless diamonds are 3-3 but you know how it is...

[mikeh]

Quote

I don't find your one random example too credible, it's so easy to make them in both directions. My partner has KQJxx x Tx xxxxx and is passing 2♦, now we have both done it

At the risk of inviting a series of counter examples, would you really bid spades 3 times opposite a red 2-suiter with your example hand? Admittedly, you have constructed a tough hand but is the answer to bid make 3 consecutive forcing spade bids? Maybe it is

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Oct 22 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

Quote

I don't find your one random example too credible, it's so easy to make them in both directions. My partner has KQJxx x Tx xxxxx and is passing 2♦, now we have both done it

At the risk of inviting a series of counter examples, would you really bid spades 3 times opposite a red 2-suiter with your example hand? Admittedly, you have constructed a tough hand but is the answer to bid make 3 consecutive forcing spade bids? Maybe it is

1 - My main point was "look how easy it is to come up with hands that pass 2♦ but make game." The worse example I can come up with, the more easily that is proven. After all, if this hand should pass after 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3♦, then imagine how many hands that shouldn't pass make game!

2 - If you were to get to game, it wouldn't be by responder bidding spades a third time. It would be by him raising to 4♦ and opener bid 4♠ or 5♦ (betcha didn't see that game makes too )

I will only make one more counterexample, to show there are other games to consider. Kxxxx xxx x Axxx. Again, if you think this would pass the 3♦ bid then I don't know if it's true, but it would only further the point.

[the hog]

Personally I think that both 3D and 2H are overbids on this hand. I would ave bid 2D. As the auction has gone now, I would bid a simple 4S.

[Codo]

The_Hog, on Oct 23 2008, 10:00 AM, said:

Personally I think that both 3D and 2H are overbids on this hand. I would ave bid 2D. As the auction has gone now, I would bid a simple 4S.

Ron your are getting really old.

So do I and follow the senior statesmen Mike and Ron.

[benlessard]

Im not part of the light reverse school, but this hand is strong enough to bid 2H. I like the J of diamond and the 2-1 in black. The risk and cost of missing a game by bidding 2D is higher than the cost of going down in 3D. I dont think however that 2D is a serious mistake and i wouldnt lose sleep if partner bid 2D.

Also with 1-2 in the black i would just bid 2D.


Of course any bid over 3D is GF. Over 3S i think 4C is the correct bid. Partner will know that since we dont have 3S we are 2461/ because with a 2452 and something in clubs ill bid 2Nt.