[han]

Fred, would you mind posting how you checkback? If that means you have to post your whole 1H-1S-2NT structure, even better!

[rogerclee]

fred, on Oct 29 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

I'm a little surprised that nobody mentioned 3NT as a possible rebid (perhaps because it was not listed in the poll).

Fred what kind of hand do you play 3N shows? I would expect much better hearts, probably not a balanced hand, and I would be slightly worried about losing spades. Do you play this is just a choice of games with 6 hearts?

[fred]

rogerclee, on Oct 29 2008, 09:14 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 29 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

I'm a little surprised that nobody mentioned 3NT as a possible rebid (perhaps because it was not listed in the poll).

Fred what kind of hand do you play 3N shows? I would expect much better hearts, probably not a balanced hand, and I would be slightly worried about losing spades. Do you play this is just a choice of games with 6 hearts?

Agree - a more typical hand would be 1633 with stronger hearts and around the same HCP values.

But it is not like any rebid is perfect. At least 3NT says both:

- long hearts
- notrump-oriented

While both 3H and 2NT say only one of these things (and club rebids say nothing at all).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

han, on Oct 29 2008, 09:13 PM, said:

Fred, would you mind posting how you checkback? If that means you have to post your whole 1H-1S-2NT structure, even better!

It is basically "transfers":

After 1H-1S-2NT:

- 3C=Either long diamonds or 2-card heart fit
- 3D=3+ hearts
- 3H=5+ spades
- 3S=Long clubs

Opener would usually complete the transfer over 3C, 3D, or 3H since responder could be trying to sign off.

Same basic idea after 1H-1NT-2NT except that:

- 3H=At least 5-5 in the minors

Probably would be better to use 3S for that and use 3H as club-showing, but keeping 3S as club-showing in both auctions is easier to remember.

Same basic idea after 1S-1NT-2NT except that:

- 3D=5+ hearts
- 3H=3+ spades

We also (unfortunately!) have detailed agreements about what happens on the next round. Sorry but I am not going to explain how those works (trust me - you will be better off not knowing).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[TimG]

pclayton, on Oct 29 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

Clee, no one else is suggesting this hand is a GF, so I don't know why you think it is.

Perhaps he sometimes thinks for himself even if he might get it wrong. (I'm not saying he is wrong.) Discussing things when your opinion differs is often a good way to better understanding.

[Flameous]

Again I'm so very happy playing Gazilli. Never have trouble with hands like this.

[whereagles]

another of these strong 2 hands? it's like the 1000th of them... my solution is: either have a bid for these or open 2♣.

Of course, that side of the ocean, the bid is 1♥ + 3♣

[mikeh]

han, on Oct 29 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

Congratulations on playing expert bridge where 2NT does not deny six hearts. Do you and your expert partner play an asking bid so that partner can find out whether you have 5 or 6 hearts? I don't, and my partner has never made an effort to offer 4H as a final contract when he held a doubleton. Maybe this is something that we need to discuss because apparently we are missing out! The truth is that if I rebid 2NT with a 6-card heart suit, I will not up in 4M unless partner has 3 hearts. I'm not saying that this is always bad, but it doesn't seem right on this hand.

I appreciated your input on the Ax 10xxx AKQJxx x thread (I really did!) even though I disagree with the idea that the minimum requirement for a reverse is higher than that of a 3m rebid. But are you now saying that that hand is not even worth a good 15-count? Well, I guess it has only 14 HCP so you must be right.

As for this hand, it is a very nice looking 18-count with a 6-card suit, should we make the same bid that we would with a 5332 17-count? To me 2NT seems just as much of an underbid as 2M.

While I haven't been playing bridge as long as you have, I always thought that 1M-1X-3M showed about 16-18. After all, what else are we supposed to do with 18-count 6331 hands? And yes, that means I rebid 2M with many 15-counts.

Mark me down for 3H.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... I should know, since I indulge in it so often

More seriously, I was gratified to read Fred's post.. which I will copy and suggest to those partners with whom I play transfers over 2N rebids. I had suggested 2N on the basis that while my partners 'know' that 2N MIGHT contain 6 hearts, we generally cannot get back to hearts on a 6-2... and never on those hands where it really pays... when he has a stiff. Frankly, on this hand-type, 3N on a 6-2 will often work out just fine.. as Fred suggests, a rebid of 3♥ in effect invites partner to consider 3N with a doubleton.. but not (usually) with a stiff... so your point about missing a 6-2 fit seems ill-founded... my concern is missing the 6-1.. but that concern is ameliorated by my shape... 3♥ is frequently 6331 or 6322 with an xx side suit... indeed, were we to hold Ax AK9xxx AJx xx, wouldn't we all consider this to be a sound 3♥ rebid?

As for the 2=4=6=1 hand, I posted that 2♦ was a conservative call... and I can tell you now that had the hand been 2=1=6=4, swapping the round suits, I would cheerfully jump to 3♦ as the value bid... minimum but clear. I can expand on the difference, in terms of why I choose 2♦ with 2=4=6=1 and 3♦ with 2=1=6=4, but I expect that you can do the analysis yourself. A hint: diamonds will almost never be an inferior minor trump suit, but 10 trick games are often easier than 11...


BTW, do you really rebid 2♥ with, say, Axx AK109xx Axx x? Wow

Or Kxx AKJ9xx Axx x? wow again

Or Qx AKQ10xx Axx xx? wow, wow, wow.

Yes, we can and should rebid 2M with SOME 15 counts, but the problem lies in the terminology. Using hcp as the only descriptor of hand strength leads to such absurdities. Calling the subject hand an 18 count as if that describes it is silly. stating that the 3♥ rebid shows 16-18 hcp is as just as silly... and you know it... you'd never dream of rebidding 2♥ with at least 2 of my example hands... would you? Yet, if you announce to you opps, when they enquire... what strength does 3♥ show.. do you really say 16-18 hcp?

I could go on, but I think that I would be descending into one of those little brawls, and I've gone far enough, I hope, to show why I took the position I did.

[han]

mikeh, on Oct 29 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

I was gratified to read Fred's post.. which I will copy and suggest to those partners with whom I play transfers over 2N rebids. I had suggested 2N on the basis that while my partners 'know' that 2N MIGHT contain 6 hearts, we generally cannot get back to hearts on a 6-2... and never on those hands where it really pays... when he has a stiff. Frankly, on this hand-type, 3N on a 6-2 will often work out just fine.. as Fred suggests, a rebid of 3♥ in effect invites partner to consider 3N with a doubleton.. but not (usually) with a stiff... so your point about missing a 6-2 fit seems ill-founded... my concern is missing the 6-1.. but that concern is ameliorated by my shape... 3♥ is frequently 6331 or 6322 with an xx side suit... indeed, were we to hold Ax AK9xxx AJx xx, wouldn't we all consider this to be a sound 3♥ rebid?

I am not sure what you mean by "this hand type", I suggest we talk about this hand only otherwise it becomes too difficult. This particular hand has AK9xxx of hearts. It seems to me that this hand is more suitable for playing 4H when partner has a doubleton. Am I wrong and should I fear missing the 6-1 heart fit on this hand? (but if so, why aren't we bidding 3H?) And why doesn't Fred's checkback show the singleton heart instead of the doubleton, if with the singleton we should be playing 4H and with the doubleton we should play 3NT?

Quote

As for the 2=4=6=1 hand, I posted that 2♦ was a conservative call... and I can tell you now that had the hand been 2=1=6=4, swapping the round suits, I would cheerfully jump to 3♦ as the value bid... minimum but clear. I can expand on the difference, in terms of why I choose 2♦ with 2=4=6=1 and 3♦ with 2=1=6=4, but I expect that you can do the analysis yourself. A hint: diamonds will almost never be an inferior minor trump suit, but 10 trick games are often easier than 11...

So your argument seems to be that 3D is the value bid but that 3D hides hearts and we cannot bid 2H because that shows a better hand. Well, I don't play that style but if I did I would draw the same conclusions as you do.

Quote

BTW, do you really rebid 2♥ with, say, Axx AK109xx Axx x? Wow

Is this sarcasm? I can never tell words like ridicule and sarcasm apart, but anyway, I guess I deserved it.

Quote

Yet, if you announce to you opps, when they enquire... what strength does 3♥ show.. do you really say 16-18 hcp?

I would say about 16-18, just like I did in this thread. I expect my opponents to know that not all 15-counts are equal, just like not all 18-counts are equal. As I said, I think that 3H is an underbid on the given hand.

Quote

I could go on, but I think that I would be descending into one of those little brawls, and I've gone far enough, I hope, to show why I took the position I did.

If from your perspective this is getting close to a brawl then we should stop but from my perspective it has been a very educational thread (just like the thread about the 2461 hand).

I understand why you choose 2NT but I don't understand why you made it sound like 2NT is the only reasonable call and close to perfect. It is both an underbid and a misbid (while our partners may know that we can have 6 hearts, they were not able to do anything useful with that information). All other calls are flawed as well so we are back to usual: pick the the call you think is least bad.

[kenrexford]

655321, on Oct 29 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

2NT for me, and until I read some of the earlier posts I thought that was relatively normal.

Sure, I don't have methods to uncover the 6th heart, but partner will pass a 3♥ rebid with a lot of hands that make game.

Similarly, opening 2NT with 18-19 and a good 6 card suit often works well in practice.

I was wondering when someone would note that. This looks like a 2NT opener to me.

Just noticed that Fred and an unnamed partner also are drawn to a 2NT opening. Humorously, a friend and partner of mine just gave me a hand almost identical to this and asked what I would open. I said 2NT. He had opened 2NT also. The funny thing, though, was his response to regular stayman (he was not playing Puppet with this partner). He bid 3♦!!! His theory was that a 6-4 fit was less likely than the likelihood that the miscue for the defense would gain. I kind of liked the thinking. LOL

[benlessard]

These are fairly common problems hand. But they always bring up heated discussions. I think the main point of the hand is that strongish hands with AKxxxx, AQxxxx or KJTxxx do bad vs a singleton or void but tend to do pretty well vs a low doubleton. So here the fit is promordial in determining if the hand is strong enough for game or not.

The old school 3 in your suit bid showed a semi-solid suit so that responder holding 2A and a stiff trump could bid 4M and expect partner to claim fairly early in the hand. I play that style and my minimum requirement is KQJ9xx, anything less isnt solid enough. With that style it doesnt even cross your mind to bid 3H here. The downside however is you need to rebid 2m fairly often. In imps its probably a safe way to deal with the hand, if partner rebid 2H you might even gamble into 4H directly but if he pass 2C youll be happy. Even holding 5C and 2H and some working values partner is expected to false preference at 2H. In Mp however its just doesnt work, 2H making 2/3 is just too likely to beat a club partial so that players strongly stretch to rebid 3M with any excuses.

Also at first is something pretty unnatural and disgusting into rebidding Qxx instead of AKTxxx.
with

A
AKTxxx
Axx
Qxx

But you get used to it pretty quickly.
If i asked most top players in montreal most would bid 2C, but if i asked on the internet 2C will not get 10% of the votes.

The 2nd style is to play that 2NT is 18-19 and may contain 6H. This work but still require that with slightly weaker range (15-17) you still need to bid a 3 card minor even with a 6M. also,

1M---1Nt------2m------2x------2NT is the way to show the 15-17 balanced & semi-balanced hands.


The 3rd style is to somewhat overbid by GF on hands that will play badly on misfits or to have less suit quality requirement so that 3M is mostly showing values rather than suit quality, partner will respond 3Nt with + values and no fit rather than raise with a stiff, opener is expected to come back a 4M with an almost self-sufficient suit for fear that partner has aces rather than slow values.

Note that Gazilli and 2Nt artificial GF (i hate both) dont really help here. What might help however is the cheapest JS/cheapest reverse as an artificial bid. Switching 3H for 3C

1H-------1S
3H and 3S are GF but 3C is artificial and not GF


In the minors its also the same problems

1D-----1M
3D

with AKxxxx is something i truly detest but for many players 2D is minimum and 1M or 2C into 3 card is unnacceptable ( esp if you open 1D with 5C/4D)


I dont offer any final solutions but i can safely say that if you rebid 2C on the problem hand it will probably work out better than you think maybe not enough to your taste but .... (I play style 1 so for me this hand is close call between 2Nt & 2C and ill overbid 3C before bidding 3H)

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Oct 29 2008, 08:40 PM, said:

The funny thing, though, was his response to regular stayman (he was not playing Puppet with this partner).  He bid 3♦!!!  His theory was that a 6-4 fit was less likely than the likelihood that the miscue for the defense would gain.  I kind of liked the thinking.  LOL

"Stayman asks for a 4-card major" I tell the opponents when I do this. It is not unusual for the opponents to lead your long major because they "know" their partner must have length there. (No, I don't believe it is to the point that it is an implicit agreement, it really has been a while since I've done this and never with either of my most recent partners.)

[Antoine Fourrière]

2♣ followed by 3N.