[han]

Bidding practice

xxx
KQxxx
AKQxx
-

1C - 1H
2C - 2D (art. GF)
3C - ??

[rogerclee]

I don't get it.. I would bid 3D. If 2D was GF 3C can contain a very good hand ie Ax xx Jxx AKQxxx.

[mike777]

3d even assuming pard can have much much less, much more often.
In fact I will assume pard cannot have this hand but has:

Kxx....xx....xx...AQJxxx

[Echognome]

I would have bid 3♦ over 2♣ showing a 5-5, but understand if you play that as a splinter.

In the latter case, I bid 3♦ for now. I'm still not sure what strain we want to play in.

[mike777]

Echognome, on Oct 29 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

I would have bid 3♦ over 2♣ showing a 5-5, but understand if you play that as a splinter.

I would play this as 4h and 6d and invite.

[Echognome]

mike777, on Oct 29 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

Echognome, on Oct 29 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

I would have bid 3♦ over 2♣ showing a 5-5, but understand if you play that as a splinter.

I would play this as 4h and 6d and invite.

Well no claims that my treatment is standard. I also play that all invites bid 2♦, so 3♥, e.g. would be GF. Sorry if I made it seem that what I played was standard, because it's not.

For example, playing with Jason, I would have the same problem that Han did.

[655321]

Partner passed me in 3♣ one time, same auction (but we were not playing 2♦ artificial), and with a similar hand - club void, nothing in spades, 14 HCP in the red suits. 3♣ was the last making spot. I had something like KJ to 7 clubs and a ten count.

Not sure that I would be brave enough to Pass, but it could easily be right, and I suspect it is best. Probably I would bid a cowardly 3♦.

mike777, on Oct 29 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

3d even assuming pard can have much much less, much more often.
In fact I will assume pard cannot have this hand but has:   

Kxx....xx....xx...AQJxxx

Why will you assume partner has that hand when you heard him bid 3♣ over 2♦?

[mike777]

"Why will you assume partner has that hand when you heard him bid 3♣ over 2♦?"



This would seem to be the typical hand my partner might have...ok maybe I am a bit pessimistic but really...not that much.

Also I thought I have seen Han post that he does not open sound.

In any case it seems 3d is our system bid.

[ArtK78]

It seems that 3♦ is your only bid.

You have 5-5. You bid hearts, you made an artificial game forcing 2♦ call, so now you show your second suit.

So far, no problem. The problem may come on the next call.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Oct 30 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

It seems that 3♦ is your only bid.

You have 5-5. You bid hearts, you made an artificial game forcing 2♦ call, so now you show your second suit.

Yeah, I can't see doing anything else.

[pclayton]

Given that we still may have game in three strains opposite

Kxx, Ax, xx, QJxxxx;

Ax Ax xxx Qxxxxx

xxx AJ Jx KQxxxx

and none of these are would I would call full openers, I can't see passing.

I also understand that hands like Kxx x xx AQJxxxx offer little chance for game, but it's a little pessimistic to play pard for specifically 3=7 in the blacks here.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Oct 30 2008, 11:07 AM, said:

Given that we still may have game in three strains opposite

Kxx, Ax, xx, QJxxxx;

Ax Ax xxx Qxxxxx

xxx AJ Jx KQxxxx

What do you think 3♣ shows? Are you seriously rerebidding clubs with Qxxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♥ when you have ♥AJ and ♣KQxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♠ with ♠Kxx and ♣QJxxxx?
I mean, rebidding 2♣ with these hands is ugly, but you have to do it, but 3♣???

[Echognome]

I'm a bit confused by any discussion of passing. Han wrote that his methods were 2♦ is an artificial game force. Therefore, partner can have a very good hand and still bid 3♣ as he knows you won't pass it! I can understand a discussion of pass if 2♦ was a one-round force.

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Oct 30 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

I'm a bit confused by any discussion of passing. Han wrote that his methods were 2♦ is an artificial game force. Therefore, partner can have a very good hand and still bid 3♣ as he knows you won't pass it! I can understand a discussion of pass if 2♦ was a one-round force.

But 3♣ is also a descriptive bid.
If partner is of the school that would often raise 1♥ to 2♥ with 3 hearts, and usually give preference to 2♥ over 2♦ with Hx in hearts, then the chances of making game have decreased quite a lot. We will make game opposite maximums (see Roger's example), but probably go down opposite minimums. Since partner is more likely to hold a minimum than a maximum, there is certainly a good case for passing.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Oct 30 2008, 09:46 AM, said:

Echognome, on Oct 30 2008, 11:38 AM, said:

I'm a bit confused by any discussion of passing.  Han wrote that his methods were 2♦ is an artificial game force.  Therefore, partner can have a very good hand and still bid 3♣ as he knows you won't pass it!  I can understand a discussion of pass if 2♦ was a one-round force.

But 3♣ is also a descriptive bid.
If partner is of the school that would often raise 1♥ to 2♥ with 3 hearts, and usually give preference to 2♥ over 2♦ with Hx in hearts, then the chances of making game have decreased quite a lot. We will make game opposite maximums (see Roger's example), but probably go down opposite minimums. Since partner is more likely to hold a minimum than a maximum, there is certainly a good case for passing.

I understand, but also think that if partner held something like:

x x JTxx AKQJxxx

They would be none too pleased to be playing in 3♣.

And let me put it yet another way. If we were going to pass 3♣, why did we choose to game force?

[mike777]

Partner may have opened 5c with gnome's example hand or 1nt with Roger's example. It is still possible partner has a good hand so 3d.

[keylime]

3♦ here. Allow pard to bid the NT, or maybe make a 3H rebid - I don't expect 3C to deny something like a x-3-x-6 hand.

[mike777]

I would expect 3c to deny 3h.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Oct 30 2008, 09:12 AM, said:

What do you think 3♣ shows? Are you seriously rerebidding clubs with Qxxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♥ when you have ♥AJ and ♣KQxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♠ with ♠Kxx and ♣QJxxxx?
I mean, rebidding 2♣ with these hands is ugly, but you have to do it, but 3♣???

Arend, the point of these hands isn't to show what a 3♣ call is supposed to look like, it supposed to demonstrate that even opposite many sub-miumums that game is still something we want to bid.

[cherdano]

pclayton, on Oct 30 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 30 2008, 09:12 AM, said:

What do you think 3♣ shows? Are you seriously rerebidding clubs with Qxxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♥ when you have ♥AJ and ♣KQxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♠ with ♠Kxx and ♣QJxxxx?
I mean, rebidding 2♣ with these hands is ugly, but you have to do it, but 3♣???

Arend, the point of these hands isn't to show what a 3♣ call is supposed to look like, it supposed to demonstrate that even opposite many sub-miumums that game is still something we want to bid.

Phil, please re-read what you just wrote. Paraphrased, you just said "these examples were not meant to have anything to do with the auction, they were just meant to prove that I am right'.