[H_KARLUK]

MPs, nonvul

In a good day you hold ♠A9542 ♥QJ643 ♦T9 ♣J

Partner dealts and opens 1 ♦. You respond 1♠ (the higher-ranking suit). Partner rebids 2♦. You bid 2♥, which is non-forcing and lets him choose between your suits at the 2-level.

But, with a scowling you receive back 3♣. Do you think 3 ♥ or correct to 3♦?

[mtvesuvius]

3♦, partner could be 5-5 or 6-5, either way partner should have at most 2♥ otherwise he would have passed or raised to 3♥ before. Therefore, the right bid is 3♦, getting out of the misfit before your opponents figure out to start doubling.

[helene_t]

Agree with Adam. (Edit: oops did you say p could be 5-5 or 6-5? No he must be 7-4, or maybe he took 2♥ as forcing and is now showing a good 1363 or whatever agreement he thinks we have).

Btw most people play 2♥ as forcing.

[jdonn]

mtvesuvius, on Feb 24 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

3♦, partner could be 5-5 or 6-5, either way partner should have at most 2♥ otherwise he would have passed or raised to 3♥ before. Therefore, the right bid is 3♦, getting out of the misfit before your opponents figure out to start doubling.

5-5 and rebid 2♦? But certainly we bid 3♦ now.

Yes most play 2♥ forcing last round.

[mtvesuvius]

jdonn, on Feb 24 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Feb 24 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

3♦, partner could be 5-5 or 6-5, either way partner should have at most 2♥ otherwise he would have passed or raised to 3♥ before. Therefore, the right bid is 3♦, getting out of the misfit before your opponents figure out to start doubling.

5-5 and rebid 2♦? But certainly we bid 3♦ now.

Yes most play 2♥ forcing last round.

You're right... 6-4 or 6-5, I misread the original post.

[H_KARLUK]

helene_t, on Feb 24 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

Agree with Adam.

Btw most people play 2♥ as forcing.

So as you said "most people play 2♥ as forcing."

What they rebid with : ♠A9542 ♥QJ643 ♦T9 ♣J ?
On same auction :
1♦  1♠
2♦  ?

If they rebid 2♥ do you think that hand contains forcing values? If yes, what are they ?

[helene_t]

No, if 2♥ is forcing that hand has to pass 2♦.

[mtvesuvius]

... which would keep us 1 level lower here... However there are always disadvantages to playing a method, and so if partner held x Kxx AQxxxx Axx at MPs, 2♦ is a disaster...

[H_KARLUK]

helene_t, on Feb 24 2009, 09:22 PM, said:

No, if 2♥ is forcing that hand has to pass 2♦.

Thanks. Under 2♥ forcing ♠A9542 ♥QJ643 ♦T9 ♣J

1♦  1♠
1NT  ?

1♦  1♠
2♣  ?

H

[helene_t]

In the first one,2♥ is not forcing. Partner rebid 1NT so he has tollerance for both of our suits, and therefore we can make a nonforcing 2♥.

In the second one, 2♥ would be fsf so we can't bid that. 2♦ is it. With the minor suits swapped we would have to either pass or bid 2♦ or 2♥

[kenrexford]

3♣ is a really strange call. With 6♦/5♣, I'd think you would rebid 2♣ earlier. With 6♦/4♣, introducing clubs naturally seems to be a somewhat futile gesture, and it certainly is futile with 7♦/4♣.

I mean, I suppose it shows what it seems to show, namely 6♦/4♣, but it feels like it should show something different. With sudden interest in hearts, 3♥ stands out, or something wild. With sudden interest in spades, 3♠ stands out.

However, depending on what 2♥ actually means for this partnership, 3♣ as a power heart raise may have merit. Maybe it shows extras in case 3♥ was forced to show a fit, or maybe it shows 3-card support if 2♥ could be bid with 5/4 or 6/4 in the partnership.

I mean, I'm considering this question in the context of a parallel auction that would more noticeably odd:

1♣-P-1♠-P-
2♣-P-2♥-P-
3♦

In that "parallel" sequence, 3♦ to show 6♣/4♦ looks suicidal and idiotic. Hence, the strange call must show sudden interest of some variety, likely because of the now-introduced heart suit. If in that sequence 3♦ seems to support hearts somehow, with some nuance, then logic seems to suggest that 3♣ in the actual sequence, if meaningless or relatively meaningless, might meet that definition as a consistent interpretation.

Of course, the parallel is not true, and the inference is out there, but as a discussion point there seems to be merit in considering this sequence from the "artificial" perspective for future reference, maybe.

[gwnn]

Some people (I think more and more) play 1m-2♥/♠ as a bad/decent hand (4-8/9-11 or so) with 5 spades and 4-5 hearts. The convention is called 'reverse flannery' and aims to resolve this dilemma, that after 1m-1♠; 2m we'd like to bid 2♥ with weak and strong hands also. Playing reverse flannery you can't hold this hand. Many people play 2♥ as forcing even without playing this convention, and then you need to bid 2♦, with a bitter taste.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Feb 24 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

3♣ is a really strange call. With 6♦/5♣, I'd think you would rebid 2♣ earlier. With 6♦/4♣, introducing clubs naturally seems to be a somewhat futile gesture, and it certainly is futile with 7♦/4♣.

I mean, I suppose it shows what it seems to show, namely 6♦/4♣, but it feels like it should show something different. With sudden interest in hearts, 3♥ stands out, or something wild. With sudden interest in spades, 3♠ stands out.

However, depending on what 2♥ actually means for this partnership, 3♣ as a power heart raise may have merit. Maybe it shows extras in case 3♥ was forced to show a fit, or maybe it shows 3-card support if 2♥ could be bid with 5/4 or 6/4 in the partnership.

I can't believe I'm about to say this but I had similar thoughts myself...

I mean if it was natural, anything less than 7-5 would really not make sense. But it just seems more likely that partner is doing something that doesn't make sense.

[helene_t]

Josh, when you talked about juniors that need to mature in Kaplan's thread, I was about to ask if you were getting old, and now I see you thinking the same as Ken Rexford. Do we need to be worried about you?

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Feb 24 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

Josh, when you talked about juniors that need to mature in Kaplan's thread, I was about to ask if you were getting old, and now I see you thinking the same as Ken Rexford. Do we need to be worried about you?

I'm at least glad I decided that it's most likely partner doesn't agree with my line of thought. If I came to the conclusion that partner would come to the exact same conclusion I did, then you would have cause to start worrying.

[whereagles]

Maybe it doesn't make sense as natural, but will that be pard's reasoning?

Anyway, better just bid 3♦.

[Fluffy]

It depends on who partner is, I am sure my partners know I can bid 3♣ with heart support, but its hard to construct a hand that looks for slam with 2 limited non gaming hands.

If we didn't specifically agree that 2♥ is non forcing, and we didn't do so in the last week, IMO the most plausible thing is that partner thinks it is forcing. Natural makes no sense on any way.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Feb 24 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 24 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

Josh, when you talked about juniors that need to mature in Kaplan's thread, I was about to ask if you were getting old, and now I see you thinking the same as Ken Rexford. Do we need to be worried about you?

I'm at least glad I decided that it's most likely partner doesn't agree with my line of thought. If I came to the conclusion that partner would come to the exact same conclusion I did, then you would have cause to start worrying.

What?!?! This is not obvious?

[kenrexford]

Fluffy, on Feb 24 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

It depends on who partner is, I am sure my partners know I can bid 3♣ with heart support, but its hard to construct a hand that looks for slam with 2 limited non gaming hands.

If we didn't specifically agree that 2♥ is non forcing, and we didn't do so in the last week, IMO the most plausible thing is that partner thinks it is forcing. Natural makes no sense on any way.

The idea of 3♣ as a heart-support bid is not necessarily one of slam probing in those partnerships where 2♥ is NF, although slam with two intermediates is definitely still possible. The idea might be to characterize fit type. Maybe fit length (3♥ shows 4-card support but 3♣ shows 3-card?), or maybe something about spades (3♥ generic raise, but 3♠ implies a stiff spade and four hearts?), or maybe even something about diamonds (3♥ implies values but poor diamonds, whereas 3♣ implies HHxxxx in diamonds and hence a trick source?). Something like that. A descriptive call.

Not all artificial raises must show slam interest. Compare, for example:

1♥-P-1NT-P-
2♣-P-2♠

with

1♥-P-1NT-P-
2♣-P-3♣

[Fluffy]

but ken, on the minor raise, 5♣ is a long shot, and 3NT/3♣ are decent alternatives. when the major is the fit your only alternative is to play 4♥.

You already have a 3♥ raise for invitational. There is surelly a place for a 3♣ raise showing invitational with something specific, but at least my meta-agreements won't tell me wich things this is specifically showing.