[Walddk]

Scoring: IMP

---

You are playing in the Yeh Bros Cup when this hand comes up. Your system is natural, and you open 1♦. Partner responds 1♥.

This caused a problem in the two matches on vugraph, and a few other matches too actually. What is your next bid? Please explain why.

Roland

[Echognome]

Seems to be an analog of the Bridge World Death hand (although the BWDH typically is 3-6). I would bid 3♦ and recognize that there is no ideal solution. Some will have a gadget for this hand, others will not. "Chacun à son goût."

[jdonn]

I saw the deal. I would bid 3♦. Apparently this worked well at one table and badly at another so who is to say? I don't think the hand is good enough for a fake jump shift, though in principle I don't mind making one.

[mtvesuvius]

3♦, understating my values somewhat, however the best option available imo.

[rogerclee]

I think this is a pretty tough problem. 3♦ is an underbid, but both 2♠ and 3♣ (which are right on values but really wrong on shape) are pretty likely to get our side into a lot of trouble.

I would bid 3♣ but don't feel that strongly about it.

[hotShot]

I want to know about partners 5th ♥, so I need a forcing bid that describes my hand and does not set ♦ as trumps, so that I hear about partners ♥. Partner is likely to have 4♣ and/or 4♠ so bidding a black suit will put him on the wrong track. This leaves 3♦ as unsatisfying bid.

What do you think about opening this hand with 1 or 2 NT to avoid the rebid problem?

[mtvesuvius]

hotShot, on Feb 26 2009, 02:54 PM, said:

What do you think about opening this hand with 1 or 2 NT to avoid the rebid problem?

No! That would be way worse than this rebid problem.

[kenrexford]

rogerclee, on Feb 26 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

I think this is a pretty tough problem. 3♦ is an underbid, but both 2♠ and 3♣ (which are right on values but really wrong on shape) are pretty likely to get our side into a lot of trouble.

I would bid 3♣ but don't feel that strongly about it.

3♣, and I feel OK about it.

[ASkolnick]

This would be another advantage of playing 1♦ followed by 2♣ as forcing. While normally it would show a club suit in addition, I get the added bonus of not getting too high and finding out if partner has a 5th heart. My hand can shoot way up in value if I have support, and if not, I can always go back to the same 3D I was going to bid anyway.

Even if he raises to 3♣, I can just bid 3♦ to show this type of hand.

The problem with minors in the intermediate range is that you:

1) Don't want to Game Force.
2) You want to find out about the possible 5th major to know where you belong.
3) The only contract you don't get to play in is 2♣.

I am sure, there are times when you may get too high, but I think you know a lot more information about responder's hand to make the right decision.

But if I don't have that available, I bid 3♦ as well.

[Walddk]

Most of us think that 3♦ is an underbid. I mean, vulnerable at IMPs, how would you be feeling if it goes all pass?

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that partner responded 1♠ instead. Would you still rebid 3♦, or would you consider a reverse into 2♥ if ...

- 1. You have no agreement. 2♥ is a natural reverse.
- 2. You have a gadget. 2♥ is an ambiguous reverse, and responder has a 2NT relay available to ask for clarification.

As for 2., this is how the top Italian pairs play 2♥ in this situation.

Similarly, on the actual hand, they can make a 2♠ jump shift without promising a suit. Can be a hand too strong for a 3♦ rebid like here, with or without 3-card heart support, but can also be natural, 4-5+ in spades and diamonds. Again, 2NT asks for clarification.

How do you like that?

Roland

[lonesome31]

3♦,CLEAR & SIMPLE

[helene_t]

hotShot, on Feb 26 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

What do you think about opening this hand with 1 or 2 NT to avoid the rebid problem?

lol, if 1NT describes the strength of this hand, it is a 3♦ rebid.

But actually I voted for a 2NT rebid.

[Fluffy]

2NT WTP . This should take us to the best between 3NT and 4♥.

if partner bids 1♠ instead I think I would bid 3♦, but maybe 3NT on a good day.

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on Feb 26 2009, 11:18 PM, said:

Most of us think that 3♦ is an underbid. I mean, vulnerable at IMPs, how would you be feeling if it goes all pass?

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that partner responded 1♠ instead. Would you still rebid 3♦, or would you consider a reverse into 2♥ if ...

- 1. You have no agreement. 2♥ is a natural reverse.
- 2. You have a gadget. 2♥ is an ambiguous reverse, and responder has a 2NT relay available to ask for clarification.

As for 2., this is how the top Italian pairs play 2♥ in this situation.

Similarly, on the actual hand, they can make a 2♠ jump shift without promising a suit. Can be a hand too strong for a 3♦ rebid like here, with or without 3-card heart support, but can also be natural, 4-5+ in spades and diamonds. Again, 2NT asks for clarification.

How do you like that?

Roland

Peachy keen, but completely inconsistent with your original problem statement

Quote

You are playing in the Yeh Bros Cup when this hand comes up. Your system is natural, and you open 1♦. Partner responds 1♥.

There are 1001 ways to solve this problem using any number of gadgets:

* Play a forcing pass opening system
* Play a strong club system
* Use a 2♠ opening to show precisely

♠ A10
♥A42
♦KQT9653
♣A

And, of course, there's always the option to multiplexing some awkward hand types into the auction

1m - 1M
2m+1

I don't find it particularly surprising that folks who have a gadget available to show a particular hand type do well when it crops up.

I also don't mind posts that are intended to show how a hand might present an awkward rebid for standard methods. However, it seems odd to start a poll based on natural bidding and then to suddenly shift gears...

[P_Marlowe]

Assuming I have no fancy agreements: 3D.

The hand is nice, but basically 3D says this, it is
max., maybe super max., but the hand is still in
range for a 3D bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: If you want to go artificial
#1 play 2NT as forcing, showing a 6 carder
#2 invert the meaning of 2D and 3D, i.e. 2D
becomes forcing

[mikeh]

It's not surprising that the Italians have methods for this hand type... I suspect that Meckwell would have, as well, if they didn't play a big club and so don't have to worry about it.

But, absent those specific agreements, I really don't see any alternative to 3♦. It falls into the category of 'wtp?', in that it is a difficult hand, the proposed easy rebid is clearly problematic, but it is so far ahead of all other alternatives that it really is a wtp.

A fake jump shift establishes a gf.. which is almost as much an overbid as 3♦ is an underbid. The worst problem with the fake jumpshift is that partner may fit the jumpshift suit and we may never be able to show our hand type. Partner can easily be 4=4 in the majors, and what do we bid over 3♠, if he raises? Don't tell me that 4♦ or 4♥ are natural here.... they don't, not for a second, show that our jump was a fake.

And over 3♣? 3♣ at least has going for it that it is the most often faked jumpshift, and we can always correct clubs to diamonds at any level, unlike our problem in spades.. but we will still hate it if partner raises.

The biggest downside of 3♦ is that partner will pass when we can make a game... but if he doesn't pass, at least we stand the maximal chance of landing in the right denomination at the right level... besides, opposite a modern 1♥ response, we haven't made game yet

[skjaeran]

3♦ for me. Not perfect, but unless you've got a special gadget, anything else is far worse.

[Echognome]

By the way, my answer to "If you had a special gadget for this hand, would you prefer that if the hand comes up?" is "Yes."

[pirate22]

yes, i have not seen yet a rebid of 2cl surely, this is forward going,as opposed to 3 cl

2cl would be my bid and await developements regards

[skjaeran]

pirate22, on Feb 28 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

yes, i have not seen yet a rebid of 2cl surely, this is forward going,as opposed to 3 cl

2cl would be my bid and await developements regards

You're joking?