[kenberg]

I'm back, and I have another hand on the same general theme of borderline reverses.

Scoring: IMP

1♣ 1♠ and now?

---

In NT they take four diamonds and a club, in clubs they can start and continue trumps to hold you to ten tricks. 4♥ looks pretty good, however. If, say, they start with a trump you win the ace and play the king of spades, tossing a diamond regardless of East's play. This looks like ten tricks. Can we get there by plausible bidding?

This hand has a 17 count, better than the last, but this time I have a void in partner's responding suit, a discouragement. Rightly or wrongly, I bid 2♥. Our auction went

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 2♠
3♣ Pass

The good news is that I cannot legitimately make 5♣ (Opponents started by cashing two diamonds, and I took eleven tricks, but...), the bad news is they cannot stop a 4♥ contract.

Perhaps?:

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♥
4♥


Trusting again that over 3♣ opener will bid 3♠ if he has three, responder shows clubs. The clubs obviously could be better but there are three and responder has decent values opposite a reverse. Opener temporizes with 3♦ and responder shows a good three card heart holding. Opener, hearing that responder has spades, clubs and hearts decides that 3NT on four diamonds to the jack is not wise and bids the game in hearts.

Is this all too far-fetched?

FWIW, 3♣ making 5 scored -1.33 imps. There were some tables making game contracts in both NT and in clubs. No one on the score sheet was playing 4♥.

Added: On the actual auction, I do not think that my 3♣ bid shows a sixth club (as was mentioned with the previous hand). At that point there is no reason to think that respnder holds anything better than, say, KQTxx/ Txx/ Qx/ xxx. With such a holding he will respond 1♠, he will rebid 2♠ over 2♥ and he will most happily drop 3♣.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on Oct 9 2010, 01:01 PM, said:

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 2♠
3♣ Pass

I cannot really understand passing here with a decent 9 count and (partial) fit for both of partner's suit. Perhaps continue with
.... - 3H
3N - 4C
4H - P ?

Of course North may well choose to pass 3NT (although Dxx is a contra-indication) but I think sticking with 4H rather than going to 5C looks right - partner must surely have good hearts here to offer it. If 4C is minorwood for you then you are a bit stuffed. For me minorwood over 3C seems reasonable but not over 3NT but then again it is not a convention I choose to play.

[kenberg]

I assume that responder downgraded his spade holding when I did not raise 2♠. Still, I agree that it is a pessimistic view. The man has seen my reverses before, perhaps.

To my mind, the problem begins with 2♠ instead of 3♣. The 3♣ bid shows the strength and the fit. With the crummy clubs and good spades I can understand the choice, but it causes problems. After I rebid 3♣ over 2♠ it would be nice if he shows the hearts but if he does so it will be very hard for him to later convince me that he holds three clubs on those hands where we belong in clubs.



Y66 passed along (thanks mucho) a copy of a Mike Lawrence book: "Topics on Bridge, 1. Reverses". Hand 22 gives responder

---

and the auction begins 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ ?

Obviously this is really good diamond support but still ML says only "I think I will lead toward the 3♦ bid" (instead of 2♠). I am a huge fan of ML but with all deference I am coming to the view that there is no "lean toward" about it, 3♦ should be the call with almost all gf hands with four diamonds and five spades. It establishes the gf, it shows the fit, it doesn't preclude finding the major fit, it simplifies the auction when the major fit doesn't exist.


I have not seen much discussion of this issue in the bridge lit. ML has the hand noted above but I think that's all there is on it.

[ArtK78]

kenberg, on Oct 9 2010, 08:01 AM, said:

I'm back, and I have another hand on the same general theme of borderline reverses.

Scoring: IMP

1♣ 1♠ and now?

---

In NT they take four diamonds and a club, in clubs they can start and continue trumps to hold you to ten tricks. 4♥ looks pretty good, however. If, say, they start with a trump you win the ace and play the king of spades, tossing a diamond regardless of East's play. This looks like ten tricks. Can we get there by plausible bidding?

This hand has a 17 count, better than the last, but this time I have a void in partner's responding suit, a discouragement. Rightly or wrongly, I bid 2♥. Our auction went

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 2♠
3♣ Pass

The good news is that I cannot legitimately make 5♣ (Opponents started by cashing two diamonds, and I took eleven tricks, but...), the bad news is they cannot stop a 4♥ contract.

Perhaps?:

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 3♣
3♦ 3♥
4♥


Trusting again that over 3♣ opener will bid 3♠ if he has three, responder shows clubs. The clubs obviously could be better but there are three and responder has decent values opposite a reverse. Opener temporizes with 3♦ and responder shows a good three card heart holding. Opener, hearing that responder has spades, clubs and hearts decides that 3NT on four diamonds to the jack is not wise and bids the game in hearts.

Is this all too far-fetched?

FWIW, 3♣ making 5 scored -1.33 imps. There were some tables making game contracts in both NT and in clubs. No one on the score sheet was playing 4♥.

Added: On the actual auction, I do not think that my 3♣ bid shows a sixth club (as was mentioned with the previous hand). At that point there is no reason to think that respnder holds anything better than, say, KQTxx/ Txx/ Qx/ xxx. With such a holding he will respond 1♠, he will rebid 2♠ over 2♥ and he will most happily drop 3♣.

After 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♥, there is no way that responder can allow this hand to stop in a partial.

I think your proposed auction to reach 4♥ is very reasonable, and I think the first 5 bids would be duplicated by most players. Responder might then bid 3♥ as you suggest, or he might bid 3NT. If he bids 3♥, then opener has to decide between 3NT and 4♥. Both are reasonable choices.