[Flame]

luke warm, on Nov 13 2004, 12:26 PM, said:

do you play the j/s is forcing to game? if so i bid 5D

Are we sure 4D isnt cue bid for club contract ?

[pclayton]

With this partner, the jump shift s/b game force.

Adding yet some more uncertainty to the 4♣ call......

[whereagles]

I'm not too strong, but with those fillers in pard's suits, I'm quite ok for a 4C bid. After pard's 4D, I bid 5C (nothing more to add - 4C is already a strongish bid in the way I'm used to play).

[Fluffy]

So partner has only 3♣ ? that is consistent only with 7♦ suit, and then he would had bid 5♦, not 4♦.

So wich such garbage you decided to bid 4♣ instead of 5?, what are you waiting to bid them then?.

Some explanation of why he cannot have 6♦3♣:

-If he has any 6322 he would bid 2NT.
-If he has a 3163 he would obviously bid 2NT to be able to get back the ♠ fit after a relay.
-If he has 1363 he has a much cheaper reverse: 2♥.

[the hog]

Just keep on bidding C and he will learn not to manufacture stupid bids in future.

[EricK]

The_Hog, on Nov 13 2004, 11:01 PM, said:

Just keep on bidding C and he will learn not to manufacture stupid bids in future.

If only bridge players did learn so easily...

Eric

[PriorKnowledge]

♠KQJ ♥KQJ ♦AKxxxx ♣x

You open 1D, partner bids 1H, what is your rebid?

You open 1D, partner bids 1S, what is your rebid?

[Fluffy]

PriorKnowledge, on Nov 14 2004, 12:01 AM, said:

♠KQJ ♥KQJ ♦AKxxxx ♣x

You open 1D, partner bids 1H, what is your rebid?

You open 1D, partner bids 1S, what is your rebid?

A. 1♠ easy

B. 2♥ or 2NT, depends on soemagreements, 2NT if no agreements

[the hog]

PriorKnowledge, on Nov 14 2004, 10:01 AM, said:

♠KQJ ♥KQJ ♦AKxxxx ♣x

You open 1D, partner bids 1H, what is your rebid?

You open 1D, partner bids 1S, what is your rebid?

2NT Game forcing, not necessarily balanced. Likely 3 card support for partner. Various checkback mechanisms apply. Seriously what is the problem?

[pclayton]

Ok - I'll finish this up.

1♦ - 1♠
3♣ - 4♣
4♦ - 5♦
6♦

He held:

K
Ax
AQJxxx
Axxx

Frankly, I thought it was a reasonable auction up until 6♦. But get this: he thought 4♣ was stronger than 5♣, thought it was a fast arrival situation since we're in a game force. I don't think so; since 3♣ could have been on a fragment with either a long suit or spade support and we need to straighten out his hand type.

His suggested call over 3♣: 3♦!. A false preference in a stiff K!. I'm happy that no one even suggested that.

I kindled suggested I didn't think he should force to game on that, even then he had fully bid his values up to 5♦.

Thanks for the posts.

[Chamaco]

pclayton, on Nov 14 2004, 01:41 AM, said:

Ok - I'll finish this up.

1♦ - 1♠
3♣ - 4♣
4♦ - 5♦
6♦

He held:

K
Ax
AQJxxx
Axxx

Frankly, I thought it was a reasonable auction up until 6♦. But get this: he thought 4♣ was stronger than 5♣, thought it was a fast arrival situation since we're in a game force. I don't think so; since 3♣ could have been on a fragment with either a long suit or spade support and we need to straighten out his hand type.

His suggested call over 3♣: 3♦!. A false preference in a stiff K!. I'm happy that no one even suggested that.

I kindled suggested I didn't think he should force to game on that, even then he had fully bid his values up to 5♦.

Thanks for the posts.

With stiff spades K, I think opener's rebid could be 2NT (rather than 3C), slight distortion of the hand, but least of evils IMO.

[luke warm]

Flame, on Nov 13 2004, 08:43 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 13 2004, 12:26 PM, said:

do you play the j/s is forcing to game? if so i bid 5D

Are we sure 4D isnt cue bid for club contract ?

guess not.. but i *do* have the king

[EricK]

pclayton, on Nov 14 2004, 01:41 AM, said:

Ok - I'll finish this up.

1♦ - 1♠
3♣ - 4♣
4♦ - 5♦
6♦

He held:

K
Ax
AQJxxx
Axxx

Frankly, I thought it was a reasonable auction up until 6♦. But get this: he thought 4♣ was stronger than 5♣, thought it was a fast arrival situation since we're in a game force. I don't think so; since 3♣ could have been on a fragment with either a long suit or spade support and we need to straighten out his hand type.

His suggested call over 3♣: 3♦!. A false preference in a stiff K!. I'm happy that no one even suggested that.

I kindled suggested I didn't think he should force to game on that, even then he had fully bid his values up to 5♦.

Thanks for the posts.

If he is going to bid a slam, why not 6♣? 6♦ can't really have much of a play if you fail to cue-bid either major, but 6♣ might just scrape 3♣, 6♦, ♥A and a ruff in each hand.

There is probably a lot to be said for some sort of "coded" responses to jump rebids. Something like: Cheapest suit agrees partner's first suit, next cheapest suit agrees partner's second suit, NT is natural, other suits show no support and inability to bi NT.

So here, 3♦ shows ♦ support, 3♥ shows ♣ support, 3♠ shows no ♥ stop, no support, 3NT shows ♥ stop and no support.

I don't think much of partner's 3♣ bid on such a weak suit. Obviously he didn't think much of it either, else he wouldn't have put himself back into ♦.

I don't think this is a fast arrival situation, but I would say that 4♣ is a raise based on high cards, and 5♣ is more distributional (possibly a 4-1-2-6 minimum hand).

Eric

[whereagles]

Actually, I did think of bidding 3D on

1D 1S
3C 3D

but in this case there is a good alternative, so no need to "try" something

Oh.. by the way, pard streched the hand. A 2C rebid is more flexible. A game might be missed, but there is a lot pard needs to know from your hand and 3C self-preempts him out of that information.

1D 1S
2C 3C
3D 4D
4N 5D
6C

is perhaps the better auction.

[helene_t]

What's the problem? This is the ideal hand for the 4th suit forcing.

[bearmum]

The_Hog, on Nov 14 2004, 12:01 PM, said:

Just keep on bidding C and he will learn not to manufacture stupid bids in future.

LOL Ron - good idea - but I guess you have to HOPe he gets the message BEFORE you get too many BOTTOM scores

[EricK]

Your thread is entitled "example why I hate 2/1"

What alternative "natural" structure do you have in mind that avoids the problems with potentially "manufactured" bids?

Eric

[pclayton]

EricK, on Nov 14 2004, 04:24 AM, said:

Your thread is entitled "example why I hate 2/1"

What alternative "natural" structure do you have in mind that avoids the problems with potentially "manufactured" bids?

Eric

Well Eric I'm glad you asked

Strong club systems handle this quite nicely, but a lot of the posters around here (me included) play some sort of ACOl-type 2♣ opener.

My 2♣ opener specifically shows 4-5 losers, at least 5 controls and usually 19-21 HCP. It also shows the 20-21 balanced hand. If the loser count and controls are there, the hand can be opened with a LOT less; I've made the call on a 14-15 count before. Responses are in control steps.

Whether or not the subject hand applies is a matter of debate. It contains 6 controls, 18 HCP and 5 losers, but the stiff K is something of a red flag.

The reason I posted the hand is to demonstrate the awkwardness of these manuafactured jump shifts and reverses. In our 2/1 system, reverses and jump shifts now become 100% natural and technically non-forcing, since opener's 1 bids are limited.

[Chamaco]

pclayton, on Nov 14 2004, 06:42 PM, said:

The reason I posted the hand is to demonstrate the awkwardness of these manuafactured jump shifts and reverses. 

This can easily be overcome (in 2/1 or alike) by means of the adoption of the "concealed reverse", which saves space.

e.g
1D:1S
?

2H = one step higher than suit rebid = unspecified reverse (not necessarily hearts, not necessarily 2-suiter).
Now responder describes his hand (use whatever gadget or relay response u like).

This has the advantage of guaranteeing almost always a rebid at the 2 levele only, keeping the 3 level free for use, precious for critical hands.

Such a scheme is used by some players in Italy, coupled with a 2/1 scheme (no strong club).

[cf_John0]

helene_t, on Nov 14 2004, 05:32 AM, said:

What's the problem? This is the ideal hand for the 4th suit forcing.

Moderate.