[Fluffy]

Walddk, on May 31 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

3♣ is a serious underbid, and 2NT is probably the worst bid I have seen in about 20 years.

The hand you posted is an automatic 2NT rebid.

And whatever hand you tell me partner will act wrong after I bid 2NT I can post you another where he raises your 2♦ :-P.

Now seriously, my 2NT is overloaded as your 2♦ is, we know partner may be unbalanced in some cases after 2NT, althou it is quite rare when the opening suit is a minor.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on May 31 2005, 02:56 PM, said:

Walddk, on May 31 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

3♣ is a serious underbid, and 2NT is probably the worst bid I have seen in about 20 years.

The hand you posted is an automatic 2NT rebid.

And whatever hand you tell me partner will act wrong after I bid 2NT I can post you another where he raises your 2♦ :-P.

Now seriously, my 2NT is overloaded as your 2♦ is, we know partner may be unbalanced in some cases after 2NT, althou it is quite rare when the opening suit is a minor.

1. Your 2NT rebid uses much more bidding space than Roald's 2♦ rebid

2. Your 2NT rebid means that you are going to declare a NT contract. Not good if your partner has a positional stopper.

[reisig]

Poor Roland...he seems to be defending this artif reverse all by himself. I've been playing that for many many years...there is really no other "good" solution to many hands. BUT ..what about 1!d followed by 2!h (reverse)?
1!d 1!s
? !s Qxx
!h AKx
!d AKQxxx
!c x

[Kaapo]

This looks a bit like the Perverse Reverse described by Colin Ward in The Three Gadgeteers.

[helene_t]

You can also play T-Walsh, of course.

If I choose to play a standard system, it's because
1) It's standard
2) It's reasonably natural
3) It's reasonably simple

Of course, standard systems can be improved by adding all kind of gadgets. But that would undermine all three advantages. Then I would prefer to reconsider the whole system.

[Walddk]

reisig, on May 31 2005, 07:11 AM, said:

Poor Roland...he seems to be defending this artif reverse all by himself. I've been playing that for many many years...there is really no other "good" solution to many hands. BUT ..what about 1!d followed by 2!h (reverse)?
1!d 1!s
? !s Qxx
!h AKx
!d AKQxxx
!c x

Spot on Richie! The only sensible rebid is 2♥. With or without agreements about the continuation, you won't face a problem. Let responder support hearts all he likes; it takes little effort to correct to spades.

Your hand is too good for a 3♦ rebid, like the one I posted is too good for 3♣. Richard (hrothgar) put it well when he said that 2♦ is the most economical strong bid after 1♣ - 1MA.

Roland

[Fluffy]

hrothgar, on May 31 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

2. Your 2NT rebid means that you are going to declare a NT contract. Not good if your partner has a positional stopper.

I am the guy who has 2-3 times the HCP strenght that partner has, I do want to receive the lead on most cases.

In fact that is one of the main reasons why 2NT rebid GF is the one we use.

[Walddk]

Fluffy, on May 31 2005, 08:48 AM, said:

In fact that is one of the main reasons why 2NT rebid GF is the one we use.

If you really want a GF bid at the 2-level (other than a jump shift), I suppose it makes little sense trying to tell you that 2♦ gives you more room to manoeuvre than 2NT after

1♣ - 1MA

Roland

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on May 31 2005, 04:48 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 31 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

2.  Your 2NT rebid means that you are going to declare a NT contract.  Not good if your partner has a positional stopper.

I am the guy who has 2-3 times the HCP strenght that partner has, I do want to receive the lead on most cases.

In fact that is one of the main reasons why 2NT rebid GF is the one we use.

I agreed, you want to receive the lead in MOST cases.
However, I hope that you agree that you don't want to receive the lead in ALL cases...
Accordingly, it seems rather premature to insist on declaring the hand with Spades wide open. There's plenty of time to bid NT later in the auction...

For what its worth, I'm a strong proponent of "blasting" to a decent contract, however, right now we are in a purely constructive auction. While there may be some danger of a lead directing double, I beleive that these types of hands are best handled scientifically...

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on May 31 2005, 02:04 PM, said:

However, I hope that you agree that you don't want to receive the lead in ALL cases (...) I beleive that these types of hands are best handled scientifically...

No science is going to cater for ALL cases.

But you're, of course, welcome to try and improve your methods. I just don't think this particular case is worth bothering that much with

[joker_gib]

Walddk, on May 31 2005, 04:05 AM, said:

Example 1:
2N: Natural, diamond side suit, not 3 hearts.
3♣: Natural, not 3 hearts, no spade stopper.
3♦: Natural, not 3 hearts, no spade stopper.
3♥: 3-card support, strong club suit.
3♠: 18-19 balanced, no spade stopper.

Example 2:
2♠: 3-card support, strong club suit.
2N: Natural, diamond side suit, not 3 spades.
3♣: Natural, not 3 spades, no heart stopper.
3♦: Natural, not 3 spades, no heart stopper.
3♥: 18-19 balanced, no heart stopper.

I know that there are more sophisticated continuations, but I want to keep it simple. All the above should be pretty easy to remember.

If opps double 4th suit things change a little as far as a stopper in 4th suit is concerned. Now Manco (described by me in an earlier post) applies.

Roland

So, Roland, is it like that ?

Example 1:
2N: Natural, diamond side suit, not 3 hearts. With a ♠ stopper I suppose ?
3♣: Natural, not 3 hearts, no spade stopper. So, 2-2-4-5 or x-x-4-6 ?
3♦: Natural, not 3 hearts, no spade stopper. So, x-x-5-6 ?
3♥: 3-card support, strong club suit.
3♠: 18-19 balanced, no spade stopper.

Example 2:
2♠: 3-card support, strong club suit.
2N: Natural, diamond side suit, not 3 spades. With a ♥ stopper I suppose ?

3♣: Natural, not 3 spades, no heart stopper.So, 2-2-4-5 or x-x-4-6 ?
3♦: Natural, not 3 spades, no heart stopper. So, x-x-5-6 ?
3♥: 18-19 balanced, no heart stopper.

And by inference :

1♣ 1♥/♠
2NT

= 18-19 No ♦ side suit and ♠/♥ stopper ?


Alain

[Walddk]

joker_gib, on May 31 2005, 10:08 AM, said:

So, Roland, is it like that ?

Example 1:
2N: Natural, diamond side suit, not 3 hearts. With a ♠ stopper I suppose ?
3♣: Natural, not 3 hearts, no spade stopper. So, 2-2-4-5 or x-x-4-6 ?
3♦: Natural, not 3 hearts, no spade stopper. So, x-x-5-6 ?
3♥: 3-card support, strong club suit.
3♠: 18-19 balanced, no spade stopper.

Example 2:
2♠: 3-card support, strong club suit.
2N: Natural, diamond side suit, not 3 spades. With a ♥ stopper I suppose ?

3♣: Natural, not 3 spades, no heart stopper.So, 2-2-4-5 or x-x-4-6 ?
3♦: Natural, not 3 spades, no heart stopper. So, x-x-5-6 ?
3♥: 18-19 balanced, no heart stopper.

And by inference :

1♣ 1♥/♠
2NT

= 18-19 No ♦ side suit and ♠/♥ stopper ?


Alain

Example 1:
1. Yes. Natural means a spade stopper.

2. No. 3♣ denies a diamond side suit (3♦).

3. No. 3♦ shows 4-5, 4-6 or 5-6 in diamonds and clubs.

Example2:
1. Yes. Natural means a heart stopper.

2. Same as above (no diamond side suit).

3. Same as above (diamond side suit).

The continuation is all very natural and logical.

And as to your inference:
Yes. Unless I have decided to open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors. I prefer that actually.

Roland

[inquiry]

Walddk, on May 31 2005, 05:29 AM, said:

3♣ is a serious underbid

I missed this interesting thread while I was out of town, thanks Roland for pointing it out today.

First, let me disagree with your quoted statement. Many of us play a jump to three of a minor like this (1c-1h-3c) shows exactly this hand.. strong six card minor, strong three card support, good hand. This keeps us from inviting a reverse in a singleton suit.

Having said that, I do in fact, play a manufactered reverse similar to what you are describing. But I do it a bit differently than you. First, I define this auction

1D-1M-3C as weak with 5-5 in the minors

Next I defind 1C-1M-2D both 1D-1M-2C as "forcing" (well forcing is bit strong). To keep it short, lets just deal with the "reverse" for now... For me, 2D can be...

1) A strong club one suiter without three card support (see 1C-1M-3C above)
2) A balanced 18-bad 20hcp, planning on rebidding 2NT (I use 2NT as forcing M raise)
3) A strongish two suiter not suitable for my "transfer preempt" opening bid that can include strong two suiters
4) A strong hand with strong 3 card support, unusuited for the jump to 3C

Since I play 1D-1M-2C pretty much the same way, there is also no need to create a reverse in a three card major.

The responding scheme I use is based losely upon rubenshol...

Ben

[Al_U_Card]

Without this or other esoteric agreements in place, how about 1S? When pard continues, you can bid on as you see fit, at a level that neither misses a game nor gets you beyond the right level for pard's hand. Science does not necessarily preclude judgement......