[jdeegan]

Fi fi fo fum I smell 6♦.

A splinter seems odd here, it would be a 'picture' bid, and I am not looking at the right picture. Faking a club suit with a 3♣ bid also seems wrong. I'm not in a position to mastermind this hand just now.

4♦ focuses our bidding effort on what should be the right topic - all the more so because it bypasses 3 NT in a matchpoint contest. If partner wimps out with 5♦, so will I with a pass - my 12HCP opposite an indifferent 11 HCP makes 3NT worse than 5♦, or so it seems to me.

A 4♥ cue bid exposes the duplication.

If we do have the 'magic' fit. we will find it after a 5♣ cue.

If partner was temporizing with spade support, I will subside over 4♠ - after all, I do have just 12 HCP despite the two suit fit and the heart void.

If pard has substantial extras either in high cards or playing strength, he will take control of the auction. I will be a happy dog. My bidding up to now has conveyed a lot of (correct) information, and I have first round control in three suits and good diamond support (even the ♦ 10 may mean something).

[the hog]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 25 2005, 01:48 AM, said:

Despite the 12 hcp, the 6 loser hand with a decent 6 card spade suit deserves a bid of 3S. When pard bids 3NT on his stiff spade, your D will allow the S to be developed. Any other bid by him and you can find the appropriate contract.

3S is the worst bid I could possibly imagine on this holding. Seriously it is a beginner's bid.

My rebid depends on the system I am playing, so again this is a silly question. Playing Strefa, the 2S rebid is clear. Playing 2/1 I would bid a 3H splinter.

[Al_U_Card]

The_Hog, on Aug 25 2005, 03:19 AM, said:

3S is the worst bid I could possibly imagine on this holding. Seriously it is a beginner's bid.

My rebid depends on the system I am playing, so again this is a silly question. Playing Strefa, the 2S rebid is clear. Playing 2/1 I would bid a 3H splinter.

Certainly beginners ignore the system in use and make the bid that THEY want to show their hand, not the bid that partner will understand based on the system agreements. Neither alternate system suggestion was a part of the question, but anti-partnership decisions may always be explained away by "But I know what my bid showed!"

[kgr]

Thanks all for the answers.
I did bid 3♦ and partner passed. 4♦ and 4♠ could both make.
(I don't remember partner's hand, but he has something like 2=3=4=4 and 10 HCP).

[kgr]

Jlall, on Aug 27 2005, 06:01 PM, said:

As a side note, with that shape partner should bid 2C unless there is a huge discrepancy in suit quality

...right. Then he had 2=4=4=3

[mike777]

kgr, on Aug 27 2005, 11:22 AM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 27 2005, 06:01 PM, said:

As a side note, with that shape partner should bid 2C unless there is a huge discrepancy in suit quality

...right. Then he had 2=4=4=3

GEEZ why not just bid 1nt with that shape and 10-11 hcp or so?

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 24 2005, 01:25 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 24 2005, 11:19 AM, said:

If 3 diamonds is the max, then +110 in spades is just as good and +140 will be better than all the +110s and +130s.  At matchpoints, I think it is right to emphasize the higher scoring spade suit and rebid 2S as this is about the only way to play spades if partner holds xx.

Should partner have a good hand, 2S does not end the auction and I can attempt to catch up later with a jump in diamonds.

Perhaps I misunderstood. Is not 2D at 10+ hcp a "good" hand? The 3S bid can always be passed in SAYC if pard only has the minimum for what he promised. Always have to operate with the understandings in the partnership ( or given in the problem)...

I would not consider Qx, KQx, Kxxx, xxxx a good hand, although this qualifies under the post - 10+ and 4 diamonds. So bidding 2S (under the posted methods)allows a pass by responder on the above hand, a raise with a slightly better hand, and a jump to game or a bid of a new suit with a better (good) hand.

And not everyone plays these sequences the same way. I just played a pair in the KOs a couple weeks ago who had this auction: 1S-2C-2D-3S-P!!!!. I about fell out of my chair - they made it on the nose.

So I was very much trying to answer with the posted requirements in mind. 2S, 2N, and 3D are all non-forcing according to the poster. I do not have a hand good enough to force to game opposite a minimum hand with heart wastage. Therefore, due to the form of scoring (mps), I chose to emphasize the higher trick scoring suit and rebid spades, knowing this could be passed but but probably wouldn't be.

IMO, this is the kind of dumb bid you have to make at MPs which is why I hate that form of scoring. If partner does have: Qx, KQx, Kxxx, xxxx, he isn't going to correct to 3S over 3 diamonds - he will pass (non-forcing according to the post.)
Making 3S beats 3D making 3 or 4. Making 2 spades ties 3D and beats the heck out of 3D down 1.

If over 2S, responder bids 3C or 3H, showing a game forcing (good hand), I can then support diamonds and get more excited about the hand. And with the 10 point minimum and a singleton spade, responder may well bid a non-forcing 2N to try to improve the contract after which I can still bid 3D.

The risk with 2S is playing the 6-1 fit instead of the 5/4. But isn't that Matchpoints in a nutshell (emphasis on the NUT, LoL).

Winston

[kgr]

mike777, on Aug 27 2005, 06:29 PM, said:

kgr, on Aug 27 2005, 11:22 AM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 27 2005, 06:01 PM, said:

As a side note, with that shape partner should bid 2C unless there is a huge discrepancy in suit quality

...right. Then he had 2=4=4=3

GEEZ why not just bid 1nt with that shape and 10-11 hcp or so?

1NT would promise 6-9 HCP in our system and we tend to stick to it. I really didn't like partner's pass after my 3♦, but I remember his hand was really minimal for his 2♦ bid... so maybe 1NT would have been better anyway.
His hand was probably something like:
xx=Qxxx=KQxx=QJ or Jx=Qxxx=KQxxx=Q

[han]

I think that it is safe to summarize the view of most posters here as follows:

- It is a good idea to play more forcing bids over 1X-2Y.

- It is a good idea to require slightly better hands for bidding a 2-over-1.

- Even if you stick to your agreements you should allow judgement in hand evaluation. The hands you give in your last post really don't qualify as 10-point hands. Devaluate hands with a lot of quacks, in particular with suits like QJ-tight or a stiff honor.

You can do something with these recommendations or not, it is your choice. The fact that you are posting here suggests that you are interested in improving your game.

[Elianna]

Hannie, on Aug 27 2005, 09:59 AM, said:

- It is a good idea to play more forcing bids over 1X-2Y.

Or you (addressing kqr) could just play that 2y promises a rebid, and thus ALL of opener's bids are forcing, as per SAYC.

[Double !]

[quote name='Elianna' date='Aug 27 2005, 01:47 PM'] [/QUOTE]
Or you (addressing kqr) could just play that 2y promises a rebid, and thus ALL of opener's bids are forcing, as per SAYC. [/quote]
Is a 2NT rebid by opener forcing in SAYC?
If the answer is yes, then what is the default rebid with a minimum hand and a 5-card major? I know, 2M, even on something like a Jxxxx suit. Somehow, such a default agreement (discussed forever on multiple other threads) seems to be such a distortion to me. Therefore, if it is indeed forcing in SAYC, I would like to show my 6-card major suit and then support diamonds, especially playing matchpoints. If responder can pass 2 spades, then I would support diamonds. I need to see what responder's rebid over 2S is before having a better idea about where this hand is going.

[kgr]

Elianna, on Aug 27 2005, 08:47 PM, said:

Hannie, on Aug 27 2005, 09:59 AM, said:

- It is a good idea to play more forcing bids over 1X-2Y.

Or you (addressing kqr) could just play that 2y promises a rebid, and thus ALL of opener's bids are forcing, as per SAYC.

SAYC:
- Open 1 in a suit with 12+pts
- 2/1 promises 10+ pts and does promise a rebid.
=>
If opener has 12 pts and partner has 10 pts then the bidding will go:
1M-2x-2M-2NT/3M/3x
1M-2x-2NT-3NT/3x...
1M-2x-3x-3NT/4x...
After 1M-2x; the probability that opener has only 12 pts and partner has only 10 pts is highest (..I think). So - certainly at MP's - this can not be the best system because you will often be too high?
----------------------------------------------------------
I agree that my initial problem shows that it would be better to have one of the 3 bids forcing. I would say to make 1M-2x-3x forcing, or would you rather propose any of the other bids (2M/2NT) ?
----------------------------------------------------------
A related problem that we have is (we play strong NT without 5-card M):
1M-2x-2NT/3NT: What should opener bid with 14 HCP?
- You can say he should bid 2NT, so that the bid of 3NT is reserved for strong hands.
- You can say he should bid 3NT, then partner is not under too much pressure with 11 HCP (to get to 25HCP: opener only has to add 1 pt to partner's minimum; partner would have to add 2 pts to openers minimum)