[cnszsun]

Thanks a lot.
I held the north hand.
My partner and i played a lot, but we never deeply discussed such sequence.
As to my understanding, 2♥ is one round forcing.
After 2♥, i have first tough choice. I don't want to emphasize my ♣s again, so i bid 2♠. With 3♠s and a maximum hand, i will bid 3♠, so 2♠ now is either 3♠s with bad hand or 2 cards false preference. Surely it's passable and it also stays low.
After 3♦ from partner, I had to make second choice. I chose 3♥ because i thougth it showed exactly what i had: ♦ unstopped, no good ♠, ♥ support.
I'm glad to see my understanding is close to most posters'.

[jdonn]

Given that they play 2♥ as forcing, the auction was going fine for a while and 2♠ was completely normal, then I do not know where 3♦ or 5♠ came from, south seems to have been drunk.

[pclayton]

2♠ should show Hx or better, but nothing else is satisfactory either, so its fine.

3♦ is asking for trouble. This hand isn't slammish opposite a 2♣ rebid.

5♠ is from outer space.

[Impact]

2S= simple preference but is NOT the equivalent of a reversion to set a trump suit in the position of 2/1 GF style (after a 2/1). These 2 positions are not analogous - and seems (absent specific partnership agreements) to be the root of a few correspondents' arguments.

After responder establishes that opener has at least a doubleton S, 4S appears clearcut. When opener has rebid his C - showing a hand which he is willing to let responder believe is about 6 cards in length or equivalence (albeit there are hands in most standard systems where he does not hold such), it is the height of optimism on the part of responder to look for slam - and worse to proceed uninvited to the 5-level!

Hands which fit for slam tend to look like long C with no values there:
eg KQ Kxx AJx xxxxxx or 7C with neither A nor K!! That is against the odds to look for, and the problem is that if he has a slightly less suitable hand but rich in controls he will move - and thereby get you to a hopeless or at least against the odds slam:-

eg Kx Kxx Kx ATxxxx 5 controls including Keycards in both your suits, and slam is awful, but if you make any slam-going move, opener legitimately should believe he has gold.

regards

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Jun 24 2007, 07:12 PM, said:

Those who criticize 2♠ are way off the mark. Just what do they suggest instead?

3♣, but maybe this has something to do with my rebids if I have 3145 or 3136 (2♣ for me, 2♠ for you).

Not sure if I make it clear, but I mean that with the hands I bid 2♠ now, I think most of the people here would have already raised to 2♠ the round before.

[Codo]

Obviously there is a disense about the quality of the 2 ♠ bid, but most experts agree that it is correct. But I still disagree:

The author wrote that he and his pd agree that 3 Spade (after 2 Heart) shows a mamimum with 3 Spades. Oka, we all agree.
But the problem is: How should you show the difference between no real fit and minimum and a kind of a fit and minimum? If you bid 2 Spade on xx or KQ or xxx or Kxx in a minimum hand, pd has big troubles to find the best contract.
Opposite Kx, 9xx, Jx, Akxxxxx 4 Spade has some play. But it has no play oppsite the given hand.

So for me a lie about (or the disability to show) these different spade holdings is worse then rebidding a Akxxxx suit once more.

So lets assume the bidding started with
1 ♣ 1 ♠
2 ♣ 2 ♥
3 ♣ 3 ♠ (no 4sf so non forcing 6/4?)

Now you may even stay out of game for a good score.
And even if 3 Spade is forcing in your methods (I think it shouldn´t be), you will reach 4 Spade now and pd will surely not make another move.

[jdonn]

I think it's absolutely dreadful of north to bid clubs a third time. I can only speak for where the minor suit rebid shows 6 since obviously if 2♣ shows just 5 for someone (something that is also dreadful hehe) things are different. 3♣ should show a hand that is much better for play in clubs and worse for other suits. A 7 card suit, or KQJ9xx or something. AKxxxx and a king is a very useful dummy for any suit. Responder might have to pass the 3♣ bid on some invitational hands with a singleton club and then you are probably in a silly contract. If partner bids 2NT over 2♠ aren't you glad you can pass now? If you are south and you are invitational with 6421 and partner bids 3♣ then now what? Easy pass if you can count on partner to be minimum with very good clubs. But if he can have the given hand you are forced to bid spades again and there is poor partner next time with a stiff spade and KQJxxxx of clubs.

Yes it's possible to be stuck into bidding 3♣ on a suit like this when there is just no other bid, like x Ax xxxx AKxxxx. But where there is the slightest alternative, and 2♠ on a doubleton is a fine one, then I just don't get it.

[SoTired]

And nobody passes xx Kxx Jx AKxxxx ?

[han]

jdonn, on Jun 25 2007, 05:02 AM, said:

I think it's absolutely dreadful of north to bid clubs a third time.

Well said Josh.

Quote

Yes it's possible to be stuck into bidding 3♣ on a suit like this when there is just no other bid, like x Ax xxxx AKxxxx. But where there is the slightest alternative, and 2♠ on a doubleton is a fine one, then I just don't get it.

Again I completely agree.

[helene_t]

SoTired, on Jun 25 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

And nobody passes xx Kxx Jx AKxxxx ?

You mean as opening? No, this is a rule-of-20 hands with a decent suit and no rebid problem. If you insist on not opening this hand with 1♣, you should open 3♣.

Or do you mean after 2♥? Some play 2♦ as NMF after 2♣ so that 2♥ is non-forcing. But I think 2♥ is forcing in "standard" methods.

[SoTired]

helene_t, on Jun 25 2007, 09:27 AM, said:

SoTired, on Jun 25 2007, 01:12 PM, said:

And nobody passes xx Kxx Jx AKxxxx ?

You mean as opening? No, this is a rule-of-20 hands with a decent suit and no rebid problem. If you insist on not opening this hand with 1♣, you should open 3♣.

No... I meant not opening it. It is just barely 11 hcp (counting Jx full value). The majors are weak. It has a nice suit, but it has no singleton. My style is 11 hcp needs a singleton. This is a marginal opener for me. I might or might not open it.

I was just wondering if anybody else has looked at this hand enough and decided to pass it on second thought.

[han]

I looked at it and knew I would open 1C.

[foo]

mikeh, on Jun 24 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

Those who criticize 2♠ are way off the mark. Just what do they suggest instead?

How about the Value Bid of 2N?

2N= "I have a semi-balanced minimum with 5 exceptional or 6 ♣'s without 3 card support for ♠'s or 4 card support for ♥'s"

Looks like a good description of: ♠ 9x ♥ Kxx ♦ Jx ♣ AKxxxx
to me.

[jtfanclub]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 24 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

Those who criticize 2♠ are way off the mark. Just what do they suggest instead?

How about the Value Bid of 2N?

2N= "I have a semi-balanced minimum with 5 exceptional or 6 ♣'s without 3 card support for ♠'s or 4 card support for ♥'s"

Looks like a good description of: ♠ 9x ♥ Kxx ♦ Jx ♣ AKxxxx
to me.

1. It's tough to play in 2 spades when you respond 2NT.

2. I think that 2NT should promise a diamond stop. On the auction so far, a diamond lead is obvious for the opponents, and with your partner bidding both majors, there's no reason to think that he also has diamonds. If he does have, say, Kx in diamonds you don't want to wrongside the no-trump.

I don't mind saying 3NT over 3♦ because partner has shown extra strength, and I've already shown a reluctance to bid no-trump.

[whereagles]

If 2♥ is non-forcing, then 2♠ is a rather obvious preference. If it's forcing, then North should have bid 3♣. Apparently, N and S were on different wavelength and that's the problem... N thought 2♠ was a preference, S thought it was an honest 3 card raise.

The way I learned it, it would go

1♣ 1♠
2♣ 2♦
3♣ 3NT

2♦ = 3rd suit forcing (2♥ would be NF)
3NT = better than 3♠, which might give opener a rebid problem

[jdonn]

Double posted, sorry.

[jdonn]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

How about the Value Bid of 2N?

2N= "I have a semi-balanced minimum with 5 exceptional or 6 ♣'s without 3 card support for ♠'s or 4 card support for ♥'s"

Looks like a good description of: ♠ 9x ♥ Kxx ♦ Jx ♣ AKxxxx
to me.

Lol why is it when people make a bid and don't have what it shows, they just state a random definition for the bid that fits what they actually hold? 2NT here shows diamonds stopped!

[Apollo81]

I've just looked at this now. I agree with Frances.

[foo]

jdonn, on Jun 25 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

How about the Value Bid of 2N?

2N= "I have a semi-balanced minimum with 5 exceptional or 6 ♣'s without 3 card support for ♠'s or 4 card support for ♥'s"

Looks like a good description of:  ♠ 9x ♥ Kxx ♦ Jx ♣ AKxxxx
to me.

Lol why is it when people make a bid and don't have what it shows, they just state a random definition for the bid that fits what they actually hold? 2NT here shows diamonds stopped!

In a perfect world, I agree that 2N here shows ♦'s stopped. The rest of the description, as you well know, is dead on accurate.
(Unless 2♥ was nf. In which case this Opener should =pass=.)

I happen to think 2N is less of a misbid than 2♠ here. With Hx in ♠'s, I'd feel the other way around.

On a good day pd has at least Qxx in ♦'s.
...and the auction is not necessarily over yet.
Any Responder with game interest is going to show me that 6th ♠.

*shrug* YMMV.

[jdonn]

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 25 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

foo, on Jun 25 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

How about the Value Bid of 2N?

2N= "I have a semi-balanced minimum with 5 exceptional or 6 ♣'s without 3 card support for ♠'s or 4 card support for ♥'s"

Looks like a good description of:  ♠ 9x ♥ Kxx ♦ Jx ♣ AKxxxx
to me.

Lol why is it when people make a bid and don't have what it shows, they just state a random definition for the bid that fits what they actually hold? 2NT here shows diamonds stopped!

In a perfect world, I agree that 2N here shows ♦'s stopped. The rest of the description, as you well know, is dead on accurate.
(Unless 2♥ was nf. In which case this Opener should =pass=.)

I happen to think 2N is less of a misbid than 2♠ here. With Hx in ♠'s, I'd feel the other way around.

On a good day pd has at least Qxx in ♦'s.
...and the auction is not necessarily over yet.
Any Responder with game interest is going to show me that 6th ♠.

*shrug* YMMV.

Now I'm ok with it, since you switched from the previously '2NT shows this hand' to the more accurate 'I don't think any bid fits so 2NT is what I consider the least lie', which is fine.