[zasanya]

---

You open 1♣ P bids 1♠

Playing sayc or 2/1

Q.1 What should opener rebid?

Q.2 Suppose opener chooses 2♣.a)What wud responders 3 ♣ show?b)Wud 3♣ be forcing?c)What should opener bid on 3♣?d)What wud responder's 4♣ show?What should opener bid on 4♣?

Q.3 Suppose Opener rebids 2 ♠.a)What wud responders 3 ♣ show?b)Wud 3♣ be forcing?c)What should opener bid on 3♣?d)What wud responder's 4♣ show?What should opener bid on 4♣?

Q.4 Any option other than 2♣/♠

[mike777]

1) I will try 2c
2) if partner can find a rebid I will think about slam.

[FrancesHinden]

Q1. This is not an easy problem. If you gave this hand to a panel I think you would get support for all of
2♣, 2♦, 2♠ or even 3♣

To my mind it is a choice between a heavy 2♠ and a light reverse into 2♦, but I am aware that the English style of reverses is a little lighter than the North American style. I think I would bid 2♠ but I have sympathy with other 2-level actions. I would prefer to raise spades rather than rebid clubs because I like to raise with 3-card support frequently; if you partner prefers that you (nearly) always have four trumps to raise then you will have to rebid in clubs.

Q2.a. Invitational. b. No, not forcing. c. If you think partner will understand it shows a void, 4♥, but failing that 3♠. d. Forcing, slam try. e. 4♦, cue bid. If you had to guess the final contract at this point it would be 7♣ but you have a few rounds of bidding to find out about the important cards opposite.

Q3.a. Initially a game try with club support. b. In standard methods this is forcing, but there are plenty of people around who play it as non-forcing so you have to be slightly careful. c. If partner has club support then playing in clubs rather than spades is a good idea. I would bid 4C, natural and forcing and see what develops, but other calls (3D, 4H) are reasonable. d. Matter of agreement. Some people play it as a splinter, showing club shortage and agreeing spades. Others play it as a slam try with club support.

Q4. See Q1.

[EricK]

1. I don't know what I "should" bid. What I will bid is 2♦ and then support ♠ on the next round. This hand looks to be worth about 20HCP to me.

2. If I rebid 2♣, 3♣ would show about 10-11 points and ♣ support, it would not be forcing. In response I suppose I would rebid 3♦. 4♣ is an odd bid. In response ! would cue 4♦ and see what happens.

3. Over 2♠, 3♣ shows, I suppose, 10-11 and probably 5♣ and maybe only 4♠. In response I would, again, cuebid 3♦. 4♣ is another odd bid. It sounds like a cue bid with ♠ agreed. I might venture 4♦

4. I don't like making a non-forcing bid on this hand, and so I bid 2♦. When partner bids 1♠ there is no way I am stopping short of game here. He either has 5♠ or a fit for one of my minor suits.

[han]

I like my hand so much for spades that I will bid 2D.

[ochinko]

2♠ by me means four of them, but the best I can do here is to surprise partner with three.

3♣ from partner is now forcing, as we agreed upon ♠ as trumps. It would also be natural, making me regret I didn't repeat my ♣. I want to be in 6♣ now, and I don't know if it would be achievavable. Anyway, I now bid 3♦ as a cue.

4♣ from partner looks like a splinter. I lack trumps, but I am stronger than promised, so again I accept the invitation, and bid 4♦, hoping partner would make 6♠.

[P_Marlowe]

Q1 2C, heavy, but sometimes you happen to hold
a super max.
The alternative would be 2D, depending on your
reverse style, a little / big over bid, or 2S, which
is an underbid with regards to strength and paints
the wrong picture , and 3S should promise 4 card
support.

Q2 a) inv.
B) no
c) 3S, forcing
d) forcing, slam interest, 4D a cue

Q3 a) game try
B) yes
c) 4H, a splinter
d) no idea, most likly a splinter, because of Q2.b, 4S

See my answer to Q1

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pclayton]

2♦ is fairly safe. If pard rebids 2♠, I have an easy raise. If pard bails via 2♥, I also have an easy 2♠ call.

Over 2N, I'll try 3♣ that can be passed.

The only 'problem' sequence is when pard bids 3N, but if thats Han, I'll know he has great heart intermediates, so I feel OK about it.

[mikeh]

I'd rebid 2♣.

I often play a weak notrump method, in which one needs (for systemic reasons) to reserve the single raise as promising 4 cards in support... one has either a strong NT or a shapely hand.

Furthermore, I usually play meckwell, which removes the weak 5=4 or better major suit holdings from partner.

But even without these agreements, I risk 2♣, knowing full well that this could be a bad spot if the auction goes ppp.

The opps are silent, when I hold a heart void, so I expect more bidding over 2♣...and I think that I will be very well placed if that happens. And it doesn't matter to me who does the bidding.

I can splinter over 2♠.... while one rarely splinters with a void, one also rarely splinters over a non-invitational rebid of 2♠, so I think partner can work this out: AQxxxx xxx xx Kx would make for a fine slam.

After a raise to 3♣, I can bid 3♠, forcing for one round.

After a raise to 4♣, I'd probably make the value bid of 6♣, but I might, if playing this, haul out 5♥ as exclusion keycard or I might try cue bidding in an effort to get to grand.

I wouldn't reverse. My reverses promise real strength, and I'd hate to see partner assume that my clubs are stronger than this: KJx void AQxx AJ109xx would have me considering a reverse and make the clubs the AQ10xxx, and I'd actually do it.

[jdonn]

I really think the choice is between 2♠ and 2♦ depending how much you decide your hand is worth. 2♣ has such a finality to it, partner often passes when there is a better contract available in spades or diamonds on hands like this. It's even just conceivable for partner to pass with slam available in another suit, especially since he will downgrade for club shortness. Sure that's unlikely, but he will very often pass when we have a game. Additionally, I completely disagree with the idea that if partner doesn't pass we can easily describe our hand - we can describe the spade or diamond aspect next round, but not both. For example if it goes

1♣ 1♠
2♣ 3♣
3♠ 3NT

then we are left with a complete guess about whether to pass or bid on. Sorry enough railing against what I don't like. I will go for 2♦, which leaves me with easy followups always, as pclayton described.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Sep 15 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

I really think the choice is between 2♠ and 2♦ depending how much you decide your hand is worth. 2♣ has such a finality to it, partner often passes when there is a better contract available in spades or diamonds on hands like this. It's even just conceivable for partner to pass with slam available in another suit, especially since he will downgrade for club shortness. Sure that's unlikely, but he will very often pass when we have a game. Additionally, I completely disagree with the idea that if partner doesn't pass we can easily describe our hand - we can describe the spade or diamond aspect next round, but not both. For example if it goes

1♣ 1♠
2♣ 3♣
3♠ 3NT

then we are left with a complete guess about whether to pass or bid on. Sorry enough railing against what I don't like. I will go for 2♦, which leaves me with easy followups always, as pclayton described.

Hey, feel free to rail: I read the comments especially when they disagree with my choice, and I have changed my mind once in a while, as a result.

But not here, at least not based on this post.

I have two problems with your argument.

1stly: I find your problem auction (even if just an example) to be silly.

The constraints on the other 3 hands, in this auction, are unrealistic.

Partner lacks a balanced 10-11 hcp, with club support and red suit values, since he would rebid 2N, not 3♣. So he has 8-9 (maybe a really ugly 10).

If he has 5 spades, he has to be at best 5=3=2=3, since he needs 3 clubs and can hardly own a stiff diamond for 3N. This means the silent opps hold 10-11 hearts and 16-18 hcp. I don't find this plausible.

If he has 4 spades, then he has at most 3 hearts, else he'd have bid 1♥.

So this auction won't happen in our lifetimes.

But what if he did have a hand consistent with 3N?

Please explain how your reverse solves the problem?

If he has red stoppers in a modest hand, we are not making 5♣. My route gets to 4♣: I limited my hand with 2♣, made an invitational call with 3♠, confirming shape, and rejected 3N via a non-forcing 4♣.

But the same hand is insoluble after a reverse.

I say this because, in the real world, responder, armed with 8-10 hcp and honour 3rd in clubs, will bid 3♣ over your reverse... which, in every good partnership of which I know, is gf.

Now you bid 3♠ and hear 3N. Your call.

You are doomed. You are in a gf auction on a hand on which you cannot construct a layout on which any game has a good play.

Now, does this make 2♦ horrific? No. There will be hands on which the hugely undervalue (by NA standards) reverse will hit a home run. I happen to think that we can get there from here, most of the time, after 2♣. I also happen to think that both 2♣ and 2♦ will lead to silly contracts a small percentage of the time.. and I don't think that there is any easy way to prove which is the more effective approach.

btw, any immediate spade raise will usually destroy our ability to reach either minor as a trump suit, and may leave us very poorly placed if partner decides to bid 3N at any point, so it, too, is not a panacea.

[jdonn]

Eh, I would normally reply thoroughly but because of my own personality flaws, it tends to lead to flame wars (I mean it when I blame myself for that). I will simply mention that what you find implausible I find completely plausible. Why exactly can't LHO have four (or three?) hearts and 10 (or 11 or 12 or 13) without a hand to take action over 1♣, and RHO have a weaker hand with six (or seven?) lousy hearts? Additionally, there are many 12 and 13 point hands with five hearts that should pass after 1♣ P 1♠. So "So this auction won't happen in our lifetimes" sounds like a huge exageration from the type of person who probably gave brilliant closing arguments in front of juries

I know example hands are your forte, but I would certainly bid 1♣-1♠.2♣-3♣,3♠-3NT with xxxxx AQx Kx Jxx. If he instead has, let's say, Qxxx Kxx Kxx Qxx, he is sure not bidding 3NT over 1♣-1♠,2♦-3♣,3♠ (cannot construct a layout on which any game has a good play? That one has a wasted king!) I think you see which points you made that both those hands argue against.

Ok, I guess I replied after all lol. No self-control...

[zasanya]

---

Thank you all.
This was the full hand.The hand came up when 2 mebers of Intermediate-advanced club were practicing partnership bidding.They bid their way to 6♣ after the bidding sequence1♣-1♠-2♣-3♣-4NT(RKCB)-5♠ -6♣.I was kibbing .They asked my opinion.Beyond pointing out that "slam in ♠ is superior con (mp and even imp wise) and Grand in ♠ seems lay down and cue bidding is better when there's a void " I cudnt help much.
The constraints I/they had were "1) cant support ♠ with 3 cards (I had suggested 2 ♠ as opener's rebid) 2)cant reverse with 'only' 14 hcp."
Given these constraints 6 ♣ is reasonable I suppose.
Thank you all .Your replies have certainly improved my bidding.

[P_Marlowe]

The bidding was fine, given the constrains, although 3S
instead of 4NT is certainly better, espesially since the
4NT bid with the void is not appealing anyway.

Of course this assumes, that for both 3S is forcing, which
it certainly is, since responder never promised 5spades,
i.e. the 3S bid has to imply, that opener is willing to play
4C, with no fit, and from that it follows, that opener is willing
to play 4S with a fit, since both are 10 tricks contracts.

Both took conservative bids, 2C is heavy and so is
3C, but the deal was so, that they were able to catch up
later.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

zasanya, on Sep 16 2008, 02:37 AM, said:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ AQxxx ♥ xxx ♦ xx ♣ KQJ ♠ KJx ♥   ♦ AQxx ♣ A1098xx

Thank you all.
This was the full hand.The hand came up when 2 mebers of Intermediate-advanced  club were practicing partnership bidding.They bid their way to 6♣ after the bidding sequence1♣-1♠-2♣-3♣-4NT(RKCB)-5♠ -6♣.I was kibbing .They asked my opinion.Beyond pointing out that "slam in ♠ is superior con (mp and even imp wise) and Grand in ♠ seems lay down and cue bidding is better when there's a void " I cudnt help much.
The constraints I/they had were "1) cant support ♠ with 3 cards (I had suggested 2 ♠ as opener's rebid) 2)cant reverse with 'only' 14 hcp."
Given these constraints 6 ♣ is reasonable I suppose.
Thank you all .Your replies have certainly improved my bidding.

A tough hand for non-experts, so they did well to reach slam.

As I posted earlier, I have no problems with 2♣.

3♣ is woefully inadequate. Responder has an opening hand, and has great fillers in partner's suit, so to make a non-forcing bid is very bad.

Of course, this is a problem area for advancing players, since they may say 'what else can I do?'

The answer is to use 2♦, over 2♣, as a force. This is not 'new minor forcing', since that conventional call arises over a 1N rebid. But virtually every expert, playing a standard method, uses 2♦ here as a force.

Not that this guarantees getting to a spade slam, but opener will jump to 3♠ to show a very good hand in context.

Responder could sign off with 4♠, since the red suit holdings are so bad, but the KQJ of clubs, and the expectation that partner has Kxx in spades for the jump and 6 clubs headed by the A should alert responder to 11 winners... and partner opened and then, later, jumped, so he surely has some significant red suit strength. Kxx x Axx Axxxxx is not enough to justify the bidding, and that is a good slam.

So Responder can bid 4♣ over 3♠, which, for the moment, announces that the 2♦ bid was based on a good hand with clubs... the 5th spade is temporarily concealed.

Opener has an enormous hand once he hears this, and all roads (should) now lead to slam.

As for reaching 7♠: I wouldn't worry about it. I'd expect some good pairs wouldn't get there.

BTW, 4N by South over 3♣ is a beginner's error. The answer to keycard was essentially meaningless. Opener bid slam not knowing if partner held Axxx Axx xxx Qxx or the hand he held, or any of many other possibilities. He got lucky.

Also btw, on this hand, a reverse into 2♦ would probably work well: responder would bid a forcing 3♣, opener 3♠, and now it gets murky, but certainly we get to slam, and I confess that there is some chance we get to grand... altho grand is not exactly laydown, it is a good contract (in spades, not clubs).

[1eyedjack]

mikeh, on Sep 15 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

I often play a weak notrump method, in which one needs (for systemic reasons) to reserve the single raise as promising 4 cards in support... one has either a strong NT or a shapely hand.

Will have to think about that. I cannot remember the last time that I played a strong NT in anything other than the occasional pickup partnership on BBO. And yet I would routinely raise 1M response to 2M on a minimum unbalanced opener with 3 card support (singleton or void outside). Perhaps there are theoretical disadvantages, and of course memory is a fickle thing, but I don't recall any practical disasters. Main benefit being of course so that delayed support in a non-forcing auction shows extras.

[mike777]

MikeH point of 2d after 1c=1s=2c is excellent.....I call it NMF as a short hand but in any case whatever it is called..... note 3c rebid by responder after 2d is forcing so:


1c=1s
2c=2d
(2h or 2s or 2nt)=3c is forcing.......

this is a common and important auction.

[mikeh]

1eyedjack, on Sep 16 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

mikeh, on Sep 15 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

I often play a weak notrump method, in which one needs (for systemic reasons) to reserve the single raise as promising 4 cards in support... one has either a strong NT or a shapely hand.

Will have to think about that. I cannot remember the last time that I played a strong NT in anything other than the occasional pickup partnership on BBO. And yet I would routinely raise 1M response to 2M on a minimum unbalanced opener with 3 card support (singleton or void outside). Perhaps there are theoretical disadvantages, and of course memory is a fickle thing, but I don't recall any practical disasters. Main benefit being of course so that delayed support in a non-forcing auction shows extras.

One reason that weak notrumpers generally (if they are in the Kokish school of thought... not that this idea is unique to Kokish by any means) require 4 cards for the single raise is that there is a world of difference between a minimum, unbalanced 3 card raise, on the one hand, and a 15-17 balanced hand with 4 card support, on the other.

Now, you could jump raise with the strong notrump, but that is giving up one of the major (no pun intended) benefits of the method. When the single raise can be based on a balanced strong notrump, it allows us to stop low when responder is weak.... thus often gaining when strong notrumpers are constrained to play in 1N, because responder cannot afford to bid. And it maximizes the bidding space when responder is strong.. it is relatively easy to incorporate a relay structure over the single raise.

Weak notrumpers sometimes lose out when they miss the 4-4 major suit fit with 12 opposite 8, or so. It would be a shame to get too high, and thus hand-back the good results, when we have 16 opposite 5 or 6.

Another consequence is that we can use the jump raise as a truly good hand.. a fine 17-19 hcp with 4 card support... it is, in essence, a gf raise and so we can explore slam a level below those constrained by system to make the hugely space-consuming raise to game.

In standard methods, the sequence 1m 1M 4M is a problematic auction, since while responder has some idea of general strength, and can assume no shortness, often-times where the cards are is as important as how many there are, and we sometimes lack 5 level safety.

If you accept that the strong notrump with 4 card support should be included in the single raise, then also including minimum 3 card hands makes the bidding very difficult indeed... not only do we have more difficulty describing opener's hand, if the auction continues (there are now 3 hand types to describe, rather than 2), but a hand that is worth a move on opposite 4 card support may not be able to afford a call when we may be opposite 3 card support... especially when considering a 4-3 fit.

I think it is this reasoning that has persuaded members of this group to find another call with the 5431 minimums... some like opening 1♦ with 4=5 in the minors, others opt for a rebid of a 5 card club suit, and so on.

None of this is perfect, and my own preferred style doesn't use 12-14 or 11-14 1N, so I wouldn't have this issue except that I play with two fine partners who like these ranges.