[jdonn]

whereagles, on Oct 13 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 13 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

2C - I don't like bidding 3-card suits, but I think it is the least of evils here.

Do you guys ever make reverses that side of the ocean? 1♦ + 2♥ for me.

We wait for hands that are at least close to good enough. I'll go 1♦ then 2♣ (planning to pass 2♦).

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Oct 13 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

We wait for hands that are at least close to good enough. I'll go 1♦ then 2♣ (planning to pass 2♦).

Here, have this to sit while you wait for that hand to come up:

[fred]

gnasher, on Oct 13 2008, 10:18 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Oct 13 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

For us 2H in the seq.

1D - 1S
2C - 2D
2H

is FSF.

I too would play that as FSF. So far, I haven't heard much to persuade me that it's better played as natural.

Not sure what you mean by FSF in this context.

Are you suggesting that 2H is completely artificial? That you might bid 2H with (say) a singleton just to create a force?

That doesn't make much sense to me.

The way I think about it, if opener is strong enough to bid again, he makes his most natural bid. So 2H would always suggest at least 3 hearts - without 3 cards in hearts you would have some other more descriptive natural bid available.

Maybe 2H shouldn't be considered truly "natural" since you might make this call with a 3-card suit, but at the very least it should be considered "naturalish" in my way of thinking.

Should 2H even be considered forcing? One might intuitively think so, but if responder has something like:

Qxxxx
QJ10x
Jx
xx

don't you think he should be able to Pass 2H if you assume that 2H is a naturalish bid (and if you assume that you would rather get a plus score than a minus score)?

So for me, the only thing that is FSF about 2H is that hearts happens to be the fourth suit that was bid - it is neither artificial nor is it forcing.

I agree with jdonn that you should Pass a 2D preference with this hand. I also agree with whoever said that, if you are going to bid 2H over 2D, that you might as well bid 2H the round before.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Oct 13 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 13 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

We wait for hands that are at least close to good enough. I'll go 1♦ then 2♣ (planning to pass 2♦).

Here, have this to sit while you wait for that hand to come up:

Hehe yeah, hands that are good enough to reverse are just so rare, I think I held one once.

[MickyB]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2008, 01:02 AM, said:

whereagles, on Oct 13 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 13 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

We wait for hands that are at least close to good enough. I'll go 1♦ then 2♣ (planning to pass 2♦).

Here, have this to sit while you wait for that hand to come up:

Hehe yeah, hands that are good enough to reverse are just so rare, I think I held one once.

You have to bear in mind that, for most hands that are actually good enough to reverse, Whereagles has already opened 2♣

Oh yeah, the hand -

I'd bid 1D then 2D. Don't mind the 2C rebid. Having rebid 2C, making another move over 2D is ridiculous, game is so anti-percentage at this point. I consider a 2H continuation over 2D to be natural NF.

[Echognome]

MickyB, on Oct 13 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

Oh yeah, the hand -

I'd bid 1D then 2D. Don't mind the 2C rebid. Having rebid 2C, making another move over 2D is ridiculous, game is so anti-percentage at this point. I consider a 2H continuation over 2D to be natural NF.

I think ridiculous is an overbid.

Imagine responder with:
AT9xx
xxx
Kx
Qxx

How do you expect him to bid after it has gone 1♦ - 1♠; 2♣ - ?

Isn't the point of bidding 2♥ to catch the 8 or 9 count opposite and find game?

[the hog]

helene_t, on Oct 13 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

I would rebid 2♣ and then pattern out with 2♥ after p takes preference with 2♦.

This is a good hand for 4th suit forcing for only one round. Suppose partner raises my 2♣ bid. Since I play 4th suit forcing to game, 3♣ will have a somewhat wide range. I would pass 3♣ but could miss game.

With a slightly weaker hand I would rebid 1NT.

Pattern out- showing a 1354 hand? Two suits are the wrong length there Helene.
I'd rebid 1NT

[gnasher]

fred, on Oct 14 2008, 12:39 AM, said:

Not sure what you mean by FSF in this context.

Are you suggesting that 2H is completely artificial? That you might bid 2H with (say) a singleton just to create a force?

With a singleton I'd usually be suitable for a natural 2♠, 3♣ or 3♦ instead. I meant that it was Fourth Suit Forcing in the traditional sense of being artificial, asking for further information, and not having a good bid. In this context that would typically be a 2=2=5=4 17-count without much in hearts.

With a hand suitable for a natural 2♥, eg a 1=3=5=4 17-count with heart values, I would, instead, make the natural bid of 2NT. With a strong 0=4=5=4, I'd have reversed in the first place.

[joker_gib]

2♦ I don't specially like it but have nothing else (1NT = never with single in my partnership, 2c hum, reverse = awful)

[dake50]

Luckily I open 4cM even canape 5cm, so I opened 1H, with easy 2D rebid.

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Oct 13 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

helene_t, on Oct 13 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

I would rebid 2♣ and then pattern out with 2♥ after p takes preference with 2♦.

If 2♣ followed by 2♥ is pattering out, I don't see why it should be any weaker than an immediate 2♥. In either case partner may be forced to give preference at the three level. All it does is misstate your shape in addition to overstating your values.

Agree.

Bidding that way should indicate 5♦, 4♣ and 3 (good) ♥.

As to the original question I'd overbid with 2♥ on the second round.

At least I only misstate strength.

[mike777]

han, on Oct 13 2008, 12:44 AM, said:

How would you bid this hand:

x
AK10x
QJ10xx
AJx

If you open 1D, what do you plan to rebid if partner bids 1S?

2c

If one decides to play strongish reverses, and focus a bidding system on majors or nt contracts, the minors will suffer.

If partner rebids 2s over 2c I pass.

[awm]

Well it's an unhappy in-between hand. With one point less I would rebid 1NT (not concerned about doing this with a singleton). Add the heart jack and it's a clear reverse in my style (where reverse shows sixteen-plus).

I think on these cards I would bid 1NT at MP and 2♥ at IMPs. I'm not going to distort my shape with 2♣, as this makes it harder to find a heart fit than any other continuation and doesn't really help me find any games I won't find otherwise (assuming I would pass a 2♦ correction).

[mike777]

awm, on Oct 14 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

Well it's an unhappy in-between hand. With one point less I would rebid 1NT (not concerned about doing this with a singleton). Add the heart jack and it's a clear reverse in my style (where reverse shows sixteen-plus).

I think on these cards I would bid 1NT at MP and 2♥ at IMPs. I'm not going to distort my shape with 2♣, as this makes it harder to find a heart fit than any other continuation and doesn't really help me find any games I won't find otherwise (assuming I would pass a 2♦ correction).

It is not stated but in this forum if we are playing reverse flannery it reduces this concern. That influences my choice of 2c.

[jdonn]

awm, on Oct 14 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

I think on these cards I would bid 1NT at MP and 2♥ at IMPs. I'm not going to distort my shape with 2♣, as this makes it harder to find a heart fit than any other continuation and doesn't really help me find any games I won't find otherwise (assuming I would pass a 2♦ correction).

The last sentence ignores that the range for partner to bid 2NT or 3♣ over 2♣ is slightly lower than the range to invite over a 1NT rebid. So rebidding 2♣ does help find a few games that 1NT would lose, particularly in notrump (while probably losing some in hearts of course).

[awm]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 14 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

I think on these cards I would bid 1NT at MP and 2♥ at IMPs. I'm not going to distort my shape with 2♣, as this makes it harder to find a heart fit than any other continuation and doesn't really help me find any games I won't find otherwise (assuming I would pass a 2♦ correction).

The last sentence ignores that the range for partner to bid 2NT or 3♣ over 2♣ is slightly lower than the range to invite over a 1NT rebid. So rebidding 2♣ does help find a few games that 1NT would lose, particularly in notrump (while probably losing some in hearts of course).

But the hands that bid 3♣ often are upgrading for the "big club fit" (i.e. shapely hands with ace-empty in spades and five-card club support) and actually we might reach more bad games than good in that particular sequence.

I'm not convinced that the 2NT bid should be lighter than over a 1NT rebid, considering that people open lighter hands with 5-4 or 5-5 in the minors than with balanced shape, as well as 2♣ having a wider range than rebidding 1NT. It seems a lot safer to just avoid passing 2♣ unless dog minimum and let partner push with extras over a 2♦ correction.