[Double !]

i chose a 3 club rebid for the following reasons:

my P and I have the agreement that, right or wrong, 3m after opener has rebid his major is a game try showing values in clubs and, usually, a doubleton in opener's major. The catch is that we also play 2/1 GF except for suit rebid (soon to include a few other exceptions), an approach that a number of forum members have vilified. The rationale is that, once opener has shown a 6 card major, it is unlikely that the partnership is going to be better served playing in 3m.

DHL

[han]

Easy pass at MP's I think.

[luke warm]

i'd pass... if i did bid, it'd be 3S... i don't quite understand the 3C bid of richard's, doesn't that show a desire to play there? if it does, i'd rather play in spades...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Oct 26 2005, 02:28 AM, said:

i don't quite understand the 3C bid of richard's, doesn't that show a desire to play there? if it does, i'd rather play in spades...

Why would I want to use the 3♣ bid to show a hand that wants to play 3♣?
Consider all the things that have to be true for me to want to use 3♣ as natural and non-forcing...

1. The 3♣ bidder needs a hand where he expects that 3♣ is a better contract than 2♠. Partner is known to hold 6+ Spades, so I pretty much need a Spade void. Even with a crappy 7 card suit, I'd be very reluctant to pull 2♠ with a stiff.

2. The gains from pulling to 3♣ when its right need to compensate for the loses from pulling to 3♣ when its wrong. Consider: If you pull to 3♣, you're announcing a Spade misfit and partner hasn't promised any club support. LHO has bid 3♥ and RHO hasn't been able to find a raise. This is an incredibly dangerous hand to force the bidding to the three level. Competent opponents are going to be looking for blood.

Ergo, I'm dubious about the utility of a Natural / Non-forcing interpretation.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Oct 25 2005, 06:32 AM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 25 2005, 09:15 AM, said:

We should have a good play for game opposite an average 6 loser hand like: AKxxxx, Ax, xx, Axx. 3N may be possible too.

Wow, well I guess part of the problem is what constitutes a 2S bid? For me that hand would be a 3S bid.

You'd really rebid 3♠ on this at MPs? With a fit unlikely?

The crux of the problem is "does pard need any more than a junk minimum and 6 spades to bid 2♠". 20 years ago, this was a no brainer - you had extras. Nowadays with our good/bad 2N, and other assorted goodies, freebids do not carry the same strength.

I wonder if this is a sound idea at the TWO level, where we can't distinguish between my heavy 6 loser hand and one of Ben's ZAR 9 counts.

It seems we have an easy go with a crappy hand and the spade suit. Pass the overcall, and pull the ensuing TO x to 2♠. If pard passes the overcall, he either has a stack or dead minny. No harm there either.

[Kalvan14]

hrothgar, on Oct 25 2005, 11:16 AM, said:

Mark me down for 3♣

A forcing NT response can be made on a weak hand with a long club suit. However, I think that it would be a mistake to use a 3♣ rebid to show this hand type in this auction. Partner's 2♠ rebid shows a single suited hand. It doesn't seem reasonable to use a 3♣ rebid to try to "improve" the contract. Sure, I might have a Spade void and crappy 7 card club suit. Even so, a natural and non-forcing 3♣ rebid puts us at the three level and moves us from a minor to a major. Equally significant, the 3♣ rebid screams misfit, making it much easier for the opponents to find a double.

I think that its more reasonable to use 3♣ as some kind of fit nonjump, showing club values and secondary Spade support. I very much expect to be in the minority here.

Agreed in full. Mark me down for 3♣

[awm]

3♠ for me. I think a singleton heart is quite possible (and even likely) -- I would tend not to bid over 2♥ holding three or more hearts; this also makes a minor suit singleton substantially less likely. Some possible hands where 4♠ is reasonable:

AQJ9xx
xx
Axx
xx

KQJxxx
x
AQxx
xx

AKJ9xx
x
Qxx
Axx

Sure, one could double on some of these hands, but with such good spades I wouldn't double. The 6-1 fit is likely to play better than a 4-3 (or even 5-3) minor fit, and you don't really have a huge desire to defend on these hands.

[mikeh]

I do not understand 3♣. Let's give all the 3♣ bidders x xx Qxx KQJxxxx, and see whether they pass 2♠ or bid 3♣. Didn't you bid 1N intending to bid 3♣ over partner's 2♠ bid if the opps passed? Does the 'free' 2♠ bid show any extras? It probably denies an truly horrible opener, but these days it is not a 'big bid'. There is nothing wrong with 'improving the partscore' when the improvement rates to turn a possible minus into a probable plus.

This is for me a 3♠ bid, because I disagree with Justin that AKxxxx Ax xx Axx or the like is a 3♠ bid: when he posted that hand (and I read his post first) I voted for 2♠, needing ♠ spots to justify 3.

[Kalvan14]

mikeh, on Oct 25 2005, 11:29 PM, said:

I do not understand 3♣. Let's give all the 3♣ bidders x xx Qxx KQJxxxx, and see whether they pass 2♠ or bid 3♣. Didn't you bid 1N intending to bid 3♣ over partner's 2♠ bid if the opps passed? Does the 'free' 2♠ bid show any extras? It probably denies an truly horrible opener, but these days it is not a 'big bid'. There is nothing wrong with 'improving the partscore' when the improvement rates to turn a possible minus into a probable plus.

This is for me a 3♠ bid, because I disagree with Justin that AKxxxx Ax xx Axx or the like is a 3♠ bid: when he posted that hand (and I read his post first) I voted for 2♠, needing ♠ spots to justify 3.

That's very easy: with the new hand you post, I pass 2♠. why should I go a level higher to play a similar contract?

IMHO, yr insistence on the rebid of 2♠ with the 4 quick tricks hand does nothing to change my opinion

[whereagles]

hrothgar's idea that 3♣ should be constructive does make some sense, but there are two problems with it:

1. Pard sometimes does have a hand that prefers to play in clubs, say, KQJxxxx and out.

2. What if opener is 11-12 and hears a constructive 3♣ on the same 11-12? If he has something like

AQxxxx
xxx
AJx
x

he won't be pleased to hear the constructive 3♣ on a 5-card.

So I think the conventional meaning of 3♣ as weakish and looooong suit should perhaps be mantained.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on Oct 26 2005, 12:53 PM, said:

2. What if opener is 11-12 and hears a constructive 3♣ on the same 11-12? If he has something like

AQxxxx
xxx
AJx
x

he won't be pleased to hear the constructive 3♣ on a 5-card.

So I think the conventional meaning of 3♣ as weakish and looooong suit should perhaps be mantained.

Please note that there were two components to my thesis:

1. The 3♣ advance should be constructive
2. The 3♣ bid needs to promise Spade tolerance.

[luke warm]

ok, i understand your 3C now, and the constraints you put on the bid... it's just that i've held more hands i'd like to show weakness with and a longish minor (after 1M by partner) than one like you describe... playing 3C your way might be better theoretically, i have no idea... practically tho, it sure seems that i've had the "let's play 3m" hand far more often

[HeartA]

3S. 3 small H is a drawback though, at lease I don't waste cards in H.