[jillybean]

I get a little tired of posting all of my bad hands so lets start off with one that I was happy with.

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  1♦    Pass  1♠
 Pass  2♥    Pass  3♣!
 Pass  3♥    Pass  3♠
 Pass  4♦    Pass  5♦
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

We were in the right contract, any comments on the 2♥ bid?

=====

Hand #2 not so good.

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  1♥    Pass  1♠
 Pass  2♣    Pass  2♦!
 Pass  2♠    Pass  3♠
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

The mistakes I think we made #1 South is not strong enough for 2♦4sf.
#2 North should rebid 2♥ with a poor hand no 3 card support.

[the hog]

Hand 1). 2H is an overbid. There will be a lot of disagreement, but on hands not good enough to reverse,(like this one for me), I would start with a 1H bid rather than 1D. No doubt some will say this is good enough to reverse on - I strongly disagree! These are the same players who say "Bad luck" when partner doubles an opp's bid on the expectation that you have the values you advertised. Oh well.

Hand 2, Nth should bid 2NT to show the D stopper over 2D. Agree that the Sth hand is not strong enough for 2D, but this is a very close call - you have a nice hand and the QH is a great card. Still I would have raised to 3C.

[Cascade]

Hand 1. 2♥ is perfect.

Hand 2.

Some play 4th suit forcing only forcing for one-round. You need to decide in your partnership. I think forcing to game is simpler and effective.

Given you play 4th suit forcing which is essentially a convention in the first instance designed to gather additional information, you must decide what you bid when you have no additional information.

Most common would be to rebid the suit you have opened. Other solutions I have seen are raise the 4th suit (although some use this for other purposes) or relax the requirement for a stopper with 5-4-2-2 hands and 5-4-3-1 with a shortage in partner's suit. Currently my partner and I simply make the lowest available rebid but not no trumps when we have nothing extra say. This seems to work well on the theory that if we don't know where we are going perhaps partner does so give her as much room as possible to tell us.

[inquiry]

on 1, 2♥ is right
on 2, 2♠ is wrong

take a look at them,
on 1, you have 5♥,
on 2, you have 2♠

seems obvious to me... (and of course on 1 you where strong enough for the reverse).

[655321]

(1) You bid well. There will be walruses who tell you not to reverse, but with all your cards in the red suits, 1♦ then 2♥ is clear.

(2) 2♦ is a bit of a stretch - 3♣ was the alternative. After 2♦, you can happily bid 2NT as North. If you did not have a diamond stopper, you could agree to bid 2♥ or 2♠ with this shape. If you would raise spades with a 3514 hand, a 2♠ bid now would just show a doubleton. South appears to have taken 2♠ to show 3 card support, otherwise he should bid 3♣ to show a gameforcing hand with club support.

[han]

It is close but I agree with 1D followed by 2H. Only 12 HCP but such nice suits, it would be quite a shame not to show both of them. You need almost nothing for game. And I really like opening my longest suit first.

It could backfire, mostly when you have a misfit and you get too high. I have not played much against opponents who pass 3 times and then come in after a reverse so I would not be too worried about partner doubling them.

I also agree with your analysis of hand 2 Kathryn.

[andy_h]

han, on Mar 17 2008, 12:58 AM, said:

It is close but I agree with 1D followed by 2H. Only 12 HCP but such nice suits, it would be quite a shame not to show both of them. You need almost nothing for game. And I really like opening my longest suit first.

It could backfire, mostly when you have a misfit and you get too high. I have not played much against opponents who pass 3 times and then come in after a reverse so I would not be too worried about partner doubling them.

I also agree with your analysis of hand 2 Kathryn.

agreed.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 If you think the hand strong enough for a reverse
a 1D opening is fine.
In this case you most likely belong to the "weak"
reverse school, for which a reverse does not promise
another bid, this school is more dominant in Europe and
in Acol land.
If you dont think the hand strong enough for a reverse,
open 1H. In this case you are more in line with the more
dominant style in NA.

#2 Regarding 2D: It depends, if you play FSF as inv.+ or gf.
If you play 2D as inv.+, the hand would be borderline,
if you play it as gf, the hand would be too weak.
But this should be irrelevant for the hand in question, North
has support and inv. values for South 2nd suit, he should
show the support.
South should bid 2H over 2D, which for most player would
be the default bid, 2S shows a 3 carder.
For that matter South should not pass 3S, 3S is forcing creating
an auction looking for slam, and this last statement is independ
from the FSF style you are playing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[the hog]

han, on Mar 17 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

It could backfire, mostly when you have a misfit and you get too high. I have not played much against opponents who pass 3 times and then come in after a reverse so I would not be too worried about partner doubling them.

I also agree with your analysis of hand 2 Kathryn.

This is certainly true, but when you opened 1D your lho had not passed yet.

[jdonn]

Hand 1, 1♦ then 2♥ is perfect bidding. Hand 2, 4SF is an overbid, just raise 2♣ to 3♣.

[han]

The_Hog, on Mar 17 2008, 02:45 AM, said:

han, on Mar 17 2008, 12:58 PM, said:

It could backfire, mostly when you have a misfit and you get too high. I have not played much against opponents who pass 3 times and then come in after a reverse so I would not be too worried about partner doubling them.

I also agree with your analysis of hand 2 Kathryn.

This is certainly true, but when you opened 1D your lho had not passed yet.

I won't deny that opening 1D might not give you a headache in some auction.

[Zelandakh]

I don't have a problem with 2♥ if that is your partnership style (some play extra extra strength for reverses), but a treatment I quite like is to bid this type of hand with a super-reverse - 3♥. What else would you want to use this bid for after all?

On Hand 2, 4th suit forcing (the inv version) is designed for hands with no obvious natural bid, or hands so strong that they need to create a force. If you use it for more general inv hands it gets overloaded really quickly. 3♣ seems pretty clear as a responder's rebid.

[jdonn]

Zelandakh, on Mar 17 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

I don't have a problem with 2♥ if that is your partnership style (some play extra extra strength for reverses), but a treatment I quite like is to bid this type of hand with a super-reverse - 3♥. What else would you want to use this bid for after all?

I know of at least three other plausible meanings, but I don't know why I would want to bypass ever playing in 3♦. I mean whats the point of taking a risk in opening your longest suit in a minor when you then preempt yourself out of that suit?

[mike777]

wow interesting thread JB, esp hand one. Suprised so many reverse on this tough hand. ty for posting.

I would have got this one wrong I would just have opened 1d and rebid 2d....learning.

[EricK]

It is probably a minority view, but on the second hand I like a 1NT rebid instead of 2♣. 2♣ is only really going to gain when you have a ♣ fit (and it won't always gain, even then), whereas 1NT limits your hand, probably rightside the NT, and avoids the very common situation of playing in 2♥ when partner preferences with only a doubleton.