[jillybean]

Scoring: MP

---

How do you plan to bid this?

[TimG]

1♥ followed by 3♦.

[Jlall]

If it went 1H p 1N then I would bid 3D followed by 4C over 3N I think. Partner is either 4-5 in the minors or we have a 9 card club fit. This could work very poorly when partner has like KQx of spades and out though.

If it went 1H p 1S I would bid 3D planning to bid 3N next.

[ONEferBRID]

This looks very similar to the hand [ Interesting Bridge Hands, " Bidding Plan", by Cardsharp ] :
♠ A
♥ AK98x
♦ Kxxx
♣ AKT

1H - 1S
3D ( most everyone chose this ).

The parent hand was:

♠Jxxx
♥x
♦Q10
♣Qxxxxx

... and although the "logical" final contract was 3NT, the 6C slam could make but
certainly no way to get there after Opener shows a strong RED 2-suiter.

I think the proper rebid by Opener in BOTH cases is 3NT
showing a ~20-21 point hand that has a shape problem for a 2NT open with shortness most likely in Spades ( Responder's suit ).

On the other hand, a Diam slam ( for the present problem) could be missed when Responder holds:
J x x x
x x
A K x x
x x x

[ONEferBRID]

The problem I see with the 3D SJS ( with Q x x x ) is that Responder has too many "bad Diam support" options . Without an alternative Ht support bid, he will support with say ♦ J x x x . Now you are at the 4-level. Will your methods allow stopping in 4NT or will you be committed to 5♦ ?

[jillybean]

I didnt start 1♥:3♦

Afterwards, when I asked my partner how he would have bid this hand he said he would jump in ♣'s

"I did it in clubs, because this is where the trick potential is, and where I have cards that may be useful to partner. I don’t often do it into a 3-card suit, but I expect this contract to play in hearts or NT, especially if partner has bid spades."

[Winstonm]

I am fairly confident that after all these years if there were a single good answer to this hand-type it would have been found by now. Truth is that this is the problem hand that was the stimulus for the concept of using 1C as a forcing bid and using 2C rebid as non-passable.

Obviously, in standard systems the critical issue is to announce the power of the hand at opener's second bid to ensure a game is found, hence the room-devouring jump.

I believe the best advice is not to get too bent our of shape when these auctions do not produce the best results because this is simply an imprecise part of standard bidding practices.

JLall IMO shows the best advice. It is either A or B and don't worry about fine-tuning when all you have to use as a screwdriver is a sledgehammer.

[jillybean]

There`s no getting bent out of shape, we got a top board by a rather unorthodox method.
Rather than the actual system, its the evaluation and rationale that is most interesting and helpful. I want to know why you would bid x over y, thanks Justin.

Im not looking for a new convention to "fix" these auctions.

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on Dec 20 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

There`s no getting bent out of shape, we got a top board by a rather unorthodox method.
Rather than the actual system, its the evaluation and rationale that is most interesting and helpful. I want to know why you would bid x over y, thanks Justin.

Im not looking for a new convention to "fix" these auctions.

Sorry if you thought I meant to imply otherwise, but I simply was supporting the conclusions (but more so the matter-of-factness) of Justin's answer.

[hanp]

I am confident that there is a single good answer to this hand and it is to open 1H and rebid 3D.

[Fluffy]

I handle this with 1♥ followed by 2NT if partner bids 1NT (3♦ if he bids 1♠ as most do). Using 3♦ for 5-5 or 6-5 hands and not semi balanced ones. Partner often bids 3♣ over that to ask and we show a 5-4

[Winstonm]

I am uncomfortable in a natural bidding system to ever purposefully misdescribe my shape - doing that has the feel of masterminding to me, but that could just be my personal bias.

[gwnn]

Fluffy, on Dec 20 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

I handle this with 1♥ followed by 2NT if partner bids 1NT (3♦ if he bids 1♠ as most do).

But for you 2NT is forcing no?

[Winstonm]

Fluffy, on Dec 20 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

I handle this with 1♥ followed by 2NT if partner bids 1NT (3♦ if he bids 1♠ as most do). Using 3♦ for 5-5 or 6-5 hands and not semi balanced ones. Partner often bids 3♣ over that to ask and we show a 5-4

Yes, but this is simply a treatment that does not really get at the heart of the problem, no? It is the trickle-down effect. As gwnn noted, 2N then must become a forcing bid, and that still leaves unanswered the question of how to show a balanced 18-19 (normal 2N rebid) unless the answer is to jump to 3NT, which creates its own set of problems.


I don't mean to imply that your solution is bad or not practical - only pointing out some difficulties left unaddressed by your comment.

[mike777]

jillybean, on Dec 19 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

How do you plan to bid this?

I bet most will open 1h planning on rebidding 3d but I would open it a simple 2c.

[Siegmund]

You aren't the only one opening it 2C.

I am happy to start with 2C-2D wait - 2H. (And if we are playing 2H immediate negative and partner responds 2H, I am indeed willing to drop him in it, but prepared for that to be the wrong decision.)

[ONEferBRID]

jillybean, on Dec 19 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

How do you plan to bid this?

I'm ready to see Responder's hand.

Did we miss a Diam slam?
Did we get too high in Diam ?
Was NT the best contract?
Did partner have Ht support?

[bill1157]

Out of curiosity, is nobody going to open this hand 2♣?

Bill

[gwnn]

if you are so curious, perhaps you should look at previous posts? say, the ones that preceded yours by 2 and 3 posts?

[ONEferBRID]

gwnn, on Dec 21 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

if you are so curious, perhaps you should look at previous posts? say, the ones that preceded yours by 2 and 3 posts?

I guess I'm blind... I still don't see the Responder hand for this post.
I didn't see it earlier and I still don't see it .