[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Mar 23 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 24 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

If it goes 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ then spades are trumps unless partner is 5-5. He is absolutely supposed to know you can have this shape.

So that means if you have 5-4 you *have* to play in the 5-3 rather than the 4-4 fit. Seems a fault in the system, yes?

Not really. And no it doesn't. I'd say a much bigger fault in a system would be jumping to 4♥ just because I am minimum.

[MarkDean]

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 23 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 24 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

If it goes 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ then spades are trumps unless partner is 5-5. He is absolutely supposed to know you can have this shape.

So that means if you have 5-4 you *have* to play in the 5-3 rather than the 4-4 fit. Seems a fault in the system, yes?

Not really. And no it doesn't. I'd say a much bigger fault in a system would be jumping to 4♥ just because I am minimum.

What do you mean "not really"? You just said spades are trump unless responder is 5-5. How does that not imply that you will be forced to play in the 53 instead of the 44 when responder is 5-4 and opener 3-4?

[aguahombre]

Hog, if opener has a real 4 card heart suit and a mini reverse, the final contract will be 3H --the 4 4 fit. the comfort factor is that the leben bidder must have 5 spades in that scenario, or would have responded 1H the first time. So the 44 or the 5-3 will be reached.

If Opener was so strong he had to create a game force without 4 hearts or 3 spades, he would not have bid 3C in answer to leben. Everything is related to everything else, as often.

[jdonn]

MarkDean, on Mar 23 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 23 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 24 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

If it goes 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ then spades are trumps unless partner is 5-5. He is absolutely supposed to know you can have this shape.

So that means if you have 5-4 you *have* to play in the 5-3 rather than the 4-4 fit. Seems a fault in the system, yes?

Not really. And no it doesn't. I'd say a much bigger fault in a system would be jumping to 4♥ just because I am minimum.

What do you mean "not really"? You just said spades are trump unless responder is 5-5. How does that not imply that you will be forced to play in the 53 instead of the 44 when responder is 5-4 and opener 3-4?

Because opener isn't required by god to rebid 3♠ when he is 3415 and has already found a heart fit, and there is such a thing as pick a slam, and because getting to 5-3 spade fits instead of 4-4 heart fits isn't automatically bad especially when the discards on spades from playing in hearts are coming from a 5 card suit. But I like how you changed my claim that a possibility is not really a weakness to one that the possibility won't occur, it did strengthen your argument.

[MarkDean]

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 08:22 PM, said:

MarkDean, on Mar 23 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 23 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Mar 23 2010, 08:06 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 24 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

If it goes 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 3♥ 3♠ then spades are trumps unless partner is 5-5. He is absolutely supposed to know you can have this shape.

So that means if you have 5-4 you *have* to play in the 5-3 rather than the 4-4 fit. Seems a fault in the system, yes?

Not really. And no it doesn't. I'd say a much bigger fault in a system would be jumping to 4♥ just because I am minimum.

What do you mean "not really"? You just said spades are trump unless responder is 5-5. How does that not imply that you will be forced to play in the 53 instead of the 44 when responder is 5-4 and opener 3-4?

Because opener isn't required by god to rebid 3♠ when he is 3415 and has already found a heart fit, and there is such a thing as pick a slam, and because getting to 5-3 spade fits instead of 4-4 heart fits isn't automatically bad especially when the discards on spades from playing in hearts are coming from a 5 card suit. But I like how you changed my claim that a possibility is not really a weakness to one that the possibility won't occur, it did strengthen your argument.

Maybe I lost track of the responses, was "not really" supposed to be the response to "So that means if you have 5-4 you *have* to play in the 5-3 rather than the 4-4 fit."
(and the "And no it doesn't" the response to the "Seems a fault in the system, yes?")

Anyways, it seems like you have one of two possibilities: responder takes into account that opener may be 3316 and it opens the possibility of getting to the wrong game, or opener with 3415 does not bid 3♠ over 3♥, which I think is a pretty descriptive bid when it comes up. Obviously this shortcoming may be worth the gain.

In general, adding more hand types to a sequences makes it harder, and I think this one is no exception.

[mohitz]

Interesting idea Jdonn. I never thought about it. Thanks

[the hog]

Well Josh, this is a slight thread hijack....Would you not agree that an artificial 2NT bid, which included strong balanced hands AND 3 card support for responder in this type of hand, would be a better weapon in your armoury? That is amusing, of course, that you think the original hand would have the values for that bid.

[dbsboy]

I like jdonn's idea, but I think there is a disadvantage too: If responder is weak and have say 4-4-3-2, he would bid 2N leb and try to signoff in 3♥, but in this case, playing 3♥ or 3♠ is usually worse than the 6-2 fit 3♣ (where he would pass 1♣-1♠-3♣).

I think I would bid 3♣ at the table, for the reasons:
1) It is already a jump, a very encouraging bid given my 14 HCP
2) Rebidding 3♣ does not stop us in playing ♠
3) My ♣ are really strong
4) I am not used to reversing with 3 card suits when I have an alternative.

[jdonn]

Even though I ran with it I wasn't particularly arguing for bidding 2♥, just that 2♥>3♣. I can understand making a minimum rebid on this hand.

And responder can't be 4432!!! If he has 4 hearts he has 5+ spades. You can never be forced to end in a 4-3 heart fit unless responder has an awful hand and judges to pass the forcing 2♥.

[hanp]

Wait but Josh, what if responder jumps to 4H?

[Free]

hanp, on Mar 24 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

Wait but Josh, what if responder jumps to 4H?

autosplinter?

[Fluffy]

my dad's book says 4♥ minimum 3♥ slam try, but then I play GF 2NT rebid

[hanp]

For the record, I voted 2H before reading the comments.

Like Josh, I don't think it is very clear, but 2H seems a bit better than 3C, the plurality vote. 2C is a bit of an underbid, especially with such good support for spades. 2S seems like both an underbid and a misbid.

It didn't really occur to me that 2H could cause problems with partner insisting on hearts. The only question is whether we are strong enough.