[benlessard]

---

MP. What is partner typical hand ? Your call

[kenberg]

I dunno what partner has but I am bidding 4♦. I have a better hand than I might have for my bidding and I have more diamonds than spades. So I am bidding diamonds. 4 seems enough.

[PhilKing]

Er, 56 just short of a game force over 1♥, but fancies game once we don't pass a spade. In reality, partner usually has a mountain with which I would jump to 2♠ on the previous round.

I am not stopping short of 6♦, and I should probably just bid it now. I'd like to bid 4♥ first, but that will lock us into spades.

[Fluffy]

5-7 with low HCP count, those queens are not very useful, 5♦ is enough

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-05, 17:29, said:

..... those queens are not very useful, .......

Those Queens aren't useful ?? They both are in partner's (5/6)+ suits.

I'd like to know what the 3S-jump shows that 2S doesn't .

.... Is it added shape or strength or both ??

[kenberg]

Whatever 3♠ meant, I bid 4♦ above trusting that after 3♠ he will not be passing 4♦. The queens seem useful enough, it is the usefulness of the ace that is in doubt. My next bid, if available, will be 5♣. Partner can evaluate the usefulness of this control, I cannot.

[PhilKing]

Reasons for bidding 6♦:

1. It's probably cold. Partner can hardly have much less than ♠KJTxx ♥A ♦AKTxxx ♣x. Other possible hands: ♠AJTxx ♥- ♦AKxxxx ♣Kx or ♠KJTxx ♥- ♦AKxxxx ♣Kx, which is hardly a 3♠ bid.

2. Exploring can tip the lead. Partner could have ♠AKJTx ♥xx ♦AKJTxx ♣-. Hmm, on second thoughts, a 5260 shape will probably stretch to bid 2♠ over 1♥. But ♠AJTxx ♥x ♦AKJTxxx ♣- is possible (and somewhat light, I would say). If they lead a heart, slam is on a finesse but otherwise nearly cold.

3. If we bid 4♦, partner may not cooperate. Partner will not place us with a miracle hand. From his point of view, bidding 4♥ on ♠AKxxx ♥Ax ♦KJxxxx ♣- is a deep reach indeed.

4. If we bid 4♦, partner may pass. From his point of view, he has shown a big 65 and we have just gone back to his first suit in an auction where both players have made non-forcing bids. Why can't we have xx Kxxx Jxx KJxx or some such, where we view 3NT to be hopeless and 5♦ too far off? With ♠KJTxx ♥A ♦AKTxxx ♣x he may think it logical to pass, and I would be inclined to agree.

5. If we jump to slam, they may double for the lead. I just don't see us being off two hearts here almost ever. I'm going to redouble even if partner does not!

[kenberg]

If he can pass, that certainly is a reason not to bid 4♦. He did have the option of bidding only 2♠ and if he contemplated getting out short of game that would seem right.

But honestly, I can't recall ever seeing the OP auction. So I don't know what's up. I can imagine that if he has a stiff club we can make 7. maybe. Or maybe not.

And I hadn't thought of it but yes, as you say in 2., why not 2♠ over 1♥? Maybe I should take this actual; sequence as being less than 100% gf, while the second round 2♠ would be 100%. Whatever message partner is sending, I'm not decoding it. In which case I suppose 4♦ could be passed, and I don't want that. But then again, if he is thinking that his sequence is only invitational, I am now not so sure that I want to be in 6.

Ok, I'm confused..

Added: Come to think about it, the 1♠ wasn't even strictly forcing, at least as I play, and the 1NT over the 1♠ can hardly have raised opener's regard for his own hand by that much, so I really don't get the purpose of 3♠.

[lycier]

I think 3♠ was very very unreasonable bid due to inexistence and non-logical thinking if walsh style is played.
What is the meanings of jump rebid 1♠ ? if walsh style is played,rebid 1♠ means a low limited hand with unbalanced,so as we know that absolutely the opener have not strong strength enough to jump rebid 3♠.

[Fluffy]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-February-05, 17:36, said:

I'd like to know what the 3S-jump shows that 2S doesn't .

.... Is it added shape or strength or both ??

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-February-05, 17:36, said:

I'd like to hate that bot

That bot ?? what did that bot do to you??

quoting out of context is fun

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Fluffy, on 2013-February-07, 05:25, said:

That bot ?? what did that bot do to you??

quoting out of context is fun

Well, at least it is not a fabricated quote like yours .

I guess I'm not used to a partner opening 1D on a 5s/7d shape with a LOW hcp count ( what does your LOW hcp mean ? where Responder's pointed Queens wouldn't be usefull ?? }.

EDIT : Anyway, I think 3S should show a 6s/7d shape .

This post has been edited by TWO4BRIDGE: 2013-February-07, 08:55

[benlessard]

opener hand was

Axxxx
K
AKJxxx
x

with no spots. I know some LTC believer that will jump shift with this but I feel 1S (NF) followed by 3S is a nice description. Responder has an easy 5D and some brave souls might even make a slam try.

Quote

But ♠AJTxx ♥x ♦AKJTxxx ♣- is possible (and somewhat light, I would say).

This is an obvious jump shift.

[kenberg]

Thanks for posting the actual hand. I discussed the auction with a partner and he chose 5♦ over the 3♠, as did some here. I suppose the idea was to treat my original call of 4♦ as passable. After some thought, I went along with that.

Playing with my clone I think it would begin 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♠ after which, with these hands, we would reach 5♦ also. Probably 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♠-3♦-4♦-5♦. Or maybe 4♦ over 2♠. Anyway, we get there.

I'm not sure that I see the point of 3♠. I guess 2♠ could be passed (??) but seldom would be, and when it is you might be in the right place. Say responder is 2=4=2=5 with a 6 count and soft values in hearts and clubs. It seems to me that responder has to have something for either 5♦ or 4♠ to fly, and if he has it, he won't pass 2♠.


But definitely it's interesting and I hope to hear from others.

[the hog]

benlessard, on 2013-February-09, 08:02, said:

opener hand was

Axxxx
K
AKJxxx
x

with no spots. I know some LTC believer that will jump shift with this but I feel 1S (NF) followed by 3S is a nice description. Responder has an easy 5D and some brave souls might even make a slam try.

This is an obvious jump shift.

The fact that it is "not a nice description" can be seen by the replies here. Normally PhilKing's posts are from planet Bizarro, however in this case I agree with him. I would also have bid 6D.

[kenberg]

Hog, I take it then that you would start 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♠?

And then? 3♦ or 4♦? I assume one or the other.

It's not all that frequent a sequence. Not rare, but not frequent. I suspect I am not the only one who would welcome thoughts here.

[the hog]

kenberg, on 2013-February-09, 21:15, said:

Hog, I take it then that you would start 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♠?

And then? 3♦ or 4♦? I assume one or the other.

It's not all that frequent a sequence. Not rare, but not frequent. I suspect I am not the only one who would welcome thoughts here.

Ken, playing with my favourite pd, (that would be a good trick as he is dead), and playing my favourite system, I would open 1S. Not opening 1S would deny a 5 card suit. However, that's another story.
However, yes playing with a partner with half a brain I would bid 1S followed by 2S. Now I would certainly bid 4D as responder; the rounded Queens and the C ace must be golden cards.
The bidding as described by Ben is obscene; 3S is the bid of a knuckalavey! Yes, it is a pretty rare sequence; I guess it will surface again in 5 years time.

[kenberg]

Here in the Washington D.C area Steve Robinson (definitely not dead, I am pleased to say) also advocates opening 1♠ with five, regardless of the number of diamonds held. I think it is still a minority view, but I don't plan on debating bridge with Steve. I am not sure opening 1♠ is going to work out so well here. At least it complicates matters.

After 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♠ I think many of us have nor really discussed what's what. I suppose 2NT is natural. Or sort of natural. Surely opener expects two diamonds (at least) in responder's hand from his first NT bid and I would think he would then think 3♦ is a better contract than 2NT. So I am not so sure that 2NT would ever be played. Or maybe responder bids 1NT and then 2NT with a 2-4-1-6 hand. But bidding 3♣ over 1♠ would, with agreement, show that hand. Ok, maybe 2NT on 2-5-1-5? Ugh. I think I pass 2♠. If that's allowed. It's really not clear to ma the contract would ever be 2NT after 1♦-1♥-1♠-1NT-2♠ .

I said that on the OP auction a partner chose 5♦ but I recall now that he later changed his mind. He said he would bid 4♣ over 3♠ and then bid 5♦ over whatever opener did next. Presumably that would heavily invite 6♦ but leave the final choice to opener. Put the blame on Mame.

Anyway, as the thread went on I realized I had no idea what to make of the 3♠ and really I think that I still don't. But since I think it is easy enough to get to 5♦ on the actual combined hands w/o jumping, I might, if I thought long enough, come to the conclusion that 3♠ says that he wants me to bid 6 with this. As you and Phil and others conclude.

My thoughts on this are very muddled. But I think that my clone and I would get to 5♦ w/o jumping to 3♠, and we would not end in 6.


Added: I guess I am saying that after the 1NT rebid opener with a 6-5 can reasonably expect that the hands are not a total misfit. Maybe it's just barely possible that diamonds are a 6-1 fit but really it is not likely. It will also not be often that the hands should really be played in NT. So the questions are which suit and how high, and perhaps should we consider NT. I suppose that a 3♠ rebid should mean something, but I am still not sure what. Probably part of the meaning is that we should totally forget NT. It also seems to me it should be a game force. It's true that 1♠ was passable but it almost never is passed, so I can imagine that 3♠ could be a gf based on the new knowledge from 1NT that responder had a genuine response to 1♦ and also that we are not in a total misfit.

[cherdano]

I agree with everything Phil posted in this thread, except:

PhilKing, on 2013-February-06, 10:00, said:

(...) But ♠AJTxx ♥x ♦AKJTxxx ♣- is possible (and somewhat light, I would say)

I think calling this "somewhat light" is an overstatement - this hand has play for 4♠ opposite xxx xxxx xx xxxx and for 5♦ opposite xx xxxx xxx xxxx. A single useful honour from partner will make either game good - I think 2♠ over 1NT would be quite an underbid.

I not only think that 4♦ might be passed by partner, I think it's clearly non-forcing. I suppose if someone claimed "After we both have made a non-forcing bid, a preference back to partner's known longest suit can never be forcing" and put up a poll whether we agree/disagree, they would be referred to the Novice/Beginners' forum.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2013-February-10, 11:14, said:

I agree with everything Phil posted in this thread, except:

I think calling this "somewhat light" is an overstatement - this hand has play for 4♠ opposite xxx xxxx xx xxxx and for 5♦ opposite xx xxxx xxx xxxx. A single useful honour from partner will make either game good - I think 2♠ over 1NT would be quite an underbid.

I not only think that 4♦ might be passed by partner, I think it's clearly non-forcing. I suppose if someone claimed "After we both have made a non-forcing bid, a preference back to partner's known longest suit can never be forcing" and put up a poll whether we agree/disagree, they would be referred to the Novice/Beginners' forum.

Yes, perhaps so. I have 90% acknowledged my mis-thinking here. But I am holding out on the final 10%. After 1♦-1♥, the 1♠ is non-forcing, that's true. At least as most play it. And the 1NT bid is certainly non-forcing by anyone's standards. But we are entitled then to look at the fact that partner did not pass 1♠, did not rebid 2♥, and did bid 1NT. We now know he has something, presumably a six count or more and presumably aat least a few cards that have diamonds and spades showing. Is it really not possible for opener to say: I was right on the border of bidding a game forcing 2♠ over 1♥, and now that you have bid again I assume that the heart bid was not based on five hearts to the KJ and a diamond void (might you not bid 1♥ with that?, and with three spades you would pass 1♠?) I want to force to game.

I am pretty sure that I am not a total idiot but yes, maybe I am wrong. It happens.

[cherdano]

I don't think the 1N bid shows any extra values. It's the normal bid with xx QJxxx xx QJxx, which is not much better than xx xxxxx xx xxxx in this auction.