4th suit problem

[adhoc3]

This hand is grabbed from other forum.

[hv=w=sxhaxxxxdkqxxcaxx&e=sajxxxhxdxckqxxxx]266|100|1♥---1♠

2♦---??

 

Now East has a problem with continuing.[/hv]

 

The host said he thought 3C would be game forcing so had to bid 2♠(:rolleyes: ). Then his pd passed( :D ). Someone suggested it is better that West rebid 1NT, as pre-discussed the shape that the opener could have, to solve this kind of problem.

 

I think 3C is ok for the shape dominating. But of course 3NT/5C would be an illusion without west's 2 Aces.

 

Is there scientific solution?

[Guest Jlall]

I would not have bid 1S. There is no sensible way to bid this hand if I start with 1S, so I'd just start with 2C and bid out my shape and risk getting too high opposite a misfit. If you bid 3C over the 2D/2H rebid which forces to game then 1S really makes no sense to me.

[mike777]

I would not have bid 1S. There is no sensible way to bid this hand if I start with 1S, so I'd just start with 2C and bid out my shape and risk getting too high opposite a misfit. If you bid 3C over the 2D/2H rebid which forces to game then 1S really makes no sense to me.

ditto

[adhoc3]

I would not have bid 1S. There is no sensible way to bid this hand if I start with 1S, so I'd just start with 2C and bid out my shape and risk getting too high opposite a misfit. If you bid 3C over the 2D/2H rebid which forces to game then 1S really makes no sense to me.

 

If start with 2C:

 

1H---2C

2D---2S*

 

Recalled the thread we've discussed, which is about FSF after 2/1, it's the time that nobody want FSF still valid after 2/1 :) . Much more comfortable sequence. But still faraway from game. A nice part score is good enough I think.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=11015&st=0

[mike777]

I would not have bid 1S. There is no sensible way to bid this hand if I start with 1S, so I'd just start with 2C and bid out my shape and risk getting too high opposite a misfit. If you bid 3C over the 2D/2H rebid which forces to game then 1S really makes no sense to me.

 

If start with 2C:

 

1H---2C

2D---2S*

 

Recalled the thread we've discussed, which is about FSF after 2/1, it's the time that nobody want FSF still valid after 2/1 :) . Much more comfortable sequence. But still faraway from game. A nice part score is good enough I think.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=11015&st=0

1h=2c

3c=why complicate things...you have good support, show it. Now partner can kickback with 4d and you are on your way. If you think kickback is too much then bid 4c...in any event really hate that 2d bid.

 

I think the confusion on this hand is very common and is due to a very common issue. Many players, perhaps most, feel the priority is to describe each of your hands as fully as possible and come to some end result. Notice the top priority of describing your hands. I think this is an often fatal error.

 

Try making your top priority bidding contracts and making them. This may often result in not fully describing your hand to partner on every deal. I still find myself falling into the trap of trying to describe my hand too much rather than just getting to a contract and making it.

[mcphee]

It is hard to think that you would not open the bidding 1C in first seat. That being the case what reason can you find for not creating a GF when you have already admittted to yourself you would open the bidding 1C? 6-5 shape need very little to make.

[whereagles]

After

 

1♥ 1♠

2♦

 

you can be optimitic and bid 3♣ (followed up by 4♣) or not-so-optimistic and bid a plain 2♠ sign-off (my choice).

 

Sure with 2♠, you can miss 5♣ and/or there can be a better partscore available, but in the long run it's probably safer to stay low with hands like these, where the misfit potential is huge. Actually, holding a 6-5, a club fit (even if it's the 6-2) is not that unlikely. But there is no way to try and sign-off in clubs at this stage (unless you try a 2NT bid, hoping for a 3♣ rebid from opener, and even then you won't resist adding a 5th... lol).

 

Starting out with 2♣, foreseeing the danger of a 2♦ rebid, is an easier-to-spot bid double dummy :) (Not that it's bad strategy.. after all you have a 6-5.)

[pclayton]

There's two approaches with this hand. One is to try 2♣ and hope to catch a fit. If you catch a club or spade fit, its great, but otherwise you'll frequently be pushed to a hopeless 3N.

 

The other is to try 1♠ 1st. Frequently, you'll still be able to find the potential of most likely strain (♠'s) early on and can judge.

 

I prefer 1♠. However, over a 2♦ rebid by pard, I'd try 2N. Its a fair description of your strength, although your distribution is skewed.

 

On the actual hand, pard can bid the fragment and you'll back into the best strain.

[mikeh]

For me (as others have said) this is a 2♣ response. Yes, it is light on hcp to show a gf, but '6-5 come alive' is a valid saying.

 

There will be time to get back to spades if you start with clubs, but it will be rare for the converse to be true.

 

Thus on the actual hand, if you 4th suit with 3♣, having started 1♠, you can kiss the ♣ suit goodbye (surely you are not going to bid over 3N?), even tho 6♣ may be a better spot than 3N: give partner x KQJxx Axxx Axx: a ♦ lead may well beat 3N while 6♣ has real possibilities.

 

As for West's rebid over 2♣, I strongly disagree with an immediate raise. A 2♣ response is often made on a 4 card suit (and sometimes even on 3). Give responder xxx Kx KQxx KQxx, and you'd get a huge vote for 2♣ as the correct response. Try finding ♦ now! This is merely one of a number of reasons why one should not raise a 2♣ response with 3 cards.

 

As for West's rebid over the (erroneous) 1♠ response, once again I disagree with 1N. However, many good players feel no pain in rebidding 1N with 5431 shape, and a stiff in partner's suit. I am yet to be convinced that this is the best approach, but if your agreements permit it, then I could live with it.

 

For me:

 

1♥  2♣

2♦  2♠

3♣  3♠

?

The meaning of 2♠ would depend on system: if 2♣ was gf, then 2♠ is ostensibly natural, while if 2♣ was not gf, 2♠ is artificial.

 

It is not clear how the auction would develop after this start. West has a minimum, but a potentially great minimum: good red suit controls, the very useful trump A (for ♣'s) and a ruffing value. My suspicion is that the final resting spots would be a conservative 3N if now bid by West, or a more likely 5♣ and, as least likely but possible, 6♣. I am not saying that 6♣ is a good spot : merely recognizing that my preferred auction might propel me there, Anyway, I'd rather be in 6♣ than 2♠ even if the latter has a better chance of making :P

[Cascade]

I force to game with the East hand. We would start with 2♣ and then over 2♦ jump to 3♠. For us this would show a 5-6 GF.

 

As Justin said I would just risk getting too high with a misfit.

[ochinko]

1♥ - 1♠

2♦ - 2NT

 

3♣ is artificial, so 2NT should show clubs, no? Not only do I have 10 pts, but the long club could provide some tricks when it meets an honor in partner's hand as is the case.

 

I like to keep it simple, and bid what I have. If I don't start with 1♠, how am I going to describe my hand? Is there a chance to find a spade contract when partner has

 

KQ

Axxxx

xxxxx

A

[Kalvan14]

My preference is for starting with 2♣. While the hand is not up to the value of a 2/1 GF reply, the playing values of a 6-5 are huge.

 

If (mistakenly, IMHO) the first bid is 1♠, then you can only rebid 2N (which is a fair description of values, and should be likely to be with 5 clubs).

 

BTW, I play the sequence 1♥-2♣*-2♦-2♠ as 4th suit (but partner raises with 4 cards). 3♠ would be a splinter, agreeing diamonds; therefore I'd bid 2♠-any-3♠ to show a 6-5

(*): GF

[joker_gib]

A 6-5 is worth a GF even with less HCP's.

 

If the auction dies in 3NT I still have potential for tricks in my ♣ suit so I bid 2♣ first

 

Alain

[kenberg]

I'm with the majority (staring with 2C) here. With most holdings it should work out best. Kalvan also starts with 2C but suggests 1H-1S-2D-2N suggests five clubs. Not at all I think. It's a natural way to bid after 1H-1S-2D with 4-2-3-4, and in fact with 5-2-3-3 as well. In the latter case it seems likely that opener, if he holds three spades to go with his nine red cards, would bid 3S over 2NT to suggest that even if responder has only a four card holding the hand may play better in a 4-3 spade fit. So 2N over 1H-1S-2D shows club stops of course, but nothing resembling a five card suit.

 

With the hand suggested by Ochinko

KQ

Axxxx

xxxxx

A

 

the 2C bid will lead to a contract of 4S on the following likely auction

 

1H 2C

2D-2S

2NT 3S

4S

 

Over the 2S bid, which could be exploritory without a real suit, opener bids nt with his spade stop. Now 3S clarifies the position. If opener rebids 3D instead of 2N (bad imo with the shaggy diamonds) then responder still bids 3S, with equal clarity.

 

In most cases, bidding clubs first and then spades twice will be possible, and it will paint a crystal clear picure for opener. Further, at the time responder has to choose his first call he cannot be sure whether the opponents will be jamming the auction in diamonds. If, over 2C, it goes (2D) pass (4D) responder can happily bid 4S and opener, whatever he thinks his partner has, will understand that he is to choose between the black suits and will have a good chance to do the right thing. Poster suggested that responder felt his hand was not worth a game forcing sequence, in which case I suppose he must start with a spade. But there is no other reason I can see for starting with one spade. Shape gets distorted when the hand is too weak, or seen as too weak, to bid out a pattern. If you can bid your pattern, you usually should.

 

 

Ken

[P_Marlowe]

I would not have bid 1S. There is no sensible way to bid this hand if I start with 1S, so I'd just start with 2C and bid out my shape and risk getting too high opposite a misfit. If you bid 3C over the 2D/2H rebid which forces to game then 1S really makes no sense to me.

 

If start with 2C:

 

1H---2C

2D---2S*

 

Recalled the thread we've discussed, which is about FSF after 2/1, it's the time that nobody want FSF still valid after 2/1 :) . Much more comfortable sequence. But still faraway from game. A nice part score is good enough I think.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=11015&st=0

1h=2c

3c=why complicate things...you have good support, show it.

<snip>

Well: 3C is fine, but it assumes, that 2C shows a 5

carder, which it does not.

 

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

you have endplayed yourself with

1S into bidding 2NT.

1S is a reasonable bid, and of course

2C would have worked out better,

... unless opener bids 2D, because

 

1H - 2C

2D - 2S (*)

 

2S is 4th suit forcing.and artificial,

you may call it mark time bid, what

ever you, it is not natural.

 

Of course 1S would have been wonderful

if your partner belongs to the school who raises

with 3 cards, i.e. switch openers black suits

and lots of people here would raise.

 

There is an old quote from Norman Squire:

"There no sicientific way to bid 6-5 hands".

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I would not bid 1NT with openers

hand.

[Winstonm]

This hand is grabbed from other forum.

[hv=w=sxhaxxxxdkqxxcaxx&e=sajxxxhxdxckqxxxx]266|100|1♥---1♠

2♦---??

 

Now East has a problem with continuing.[/hv]

 

The host said he thought 3C would be game forcing so had to bid 2♠(:) ). Then his pd passed( :( ). Someone suggested it is better that West rebid 1NT, as pre-discussed the shape that the opener could have, to solve this kind of problem.

 

I think 3C is ok for the shape dominating. But of course 3NT/5C would be an illusion without west's 2 Aces.

 

Is there scientific solution?

There is always a scientific solution - just assign the meaning of 1D-2S to mean a hand with 5 spades and 6 clubs, invitational strength: if the hand ever occurs again you will be ready. Of, course, you will have to sacrifice strong jump shifts or weak jump shifts or anything else you are playing right now. Point being that with a virtual unlimited supply of hands attempted to be shown with a finite number of bids it is impossible to show them all - the neat thing is that whomever you are playing will have the same limitations.

 

A terrific Icelandic player, "Siggi" Sverrisson puts it best: "These hands present the exact problem for your opps & are hands where you take your best shot, live w/the outcome & then move on to the infinitely greater variety of hands you absolutely must get right at imps to succeed ... the game hands & 5-6 imp part score swings. You beat up on yourself over these hands, then you won't have the grit to do the right thing when it really counts."

 

Winston

[Fluffy]

Natural systems have problems with invitational 2 suiters. You have to pick at first bid how are you gonna trat this hand.

 

Choices are:

 

Semi-Balanced invitaional (1♠+2NT)

GF with 5+♣ and 4♠ (2♣)

♣ single suiter (2♣ then 3♣ or 1NT forcing then 3♣)

GF 5-5 (my option) 1♠, then 3♣

♠ single suiter, the one picked at the table, I think that is the worst option of the 5.