Spades and Diamonds

[han]

You hold: [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sak10xxxhxdakqxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

RHO opens 1C, what is your plan?

 

If you overcall 1S, LHO will bid 1NT and this will come back to you.

[hrothgar]

1♠ followed by 3♦ seems right...

 

Partner will know that I have a big hand and will understand my shape.

[inquiry]

1♠ is just too huge an underbid for me. Sorry I can't ever see myself bidding just 1♠. In the old days, you would cue-bid to show this monster and then worry about the second bid.

 

So how do we handle this? I happen to use MishoVnBg's version of wacky Raptor. Here I would bid 1NT to show diamonds and 4+ in a major, or a hand with 5+spades and 5+ in a minor either normal opening or super monster. Then I would show a VERY strong hand with long spades next (as well as 5+ diamonds) next. (read more about misho's treatment in this forum somewhere).

 

Don't have wacky raptor available? Then what is your 4♦'s? Do you play that as monster leaping michaels (diamonds and a major? Diamonds and spades? -- since spades and hearts is 2C, and hearts and diamonds is 2NT). If so, then 4D, if not, then what is 4♣?

 

If I have no way to show this hand conventionally, I guess I will double, not liking that option.

[han]

I was kibitzing when I saw this hand, but I'm pretty sure that the partnership didn't have wacky-raptor or leaping Michaels available.

[Finch]

Without any methods I overcall 1S and hope for the best. I don't like double with such a pure 2-suiter.

 

 

I normally restrain myself from posting on favourite systemic gadgets, but Ben started it....

 

The standard tension with 2-suited overcalls (unusual 2NT/Michaels etc) is that you only have two 'spare' bids - cue bid and 2NT - to show 3 possible 2-suiters. There are two basic ways round this: use another bid (Ghestem/Wenble etc), or leave out one of the 2-suiters.

 

We have gone for the second of these, and have decided that the least important 2-suiter is the lowest two suits, so play

 

1S - 2S = hearts and diamonds

1S - 2NT = hearts and clubs

 

1D - 2D = majors

1D - 2NT = spades and clubs

 

1C - 2C = majors

1C- 2NT = spades and diamonds

 

1H is a tricky one, because it's tempting not to give up the chance of playing in 2S, so in one partnership I play

 

1H - 2H = spades & a minor

1H - 2NT = minors

 

and in the other I play

 

1H - 2H = spades & Diamonds

1H - 2NT = spades & clubs

 

So on this hand I happily over 2NT, planning to bid again.

[mike777]

X

 

At my table RHO passed and pard opened 1S.

[pclayton]

1♠. The auction won't die here.

 

Double is wrong. Even if you bid spades over hearts, you'll never convince your pard you have 11 cards in the pointed suits.

[mike777]

1♠. The auction won't die here.

 

.

Why not?

[pclayton]

1♠. The auction won't die here.

 

.

Why not?

Well it might, but it probably won't. As your hero Al Roth says, If I can get by this round of bidding...." :)

[mike777]

1♠. The auction won't die here.

 

.

Why not?

Well it might, but it probably won't. As your hero Al Roth says, If I can get by this round of bidding...." :)

WEll you still have a chance to win the board in the play :).

[bid_em_up]

My partnerships use (1C)-3C to show spades and diamonds via the following method (this may be Ghestem, or a variation of it):

 

Direct cuebid shows the two higher ranking suits.

2N shows the two lower unbid.

Jump to 3C over opening bid (1x) 3C is the higher and lower ranking unbid suits (by opponents). If opponent opened 1D, it would be clubs and spades.

 

Yes, this gives up a preemptive bid of 3C. Oh well. When is the last time you were allowed to play a preemptive jump overcall of 3C? Unless thats where the opps want you to play and when that is the case, you are usually doubled anyway.

 

The tradeoff is partner always knows immediately what two suits you have, and how well your hands fit together.

 

If partner simply bids 3D, you can now show the bigger hand by bidding 3S (which should be absolutely game forcing, you would pass 3D otherwise).

 

Easy game, this bridge.....hehe.

[Finch]

The real problem with playing a 3C overcall as a two-suiter is that in the bridge-playing world as a whole only about 20% of the time does both the bidder and their partner remember that it doesn't show clubs.

[Joe de Balliol]

I'm not worried about the auction ending here [well not much anyway...] but I am worried that I won't be able to describe my hand, and this is very much a hand where grand is possible so it's important to explore. Double first, I'll follow it up by bidding spades and rebidding diamonds.

 

J

[luke warm]

3♣ for me shows top/bottom 2 suiter, which fits in well with unusual 2nt and michaels... with these hands, i'd be afraid of bidding 1♠ all pass, so i'd probably double then bid... if i didn't double, i'd bid it as richard suggested

[Double !]

3♣ for me shows top/bottom 2 suiter, which fits in well with unusual 2nt and michaels... with these hands, i'd be afraid of bidding 1♠ all pass, so i'd probably double then bid... if i didn't double, i'd bid it as richard suggested

Jimmy: I like the idea of 3 clubs being top and bottom, too. Just one small problem. Relatively few people play it that way. In addition, this hand is so strong: are you Q-bidding 4C when partner responds 3 Spades (which is just a preference at this point). The follow-up bidding structure is critical.

 

If 3C isn't an option, then I go back to the adage that says "when you have a 2-suited hand, start by bidding your suits". No double by Double ! this time. I would bid 1S and then see what partner does.

 

Have nice weekend all

 

DHL

[hrothgar]

As is all too often the case, what could have been a fairly interesting question about the best way to bid hand assuming relatively standard methods has degenerated into a series of pet treatments to side step the issues:

 

Any chance that we could try to refocus the conversation?

 

In particular, do people think that the following auciton is forcing:

 

(1♣) - 1♠ - (1NT) - P

(P) - 3♦

 

Is there any relationship between the 3♦ rebid and the hand patterns that could be shown via a takeout double?

 

Furthermore, assume that we're playing standard methods so that

 

(1♣) - 2N shows the two lower unbid and

(1♣) - 2♣ shows the majors

 

How does the auction

 

(1♣) - 1♥ - (1NT) - P

(P) - 3♦

 

Differ from a two suited pattern with Spades and Diamonds?

[foo]

IMHO common sense dictates that if it goes

(1C)-1S-(1N)-pa;

and GOP makes =any= bid of a new strain it has to be taken as highly encouraging. After all, GOP must have enough extras to think that they can afford another bid opposite you when you could be utterly broke.

An example of this would be (1C)-1S-(1N)-pa;pa-2D...

 

Therefore when GOP thinks they can not only afford to bid a new strain in this auction but to jump shift opposite you when you could be broke, this =has= to be forcing.

I'd say this is a shapely hand that would be strong enough to make a GF cue bid under other circumstances or with a different shape.

 

I'll also suggest a slight change to your comment about Standard methods here are and note that (1foo)-2N is usually played as showing the 2 lowest unbid and (1m)-2m usually shows the Majors.

 

From a Theory POV, it could be argued that naturally bidding two suiters containing the

two =highest= ranking unbid suits is easier than bidding any other two suiter naturally.

Thus the optimal use of the Unusual NT and the cue bid might be:

(1C)-2N!= H+D

.......2C!= S+D

.......bid S+H naturally

(1D)-2N!= H+C

.......2D!= S+C

.......bid S+H naturally

(1H)-2N!= D+C

.......2H!= S+C

.......bid S+D naturally

(1S)-2N!= D+C

.......2S!= H+C

.......bid H+D naturally

 

...but for some reason, I don't think I know of any pairs that use the above.

[Winstonm]

Pet treatment time. ;)

 

With discussion, I like to play that impossible sequences show this type hand - simply too good and too unbalanced to risk a pass from partner.

 

So I get to start these hands with 2C, Michael's, and then over anything partner bids I bid spades, saying in essence, "I didn't really have a Michael's to begin with - I have a powerful spade 1-suiter or a powerful spade 2-suiter."

 

Winston

[hrothgar]

I'll also suggest a slight change to your comment about Standard methods here are and note that (1foo)-2N is usually played as showing the 2 lowest unbid and (1m)-2m usually shows the Majors.

sorry, somehow hearts were pointed when I made the original post

[foo]

Richard (and any other Theory fans who care to comment)

I'd be interested in hearing reactions to my thoughts regarding the best use of the 2N jump overcall and the cue bid overcall?

 

Do people feel that two suiters containing the 2 highest ranked unbid suits are significantly easier to bid naturally in contested auctions than the other kinds of two suiters?

[david_c]

From a Theory POV, it could be argued that naturally bidding two suiters containing the

two =highest= ranking unbid suits is easier than bidding any other two suiter naturally.

Thus the optimal use of the Unusual NT and the cue bid might be:

(1C)-2N!= H+D

.......2C!= S+D

.......bid S+H naturally

(1D)-2N!= H+C

.......2D!= S+C

.......bid S+H naturally

(1H)-2N!= D+C

.......2H!= S+C

.......bid S+D naturally

(1S)-2N!= D+C

.......2S!= H+C

.......bid H+D naturally

 

...but for some reason, I don't think I know of any pairs that use the above.

The logic makes sense, but I suppose over 1C and 1D people take the view that "majors are more important than minors" and so prefer to have a nice way to show S+H. [You could use a jump-cue to show S+H - I've seen some people doing this.]

 

On the other hand, your system over 1H and 1S is fairly popular.

[han]

As I said, I was kibitzing this hand. At the table the person with this hand bid 2D and partner (with xx in both spades and diamonds) passed and a poor matchpoiont spot was reached. No matter, this hand seemed great fo discussion.

 

I disagree with Foo that 2D here should necessarily show a strong hand. take for instance the same hand but with small cards instead of the aces: K10xxxx x KQxxx x. When the opponents stop in 1NT, wouldn't we all balance with 2D?

 

I don't think that 3D is forcing either, but it should show a hand with great playing strength. But maybe this hand is even too good for that and 4D is called for? I'm not sure. Before the 1NT bid we would never have stopped below game with this 3-loser hand, but this makes the chance for game slightly less likely.

[foo]

I disagree with Foo that 2D here should necessarily show a strong hand. take for instance the same hand but with small cards instead of the aces: KTxxxx x KQxxx x. When the opponents stop in 1N, wouldn't we all balance with 2D?

1= 6511 with all values in unbid suits has enormous playing stength.

Even if CHO is broke, you rate to be relatively safe if you find a fit, and the chance of finding that fit is much higher than if you have some 54?? hand.

 

Either way, you are introducing a new suit into a mistfit auction opposite a CHO who not only has passed, they have passed when you have previously invited them to do anything else rather than pass. Common sense (or simply not being suicidal) dictates you =must= have extras. Your 2nd bid may not be Forcing, but it is =highly= encouraging.

 

 

More,

2= When the opp's stop in 1N, CHO almost certainly has at least moderate values.

 

3= Holding KTxxxx.x.KQxxx.x after (1C)-1S-(1N)-pa;pa-?? , just what do you think you need to make a Game? The answer is a fit and 2-3 good cards from CHO. The odds of Us having a 6:2 S fit or a 5:3 or 5:4 D fit are very high on this auction.

CHO is likely something like =2533 or =2623 with moderate values.

Since you can make Game with most of the hands that CHO is likely to hold, you must bid accordingly.

 

We bid 2D here not just to compete for the part score, but because there is still a chance that We have somwhere to go:

(1C)-1S-(1N)-pa;pa-2D-pa-2S;-pa-??

The hand likely to have any A's or any finessable cards is in front of me.

IMNSHO making a Game Try with the given hand is completely justified.

 

 

...and if you think you shuld be in Game opposite 1 good card (or less) and a fit, then making a "Highly encouraging" bid like 2D here does not cut it. You must describe your hand in such a way as to be Forcing.

[akhare]

You hold: [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sak10xxxhxdakqxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

RHO opens 1C, what is your plan?

 

If you overcall 1S, LHO will bid 1NT and this will come back to you.

1♠ followed by 3♦. X is a terrible bid IMO (unless your pard can sort it out when you bid some number of ♠ after your partner bids some number of ♥).

 

Atul

[han]

I disagree with Foo that 2D here should necessarily show a strong hand. take for instance the same hand but with small cards instead of the aces: KTxxxx x KQxxx x. When the opponents stop in 1N, wouldn't we all balance with 2D?

1= 6511 with all values in unbid suits has enormous playing stength.

Even if CHO is broke, you rate to be relatively safe if you find a fit, and the chance of finding that fit is much higher than if you have some 54?? hand.

 

Either way, you are introducing a new suit into a mistfit auction opposite a CHO who not only has passed, they have passed when you have previously invited them to do anything else rather than pass. Common sense (or simply not being suicidal) dictates you =must= have extras. Your 2nd bid may not be Forcing, but it is =highly= encouraging.

Foo, I'm not sure what you are suggesting. It seems to me that you are saying that you would indeed bid 2D on K10xxxx x KQxxx x, it is safe because partner must have some values and you are safe because of your playing strength, and you also bid 2D on AK10xxx x AKQxx x, for reasons that are not clear to me. And then you suggest that this is ok, that partner will somehow figure out when to pass and when to bid.

 

I hope that I am misinterpreting your comments, because this doesn't make any sense to me. Could you please clarify?