A very simple choice

[kfgauss]

What is wrong with a 1♦ opening here? Opening 1♠ makes it impossible to show your hand

 

1♦ 2♠ 3♠

Probably you mistook the "1" and "0" of diamonds as distinct cards :lol: (it does make the diamond suit look longer at first glance, actually).

 

Anyways, I'm a 2♦ bidder. Partner won't tend to pass when we have something, and this will afford me better description of my hand (more room) and more safety when we have a misfit.

 

Well done to get to the slam. Of course, who's to say if you'd held back a bit you wouldn't have subsequently made a slam try over partner's 3♦ (which partner is presumably accepting).

 

Andy

[jillybean]

What is wrong with a 1♦ opening here? Opening 1♠ makes it impossible to show your hand

 

1♦ 2♠ 3♠

Forget that, I was imagining more ♦'s or something

 

:lol: ♦♦♦♦♦♦girls best friend

[P_Marlowe]

Why wouldnßt this happen?

 

1 ♠ 1 NT 2 ♦ 3 ♥ splinter agreeing Hearts seems to be a good way to 6♦ and yes, this would happen in 95% or more experts partnerships I believe...

Rex had the best possible hand opposite your 2 ♦ bid and you have extras too, so no problem to reach slam.

 

I am not 100% sure, if opener will really

get exicted over a 3H bid, afterall he holds

KJx in hearts and faces a limited responder.

 

Besides, 2D does not gurantee a 4 card heart

suit, at least if you require, that 2H has to be 6

card suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

2♦ is automatic.

[sceptic]

The amount of times I have bid 3 diamonds on this type of hand playing 2/1 and screwed up badly because I think the controls are good and the shape and void will get me to my imaginary slam when pard has the perfect hand for me

 

if your pard bids 1NT forcing on an Ace (Ace clubs is not the feature I want to see) you can end up in deep shite (which I have done on numerous occasions)

 

I prefer 2 diamonds and think it is the right thing to do, it keeps me out the shite

[han]

3♦ - all day, every day and on the Queen's official birthday, to name but a few.

 

Once you have got used to bidding up powerful hands when you have no more than 15 points, it becomes a case of "points, schmoints".

 

Why DO 2/1 players always have MORE of everything? The rest of us manage quite fine.

 

Stephen

2♦ is automatic playing 2/1, standard American, different versions of Acol and French standard. Only playing strong club can you afford to to jumpshift here, but that is completely different.

[mcphee]

Those players looking for rules take note:

 

The Reverse ALWAYS shows a longer first suit. One of the rew hard fast rules.

[hotShot]

Those players looking for rules take note:

 

The Reverse ALWAYS shows a longer first suit. One of the rew hard fast rules.

So you can't reverse with[hv=s=skq54hqdakj2ckq53]133|100|[/hv]

[hatchett]

So you can't reverse withDealer:  ????? 

Vul:  ???? 

Scoring:  Unknown 

♠  KQ54 

♥  Q 

♦  AKJ2 

♣  KQ53 

 

 

correct, you can't reverse.

 

You would open 1♦ and over a 1♥ response either bid 2♠ or 1♠ if that was forcing.

[hrothgar]

3♦ - all day, every day and on the Queen's official birthday, to name but a few.

 

Once you have got used to bidding up powerful hands when you have no more than 15 points, it becomes a case of "points, schmoints".

 

Why DO 2/1 players always have MORE of everything? The rest of us manage quite fine.

For what its worth, I consider this a clear cut 2♦ response. The 3♦ uses a lot of bidding space. Accordingly, it needs to be relatively well defined. Your constructive bidding is going to suffer enormously if if the 3♦ rebid has a large range. Furthermore, I don't believe that familiarity with this style improve matters significantly. The issue is one's ability to design a sensible response structure, not getting "used to" partner's style.

 

Finally, I don't think that this issue is specific to 2/1 game force... You see the same fairly rigid strength requirements for a 3♦ jump rebid in a wide variety of bidding systems. The major exceptions are systems that have some mechanism to offload very strong two suited hands from the one level opening. For example, adopting a Strong Club opening restricts the maximum strength for a 3♦ jump rebid. According, one can safely drop the miimum strength required for the bid. Ben's Misery preempts achieve the same end...

[P_Marlowe]

Those players looking for rules take note:

 

The Reverse ALWAYS shows a longer first suit. One of the rew hard fast rules.

I would modify this rule,

openers first suit is a 5 card suit.

It depends of course how you

define reverse, is a jump shift a

reverse?

 

3D in the given auction shows 5-4,

but maybe 5-5-.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[microcap]

Why wouldnßt this happen?

 

1 ♠ 1 NT 2 ♦ 3 ♥ splinter agreeing Hearts seems to be a good way to 6♦ and yes, this would happen in 95% or more experts partnerships I believe...

Rex had the best possible hand opposite your 2 ♦ bid and you have extras too, so no problem to reach slam.

Rex is ALWAYS correct about book bids---I post these hands for me to learn LOL

 

A couple final comments/questions:

 

 

Now the♥ splinter has turned my hand from 15 HCP [which most have said wasn't enough for g/f] to 11 HCP. So getting to slam seems inconceivable, much less 95% of expert partnerships.

 

Bid_em_up is a far better player than I am. But even if I bid 2♦ here, where am I going with his sample hand of x Qxxx xx KQxxxx? No contract will be a good one. So maybe I go down one extra in this hand by bidding 3♦.

 

Here is a possible expected return table when bidding 3♦-

 

20%--- plus 13 imps

20%--- flat board

40%-- lose 2 imps

20%-- lose 6 imps

 

This adds up to more than zero, meaning it is a long run winner not loser. While obviously the percentages are arbitrary on my part, I hardly think they are outrageous.

 

Comments?

 

B)

[mikestar]

I pull it in a notch and settle for 2♦ playing Precision. 3♦ is OK on values, but will miss a 5-3 heart fit if it exists. But partner's most likely shape has long clubs, particulary since neither opponent overcalled in clubs. If this is the case, he may well pass 3♦ with a doubleton and that isn't going to play well at all.

 

The point of this being, if it isn't a good bet to bid 3♦ strong but NF in Precision, how can 3♦ GF possibly be right?

 

Consider also that 1NT forcing can be weaker in 2/1 than in Precision, where responer can pass on a nondescript 6-count.

[mikestar]

In 2/1, if 3♥ is not a splinter (I think it shouldn't be) after 1♠-1NT-2♦, partner should jump to 4♦ with his miracle fit and the slam should be reached.

[awm]

Several comments here:

 

(1) The slam bid on the actual hands isn't all that great. If diamonds are not 2-2 there will be a number of issues, in particular that you will often need to ruff a spade (unless spades 3-3) and also will need to ruff at least one heart.

 

(2) If partner has a hand that would pass 2♦, it will often be best to play 2♦. Certainly if partner has only three diamonds and less than 10 points, it's hard to construct hands where 5♦ or 3NT is particularly good. Even on a "no wastage maximum" hand like Qx Axxx Kxx xxxx, you will need diamonds to break to really have a chance.

 

(3) It's quite possible to re-evaluate a hand once partner chooses to raise. If partner bids 3♦ over 2♦ then opener's hand is superb and there's nothing preventing you from trying for slam at that point. Certainly at least game will be reached.

 

There's a general question about how to evaluate hands here. With a little distribution, it will often be the case that a hand is quite powerful in the presence of a decent fit and not so good opposite a misfit. The three basic views are: (1) Be optimistic, assume there's a fit until you find out otherwise. (2) Go with the average situation, usually a moderate fit (complete misfit is on fewer than 15% of hands) until you find out otherwise one way or the other. (3) Assume misfit and be conservative until you find out otherwise. I'm a strong believer in method (3), because playing 2/1 or similar methods your side must often decide whether to game force early in the auction. Once you're forced to game it's very difficult to "back off" when you find out there's no fit -- you're forced to game! On the other hand, when you do have a fit, partner will virtually always raise one of your suits, and it's easy to then start cuebidding or otherwise push the auction towards slam. As applied to this hand, certainly in the presence of a good fit the hand is worth a game force. But if I force to game at second call I'm stuck with that, fit or no fit. Obviously it will be "right" more often than "wrong" but why am I taking a percentage guess this early in the auction? Partner won't drop me in 2♦ with a good fit after all. By taking the conservative path I will usually get to a good spot.

[Finch]

Now the♥ splinter has turned my hand from 15 HCP [which most have said wasn't enough for g/f] to 11 HCP. So getting to slam seems inconceivable, much less 95% of expert partnerships.

 

Bid_em_up is a far better player than I am. But even if I bid 2♦ here, where am I going with his sample hand of x Qxxx xx KQxxxx? No contract will be a good one. So maybe I go down one extra in this hand by bidding 3♦.

 

Here is a possible expected return table when bidding 3♦-

 

20%--- plus 13 imps

20%--- flat board

40%-- lose 2 imps

20%-- lose 6 imps

 

This adds up to more than zero, meaning it is a long run winner not loser. While obviously the percentages are arbitrary on my part, I hardly think they are outrageous.

 

Comments?

Two comments:

i) Your percentages (which I don't agree with anyway, but that's beside the point) seem to miss out 3 of the other downsides from bidding 3D

 

- partner driving to slam believing you really have a 3D bid (or the flipside, missing slam when you really have a 3D bid and partner plays you for this hand)

- playing in the wrong game (most likely 3NT instead of 4M, but there are other downsides)

- missing your heart slam

 

ii) when partner splinters your hand improves because you have a 9-card diamond fit. That is far more important than the downgrade to the KJ of hearts.

 

By the way, I reckon 6D (in spite of both players have the D10) is only a little more than 50%.

 

I don't understand this comment:

But as I am attempting to impress upon Rex, technically correct bridge often leads precisely to losing bridge

 

Technically correct bridge, by definition, leads to winning bridge more often than technically incorrect bridge. Otherwise it wouldn't be correct.

[microcap]

Ever stop correctly in 3 of a partial when they are making 3NT with slight misdefense in the other room?

 

Ever have a beautiful detailed sequence to a slam that steers opposition away from the most obvious lead to the only one that beats the contract?

 

Ever make a fancy artificial bid that allows a double and gives opposition the best opening lead?

 

It's not that all this wonderful technical creativity doesn't have its place, or even that it isn't a long run winner. But bridge is played single dummy by humans, not double dummy by Deep Finesse! :)

 

 

I just believe that especially at the top levels, it is instinct more than science that separates the very best from the best. Call me Mr. Left Brain! B)

[han]

So with technically correct you mean ignoring the fact that the defense may make mistakes? that doesn't seem technically correct to me.

[sfbp]

2♦ is automatic playing 2/1, standard American, different versions of Acol and French standard. Only playing strong club can you afford to to jumpshift here, but that is completely different.

But can you afford NOT to play a strong club system?

[cherdano]

2♦ is automatic playing 2/1, standard American, different versions of Acol and French standard. Only playing strong club can you afford to to jumpshift here, but that is completely different.

But can you afford NOT to play a strong club system?

Yes I can. Thanks for asking.

[Echognome]

Those players looking for rules take note:

 

The Reverse ALWAYS shows a longer first suit. One of the rew hard fast rules.

So you can't reverse with[hv=s=skq54hqdakj2ckq53]133|100|[/hv]

I wouldn't have used this example. The time where you have difficulty is with the 1=4=4=4.

 

♠x ♥AKxx ♦AKQx ♣QTxx

 

What is your opening in a natural system? The book bid seems to be 1♦.

 

Now what do you bid over 1♠? I know I bid 2♥ rather than 2♣ lest hearts get lost forever (I'd rather lose ♣ than ♥).

 

So sure, I want my partner to EXPECT me to have 5♦, but I wouldn't say it's an ALWAYS.

[han]

Well said Echo.

[hrothgar]

Those players looking for rules take note:

 

The Reverse ALWAYS shows a longer first suit. One of the rew hard fast rules.

So you can't reverse with[hv=s=skq54hqdakj2ckq53]133|100|[/hv]

I wouldn't have used this example. The time where you have difficulty is with the 1=4=4=4.

 

♠x ♥AKxx ♦AKQx ♣QTxx

 

What is your opening in a natural system? The book bid seems to be 1♦.

 

Now what do you bid over 1♠? I know I bid 2♥ rather than 2♣ lest hearts get lost forever (I'd rather lose ♣ than ♥).

 

So sure, I want my partner to EXPECT me to have 5♦, but I wouldn't say it's an ALWAYS.

everyone knows that 4441 hands are a pain in the butt...

 

Personally, I prefer to treat them as balanced

This hand, I'd open 1♦ and rebid 2NT over 1♠

[hotShot]

Balanced hands are no problem, this is why i selected an unbalanced hand.

There must be a way to bid hands with

4M-4m

4M-5m

5M-4m

5M-5m

5M-6m

in a way partner can understand.

[hrothgar]

Balanced hands are no problem, this is why i selected an unbalanced hand.

There must be a way to bid hands with

4M-4m

4M-5m

5M-4m

5M-5m

5M-6m

in a way partner can understand.

People have come up with plenty of ways to avoid lying about shape... The world is littered with conventions like the Strong Roman 2♦, multi varients and the like.

However, when push comes to shove most partnerships prefer to accept a bit of ambiguity about shape in exchange for freeing up their 2♦ openings for something more useful. Hence the discussion

 

I prefer to make the 2NT rebid somewhat ambiguous (partner could, in theory have a stiff). In return, my reverse explicitly promises more cards in the lower suit than the higher. Matt prefers a structure in which he could reverse with a 4441 shape.