Swiss hand #2

[Guest Jlall]

OK time for full hands...

 

Partner has xx xxxx AQxxx xx. If you bid 3C he will pass and you'll make 6. If you bid 2S he will volunteer 3D and I would imagine you just bid keycard over that. If you play 2D shows extras and bid 2D partner will raise to 3D and you'll have to figure it out (I'm sure you all would but I submit that it is difficult :P).

 

At the table a good pair that wasn't sure what 2D meant elected to bid 3C and went +170. oops.

[mike777]

OK time for full hands...

 

Partner has xx xxxx AQxxx xx. If you bid 3C he will pass and you'll make 6. If you bid 2S he will volunteer 3D and I would imagine you just bid keycard over that. If you play 2D shows extras and bid 2D partner will raise to 3D and you'll have to figure it out (I'm sure you all would but I submit that it is difficult :P).

 

At the table a good pair that wasn't sure what 2D meant elected to bid 3C and went +170. oops.

Great hand.....I guess I need to bid 2s here and not 3clubs.

 

I still think 2d rebid is not an option as I guess I need that for this hand?

 

x...Axx...Qxxx...AKxxx

 

When I open one club? Or do you simply rebid 2clubs with that hand on this auction and have 2d show extra's?

 

 

Yes that means over partner's rebid of 3D he needs to realize 4H is rkc for D and not heart support!

 

"1. Not necessarily. What if you had x,Axx,Qxxx,AKxxx. Oh, sure, the purists open 1D, but what if you weren’t feeling too pure that day. This is just one example.

 

2. 2S feels right but I may not be able to control the auction. 3D is to wacko even for me. That leaves 3C, the bid that I hate more than anything in Standard American (because only the guy who BIDS it knows what he has…….!!)

 

 

 

Let’s see…….if I try 2S and he:

 

· Bids 2N, I’ll try 3N

 

· Bids 3C, I’ll try 3D, which should, in theory at least, be forcing for one round or more

 

· Bids 3D, I’ll use KICKBACK (no, that could not be natural as I would have bid 3H forcing first)

 

· Bids 3H, I will try either 4C or 4H

 

· Bids 3S, I’ll try 4C. Surely, HE knows what we are doing…….

 

· Bids 3N, I don’t know. Maybe, 4N quantitative???

 

· Bids 4C, I’ll RKC.

 

 

 

OK, I convinced myself.

 

 

 

I am bidding 2S….."

[mikeh]

OK, I convinced myself.

 

 

 

I am bidding 2S….."

well, you sure haven't convinced me :P

 

As for your comments about the 'purists' approach to bidding x Axx Qxxx AKxxx.... I don't know any good player who would open that 1♦. I am not saying that NO good player would choose that, but I don't personally know anyone who would, and I have played with some pretty good players as partners or teammates.

 

There are some who readily open 1♦ with AKxx Qxxxx... but not with Qxxx AKxxx.

 

I am still puzzled by the utter failure of the '2♦ can't show extras because we can't rebid a 5 card ♣ suit' to deal with xx xxx AKx KQxxx, an example I gave earlier.

 

if you agree that this is a 2♣ rebid, what in earth is the problem with 2♣ on 2245????

 

If it isn't a 2♣ rebid...... what is it, and exactly how is that a better solution to the problem????

 

As for reaching slam over my 2♦ bid: it ain't going to happen. Oh well. But I will reach the best game, and that will win imps against most of the posters here. The overbidders (forcing to game on this opposite a negative double is a bit weird to my way of thinking) will beat me on this board.... but I like my chances against such eternal optimists.

[awm]

The general issue is that rebidding a mediocre five-card club suit is a bad idea. This is especially true if partner will make a negative double with any hand including four hearts (such as 5431 or 4441 patterns). Of course, there do exist hands with 2335 shape where the hearts are too weak to think about bidding them on three and there's nothing resembling a spade stopper, and you just have to rebid 2♣ on five. But this is basically a "fix" hand. The following line of argument is fallacious:

 

(1) There exist awkward hands where I have to do something "bad" and hope it works out.

(2) Therefore, these "bad" bids are a necessary part of the methods.

(3) Therefore I may as well adopt methods that extend the "bad" bids to a much wider range of hands.

 

To see what this is wrong, a similar line of reasoning goes something like the following:

 

(1) There exist hands where most good players will respond to 1m on a strong three-card major.

(2) Therefore, responding to 1m with a three-card major must be okay.

(3) Thus we should always respond three-card majors up the line when partner opens 1m.

 

Just because there exist awful fix hands where your values are in the wrong places and you have to rebid 2♣ on five doesn't mean you should make a general practice of always rebidding five card club suits even on hands where there's a reasonable alternate place to play.

[whereagles]

The general issue is that rebidding a mediocre five-card club suit is a bad idea.

There are two schools on this, and one says it's NOT.

[mikeh]

The general issue is that rebidding a mediocre five-card club suit is a bad idea. This is especially true if partner will make a negative double with any hand including four hearts (such as 5431 or 4441 patterns). Of course, there do exist hands with 2335 shape where the hearts are too weak to think about bidding them on three and there's nothing resembling a spade stopper, and you just have to rebid 2♣ on five. But this is basically a "fix" hand. The following line of argument is fallacious:

 

(1) There exist awkward hands where I have to do something "bad" and hope it works out.

(2) Therefore, these "bad" bids are a necessary part of the methods.

(3) Therefore I may as well adopt methods that extend the "bad" bids to a much wider range of hands.

 

To see what this is wrong, a similar line of reasoning goes something like the following:

 

(1) There exist hands where most good players will respond to 1m on a strong three-card major.

(2) Therefore, responding to 1m with a three-card major must be okay.

(3) Thus we should always respond three-card majors up the line when partner opens 1m.

 

Just because there exist awful fix hands where your values are in the wrong places and you have to rebid 2♣ on five doesn't mean you should make a general practice of always rebidding five card club suits even on hands where there's a reasonable alternate place to play.

You miss the point.

 

The point is not merely whether rebidding 2♣ on a possibly poor 5 card suit is 'bad'.

 

The design of a bidding system is far more complex than most appear to realize (altho other posts by you suggest that you are not amongst that group...thus I was surprised to read your post). I say this because so many answers to questions posed in this forum are suggestions that 'solve' the given hand, but appear to ignore the implications for other hands and sequences.

 

Your focussing on the notion that 'rebidding a 5 card suit is bad' is a classic example of this fallacious reasoning.....

 

All bidding methods entail compromise.

 

In my view, the gain from using 2♦ to show extras outweighs the difficulties arising from rebidding a 5 card ♣ suit. By referring to the (apparently) generally accepted notion that one SHOULD on occasion rebid a 5 card suit, I was not advocating a general expansion of that approach but merely pointing out that it is not a disaster to do so. In other words, rebidding 2♣ will not mislead partner as to the ♣ situation. If he 'expects 2335, does it take a lot of adjustment for him to 'expect' 2245 as another possibility?

 

Clearly, if 2♦ could, at no cost compared to 2♣, be no extras, then bidding 2♦ as no extras is obvious. As I tried to point out, in posts to which none of the 'no extras' posters have replied, there are real downsides to using 2♦ as no extras.

 

The hand under discussion here is one such. Unless you are a huge overbidder or have seen partner's hand, 2♠ is silly... 3♣ will be a common default bid for those who do not know what 2♦ delivers. Yet 3♣ misses a game.. yes, it actually misses a slam, but I'm not getting there either.. I reach 5♦.

 

And I am NOT using chameleon bidding here: I have played that 2♦ shows extras for many years: we actually had this sequence (not with this hand, obviously) in a Unit Newsletter bidding panel about 18 years ago and my answer was 2♦ showed extras.

 

It is fallacious reasoning to argue, as you seem to, that 'rebidding 2♣ is bad, therefore don't do it'

 

The correct approach to the issue is manifold:

 

1) is 2♣ bad? If so, what are the problems that it creates?

 

2) how serious are those problems?

 

3) if we solve those problems by using 2♦ as no extras, what problems arise from that?

 

4) how do the 2♦ no extras problems compare in frequency, degree of impact, and solubility to those from 2♣ could be 5?

 

5) If we use 2♦ no extras, what does this do to our ability to describe big hands, of less than gf?

6) if we use 2♦ as extras, what does this do to our other auctions....

 

And so on. In theory, a bidding system is like a complex spreadsheet: change one line and changes ripple through the entire system. Some apparently minor changes can have dramatic impacts on a part of the system seemingly quite distant, while others call for no or very few adjustments.

 

It is fallacious reasoning to look only within the confines of the exact hand or the exact, truncated auction.

 

In my view, having considered the implications for the rest of my methods, rebidding 2♣ on 1=3=4=5 or 2=2=4=5 is not a hardship COMPARED to the costs of using 2♦ as no extras.

[awm]

Basically the tradeoff is the following:

 

(1) If 2♦ shows extras, then you will have to rebid 2♣ on a number of hands that include a four card diamond suit. This will greatly increase the frequency of a 2♣ rebid on five cards, since with 2♦ not showing extras the only pattern where you have to do this is (233)5 with no spade stopper and lacking three hearts good enough for a 2♥ call. If 2♦ shows extras then the majority of 2245 and 3145 hands will also be rebidding 2♣ on five. Rebidding 2♣ on five is generally bad when partner has a weakish hand, because usually partner will pass and this leaves you in a 5-2 or 5-1 minor fit fairly frequently when another strain would've played better.

 

(2) If 2♦ doesn't show extras, you'll occasionally encounter a hand where the best fit was in clubs and because opener has "reversed" into diamonds you have to play 3♣. However, it's pretty rare that responder will hold such a hand with fewer than four card clubs, especially if you tend not to double on weak hands with long spades (4432 and the like).

 

(3) If 2♦ doesn't show extras, you will also occasionally encounter a hand where opener does have extras and the continuations might appear awkward. I agree that jumping to 3♦ to show 15-16 points and diamonds is somewhat silly and leaves responder poorly placed. However, if the 2♦ call could contain mild extras and the 3♦ bid is essentially a game force, this becomes much less of a problem. There's also not an issue distinguishing between the "club correction" and the "club invite" because the latter can go through 2♠.

 

In general playing "2♦ doesn't show extras" is helpful in finding the best partscore. Rebidding a bad five-carder in clubs when you have a diamond suit tends to land you in the wrong partscore more often than it helps. Playing "2♦ shows extras" is potentially helpful in game bidding while sacrificing partscore bidding accuracy. However, assuming a 3♦ jump shows a really good hand (not just 15-16) I think the accuracy lost in game bidding is small.

 

Of course this all depends on your opening style. If you normally open 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors then the problem hands for "2♦ shows extras" essentially don't come up. This is the advantage of opening 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors. Personally, I think this is a terrible style because it reaches a lot of poor partials when partner can't figure out whether to correct opener's 2♣ rebid to diamonds after 1♦-1M-2♣, and also creates issues on invitational hands when responder can't decide whether to bid 3♣ or 3♦ on the same sequence holding 3-3 minors. But I know a number of good players who swear by their canape minor suit openings (of course everyone opens 1♣ with xxxx AKQxx in the minors, that's not the point, it's more what you do with two suits of comparable quality).

[pclayton]

Here's why I think the situation is different, Mike. Assume that there is no overcall, and pard just responds 1♥. No one in their right mind would suggest a 2♦ rebid on a minimum 2245, except a beginner. However with an overcall, things are different:

 

1. The overcall allows up to make a general forcing bid via 2♠, so there's no reason to make 2♦ as showing substantially extra values (I can't tell for sure, but you certainly imply that 2♦ is forcing).

 

2. Pard is less likely to hold club support, and pard holding a diamond suit is increased.

 

3. Now, if RHO were to find a call over the negative double, no one would argue that 2♦ wouldn't show extras.

 

Do I have some rebid problems with some of the hands you gave? Yes and no.

 

A. With a 2=3=3=5, I can comfortably rebid 2♥, since my negative double promises at least 4 hearts. This to me is no different than if I opened 1♣ and raised pard's 1♥ to 2♥ on 3 card support.

 

B. With a 3=2=3=5 at last I have a problem. There's a good chance that I would rebid 1N on the phantom stopper, instead of 2♣ however. After all, my hand is balanced and RHO didn't raise spades, so there's an excellent chance pard has the stop. This hand pattern is very "NT-oriented", and I want to steer it there when reasonable.

 

With this in mind, I think you need to admit that rebidding 2♣ where it could be the actual hand, or something more like xx, xx, AKx, KQxxxx or even xx, xx, AK, KQxxxxx has significant risk. Even if pard understands that 2♣ could be a 'punt' on a 5 card suit, is pard expected to pull with a stiff? Obviously 2♣ could be on 6 or 7 as well, so pulling has its risks.

 

Each side has its pluses and minuses, but I've looked at the ramifications of both methods and I'm not sure I agree with you.

[awm]

There's a general question of emphasis here: how important is finding the right partscore? How much partscore bidding are you willing to sacrifice to help in bidding strong hands?

 

Personally I think partscore bidding is important. This may be because I play a lot of matchpoints, but I also notice a lot of 5 IMP swings running around because of different partials played at the two tables that occasionally add up. My theory is that you can often afford to make "temporizing" bids that don't really describe your hand when you have a good hand because there's time to catch up later, whereas if you distort your shape (bidding and rebidding five-card suits, bidding four card suits before five card suits, and so forth) when the two-level is the limit of the hand you'll often land in the wrong place.

 

Certainly I've noticed that the trend in modern bidding disagrees with me. Modern players often seem to temporize or misdescribe on weaker hands (bidding a forcing notrump, bidding a four card major before a longer diamond suit) in order to preserve more natural descriptive bidding on strong hands. Then again, how many great matchpoint players are there today, as opposed to years ago? A lot of this is a reaction to the increased emphasis on IMP scoring over MP or BAM.

[mike777]

I am surprised by how many feel comfortable rebidding 2H on a 3 card heart suit after a neg x. Yes even if we assume neg x promises 4h very often I am surprised.

 

I guess I feel more comfortable if partner comes up with another, less perfect rebid and promising 4H in response to my neg x bids.

[pclayton]

I am surprised by how many feel comfortable rebidding 2H on a 3 card heart suit after a neg x. Yes even if we assume neg x promises 4h very often I am surprised.

 

I guess I feel more comfortable if partner comes up with another, less perfect rebid and promising 4H in response to my neg x bids.

Mike: You hold xx, xxx, AKx, KQxxx. You open 1♣ and pard bids 1♥.

 

How many of the posters are rebidding 2♥ / 2♣ / 1N?

 

I'll bet you the ratio is something like 70/10/20.

[Guest Jlall]

How many of the posters are rebidding 2♥ / 2♣ / 1N?

 

I'll bet you the ratio is something like 70/10/20.

Oo 70 % will rebid 2H on xxx? I am out of touch :P

[mike777]

I am surprised by how many feel comfortable rebidding 2H on a 3 card heart suit after a neg x. Yes even if we assume neg x promises 4h very often I am surprised.

 

I guess I feel more comfortable if partner comes up with another, less perfect rebid and promising 4H in response to my neg x bids.

Mike: You hold xx, xxx, AKx, KQxxx. You open 1♣ and pard bids 1♥.

 

How many of the posters are rebidding 2♥ / 2♣ / 1N?

 

I'll bet you the ratio is something like 70/10/20.

I would rebid an ugly 2clubs...heck my partner made me open this mess yes :P

[HeartA]

How many of the posters are rebidding 2♥ / 2♣ / 1N?

 

I'll bet you the ratio is something like 70/10/20.

Oo 70 % will rebid 2H on xxx? I am out of touch :P

I am with Justin.

[mikeh]

On xx xxx AKx KQxxx I rebid 1N.

 

I learned this many years ago, and while I have changed my thinking in many ways on many aspects of the game, I haven't on this one.

 

We can get back to ♥ almost any time it is correct to do so. We may wrongside notrump, but so far nothing has told me partner doesn't have AKQ or KQJ of ♠.

 

In the meantime, I get to describe a minimum balanced hand with 2-3♥s.

 

Whereas if I bid 2♥ on this foot (it sure ain't a hand), he will/should make game tries on hands where even thinking is an overbid as the cards lie, in my hand.

 

Surely we cannot seriously evaluate and bid this hand in the same way as we bid Kx Axxx xx AQxxx? Isn't that a (good) 2♥ bid?? Consider what little he may need opposite that to make game good, and then picture those hands (involving a 4 card ♥ suit or a weak 5 card suit) opposite the foot I hold.

 

And bidding 2♣ is WRONG.

 

Okay, 1N ain't perfect either, but it is the best compromise.

 

70% 2♥? You live in a different world than I do :P

[the hog]

"On xx xxx AKx KQxxx I rebid 1N."

 

I would certainly bid 2H on that hand. I think that is a far superior bid to 1NT. You have 3 card support and a ruffing value. Furthermore the xx is precisely that - an honourless doubleton. Give me Qx xxx KQx AQxxx otoh and I think 1NT is superior.

[Jboling]

You hold x Ax Kxxx AKQ9xx. You open 1C, 1S on your left, X by partner, pass on your right.

 

Question #1: does 2D show extras?

Question #2: what do you bid?

For me 2D does not show extras, and I would like to add a hand to the discussion, what is you rebid with xxx-AQ-xxxx-AQxx? If 2D show extras you have to open 1D with that hand.

 

I might have rebid 3D given the current hand, 3C is my second choice. 2S gets you into trouble after the most likely bid 3H from partner, as awm pointed out. You have to rebid 4C, 3S sounds like a cue-bid with hearts set as trumps.

[whereagles]

On xx xxx AKx KQxxx I rebid 1N.

 

(...)

 

And bidding 2♣ is WRONG.

I don't think responding 2♣ to the dbl is 'wrong', but I do agree 1NT is the lesser distortion and certainly would rank #1 among my choices. Shape and strength come (or should come!) before stoppers and 1NT is perfect in this respect.

[bid_em_up]

Mikeh,

 

Please note, I am not saying your arguments for 2♦ requiring extra are without merit. They certainly make sense and have some valid points.

 

However, I'm really surprised by them knowing that you normally prefer to open 1♣ on 4-4 in minors that you now want 2♦ to require extra after the neg X. The only time you are really screwed by bidding 2♦ (not showing extras) is if you have extras AND 2♦ is passed out. The simplest solution to playing 2♦ as not promising extras in this sequence is to apply the contingent that it is quasi-forcing for one round (opposite a normal neg X). (By quasi-forcing, I mean only very rarely will 2D actually be passed by partner).

 

Seriously, how frequently would you expect 2♦ to be passed out here (either by partner or opps), even without this agreement? If it does get passed out, how likely is it that you have missed anything? At the moment, I'm having a hard time coming up with a hand that partner could make a neg X on, AND pass the 2♦ bid where we could miss anything even without this agreement. The given hand is about as close as it could come, and even it should raise to 3♦, imo.

 

If you treat it as quasi-forcing, whats the worse thats going to happen? Partner raises to 3♦ (his weakest available bid besides pass)? If you have extra values, then either 4♣ or 4♦ should be reasonably safe and you're still free to show the extra over 3♦ now. On this hand, I can now make another call showing extras (3♠, most likely). On weaker hands, you're free to pass 3♦. If you play manage to play 3♣ or 3♦ and go -1 or 2 (favorable, undoubled), is that necessarily going to be a terrible result? (Opps should make 2 or 3 spades if this is the case).

 

If, over 2♦, partner has a spade stop and normal neg X, he's free to show it via 2N, show a better than min neg X via 2♠, show club support with 3♣ (if he X'd on 3-4-2-4 or similar). You will also now find the diamond fit whenever one is one available to you. This, in and of itself, outweighs the extra/noextra problem in my opinion. If 2♦ is going to be passed out, then isnt it just as likely 2♣ will be passed out as well?. If I am playing 2 of a minor, I would much prefer to play my 4-4/5/6 diamond fit, than the 5-1/5-2 club fit and I think you would also. :)

 

As always, jmoo.

[mikeh]

However, I'm really surprised by them knowing that you normally prefer to open 1♣ on 4-4 in minors that you now want 2♦ to require extra after the neg X.

You have me confused with someone else :) Richie Reisig and I are continually abusing each other (in good fun) about our views on this issue. He is a firm believer (as is Roland, I think, amongst other good players) in opening 1♣ on 4=4 in the minors, and I find it incomprehensible that such fine players could be so utterly misguided!

 

I am a 1♦ opener on 4=4 and (almost always) a 1♣ opener on 4=5. Indeed, if you reread my posts, you will see that I think that the 1♣ [1♠] x [P] sequence under discussion is horrible for the 1♣ on 4=4 school.

[whereagles]

French school of bidding opens 1♦ on 44 minors, BUT...

 

If opener has a balanced min (12 or bad 13) with 44m or 4♦3♣, a 1♣ opener is advised, so that the dreaded 1♦-2♣-2NT as 12-14, which leads to responder occasionally overbidding to 3NT on 10-11, is avoided. With this slight twist, the 2NT rebid always shows a good 13 or 14.

[bid_em_up]

You have me confused with someone else :) Richie Reisig and I are continually abusing each other (in good fun) about our views on this issue. He is a firm believer (as is Roland, I think, amongst other good players) in opening 1♣ on 4=4 in the minors, and I find it incomprehensible that such fine players could be so utterly misguided!

 

I am a 1♦ opener on 4=4 and (almost always) a 1♣ opener on 4=5. Indeed, if you reread my posts, you will see that I think that the 1♣ [1♠] x [P] sequence under discussion is horrible for the 1♣ on 4=4 school.

Hmmm, ok. Getting senile in my old age, because I would have sworn where I had seen you state this (that you open 1C on 4-4) elsewhere in the forums.

 

Forget what I said then. :)