Moss-Ekeblad Problem Hand

[kenrexford]

[hv=d=e&w=sxha10xxxdkxxca109x&e=sa109xxhkqxxxda10cx]266|100|[/hv]

 

Ekeblad-Moss had a problem with this hand during the 2006 Reisinger Finals. I'm curious how others would solve their problem.

 

Ekeblad opened the East hand 1♠, which seems imminently reasonable.

 

Moss responded 1NT (apparently forcing and probably part of a 2/1 GF agreement?).

 

Ekeblad rebid 2♥. So far, pretty normal.

 

Now, what should Moss do? His choice was 4♥, passed out. It made seven. The opponents found the small slam.

 

A partner of mine and I recently decided (without seeing this hand) that Moss could bid 3NT to show a power raise of hearts (4♥ being "more flexible"), a bid that saves space for these types of hands. It works here. I'm wondering if this agreement, or something similar, is typical.

[pclayton]

If you play a 2N response to 1M as a strong balanced hand or if you play 1M - 2x is only 4, 1M - 1N - 2x - 3N can be a splinter raise of opener's 2nd suit with shortness in opener's 1st suit.

 

If you need 1M - 1N - 2x - 3N to show a flat 12-14 or so, this isn't playable.

[whereagles]

1♠ 1NT

2♥ 4♣ (control)

 

etc.

 

Please don't tell me "4♣ should be a splinter and blah blah". There're not enough bids for everything.

[Guest Jlall]

I think Moss has the perfect hand for a 4C bid over 2H. Indeed, when Bart Bramley told me about this hand he mentioned that his partner Mark Feldman had made a good bid with 4C. They only reached 6 after that but they won the board when the eventual winners only bid 4H over 2H.

[pbleighton]

If Moss-Ekeblad play a strong club (I know Ekeblad does), 4H is understandable, though obviously as disaster here.

 

Peter

[Finch]

Obviously an easy advertisement for not playing 2/1.

 

1S - 2H - 4C - etc. What's the problem?

[hotShot]

Without the system notes it's hard to see what went wrong.

Some 2/1 player use the forcing 1NT relay to show a weak single suited hand.

If that were the case here, west underbid and east showed a strong hand with his jump.

If the 1 NT relay is used to show a strong hand, east jump to 4 makes no sense at all.

[Double !]

4 clubs is a good bid.

 

No, it's not a splinter.

 

(any strange action confirms the last naturally bid suit as trumps?)

 

 

DHL

[cnszsun]

I don't understand the reason why 4C is not splinter.

On other day, supposing you hold:

♠Kxx ♥A10xxx ♦Axxx ♣x. Do you think it's best to define 4C as control rather than splinter?

[Guest Jlall]

I don't understand the reason why 4C is not splinter.

On other day, supposing you hold:

♠Kxx ♥A10xxx ♦Axxx ♣x. Do you think it's best to define 4C as control rather than splinter?

It is very standard among experts to define 4x as showing some kind of value in that suit. The reason is after 1S p 1N p 2H p you are already very likely to have at most 2 spades. Splinters are infrequent and not that useful. But sometimes you hav a super hand for hearts and want to bid 4x to show it.

[cnszsun]

I don't understand the reason why 4C is not splinter.

On other day, supposing you hold:

♠Kxx ♥A10xxx ♦Axxx ♣x. Do you think it's best to define 4C as control rather than splinter?

It is very standard among experts to define 4x as showing some kind of value in that suit. The reason is after 1S p 1N p 2H p you are already very likely to have at most 2 spades. Splinters are infrequent and not that useful. But sometimes you hav a super hand for hearts and want to bid 4x to show it.

Thanks, justin.

I see it now. I did find it not easy to construct a hand with ♣ short and lack of ♠ support.

[dake50]

When does opener JUMP to 3H? 5losers, 5-5, 5controls seems right here.

[kenrexford]

I also would jump to 3♥ with the opening hand.

 

As to the jump to 4♣. This also seems to be a good candidate for a strong bid in support of hearts. However, if your usual approach includes a lot of fit-jumps, it seems that a 4♣ jump is morely likely to show something like ♠x ♥Axxxx ♦xxx ♣AK109. In other words, great support, concentration of values, and a probable shortness in spades. 3NT would then suggest balanced (in the sense of honor locations) values, like the actual hand.

 

I can understand, however, that this call might also be reserved for 3-card mini-splinters, in support of spades and hearts. I suppose that would be a matter for partnership discussion. Maybe Kxx-QJxx-Kxxxx-x? Or, slightly lighter?

[Guest Jlall]

Interesting, 0 of the pairs in the reisinger finals jumped to 3H, including a pair from the team that WON that plays a strong club (so the jump would be limited). This is not close to a jump shift in standard. It is roughly an ace light.

[the hog]

I also would jump to 3♥ with the opening hand.

 

As to the jump to 4♣. This also seems to be a good candidate for a strong bid in support of hearts. However, if your usual approach includes a lot of fit-jumps, it seems that a 4♣ jump is morely likely to show something like ♠x ♥Axxxx ♦xxx ♣AK109. In other words, great support, concentration of values, and a probable shortness in spades. 3NT would then suggest balanced (in the sense of honor locations) values, like the actual hand.

 

I can understand, however, that this call might also be reserved for 3-card mini-splinters, in support of spades and hearts. I suppose that would be a matter for partnership discussion. Maybe Kxx-QJxx-Kxxxx-x? Or, slightly lighter?

How on earth can you suggest a jump to 3H? IF you are playing a big C system this hand is still a tad light for the jump.

 

I would have played 4C as a splinter had it been undiscussed, but I think Justin is right in his reasoning: a C suit with a control and good trump support makes a lot of sense to me.

[whereagles]

How on earth can you suggest a jump to 3H? IF you are playing a big C system this hand is still a tad light for the jump.

That's funny. I'd say it's a little heavy for a 3♥ jump, given it has 4 losers and it thus should be opened a strong club :)

[kenrexford]

Always one to immediately object, Justin.

 

By, "I would also jump to 3♥," I was agreeing with a prior poster who mentioned a 5-5-5 Jump Shift. This is a specific conventional agreement, where 2NT is a "Power 2NT" call. It enables light but shapely jump shifts to handle problems like this. It is a marginal call, because there is some body missing in the suits, but reasonable if you use that approach. No one would imagine that 3♥ is the correct bid if a jump shift is GF. However, if a strong club system is used, the only problem with 3♥ must have been the lack of body.

 

Not using this approach is equally reasonable, in which case you must simply rebid 2♥, which might be meaty. If so, there is an even greater need for better agreements to handle Moss' problem, of course. Limiting 4♣ to be a club suit with a control and great hearts gives up on resolving the 3451 (or 3415, 3514, or 3541 for that matter) problem, which is best handled with a Splinter is available. Even if that pattern is discarded, 4♣ or 4♦ as Concentration-of-Values Picture Jumps (expecting something like a 5431 with short spades) would be my personal expectation. Adding in 3NT as an artificial call to gain a level of description seems useful.

 

I doubt anyone would see 4♥ as anything but uninspired.

[keylime]

I wouldn't jump rebid 3♥ in a strong club context. I have no body to the heart suit, and the spade suit is porous at best.

 

Admittedly with me it would go 1♠-2♥ (constructive, 10-12, not forcing)-3♥ (accepts game try, top end). Then you can pattern out.

[Guest Jlall]

By, "I would also jump to 3♥," I was agreeing with a prior poster who mentioned a 5-5-5 Jump Shift.

He said he would jumpshift because he was 5-5 with 5 controls so it seemed right. He did not say he would do this because he plays a convention where it shows specifically that.

[kenrexford]

By, "I would also jump to 3♥," I was agreeing with a prior poster who mentioned a 5-5-5 Jump Shift.

He said he would jumpshift because he was 5-5 with 5 controls so it seemed right. He did not say he would do this because he plays a convention where it shows specifically that.

Fair enough. I assumed that the 5-5-5 was conventional, not just egregiously aggressive. :)

[the hog]

"That's funny. I'd say it's a little heavy for a 3♥ jump, given it has 4 losers "

 

4 losers???? Looks like 5 to me. Anyway as I have often pointed out, the masterminders who open these hands with 1C get what they deserve when partner doubles the opp's contract because he thinks you have your bid.

[kenrexford]

Sooo, opener's rebid (and rebid options) aside...

 

It seems that there are several reasonable schools of thought:

 

School One -- 4♣/4♦ show "something" in the suit bid, probably a suit of at least one top honor and four cards, and a control (Axxx or Kxxx at minimum). Says nothing about a bypassed suit (i.e., 4♦ does not deny a diamond control). 3NT is just 12-14 balanced.

 

School Two -- 4♣/4♦ are splinters, presumably agreeing hearts with an expected 2-3 spades. Classic pattern is 3514/3541. 3NT might be 12-14 in "School 2A" or power raise of hearts (spade splinter?) in "School 2B."

 

School Three -- 4♣/4♦ agree hearts and are fit-jumps (concentration of values), likely short spades. 3NT is a strong heart raise without a COV.

 

Is this a fair statement? If not, any others to add or clarifications?

 

Assuming a complete set of "schools," what makes the most sense and what is most commonly used here (by competent bidders)?

 

It seems that some believe School One to be "expert standard." It seems to me that either School Two or School Three offers a better alternative, not sure which, but that School One is a mess. Any further thoughts?

[cnszsun]

Sooo, opener's rebid (and rebid options) aside...

 

It seems that there are several reasonable schools of thought:

 

School One -- 4♣/4♦ show "something" in the suit bid, probably a suit of at least one top honor and four cards, and a control (Axxx or Kxxx at minimum).  Says nothing about a bypassed suit (i.e., 4♦ does not deny a diamond control).  3NT is just 12-14 balanced.

 

School Two -- 4♣/4♦ are splinters, presumably agreeing hearts with an expected 2-3 spades.  Classic pattern is 3514/3541.  3NT might be 12-14 in "School 2A" or power raise of hearts (spade splinter?) in "School 2B."

 

School Three -- 4♣/4♦ agree hearts and are fit-jumps (concentration of values), likely short spades.  3NT is a strong heart raise without a COV.

 

Is this a fair statement?  If not, any others to add or clarifications?

 

Assuming a complete set of "schools," what makes the most sense and what is most commonly used here (by competent bidders)?

 

It seems that some believe School One to be "expert standard."  It seems to me that either School Two or School Three offers a better alternative, not sure which, but that School One is a mess.  Any further thoughts?

I have some thoughts, but not sure if it's reasonable.

I believe some experts play semi-forcing 1nt, so they won't have a 12-14 balanced hand. 3nt is a free bid now.

Do you think what is more useful meaning of 3nt to show a hand with short in ♠ or to show a hand with 3♠s, 4+♥s, and a unkown minor short (partner can bid 4C to inquiry your short suit). I prefer latter. So, now 4C/4D will show values in that suit and deny 3 ♠s. For other heart raise hands, you can just bid 4♥.

[000002]

1♥ 1NT

2♥ 3NT:doubleton ♥ and 12-13Hcps,intensively NT contract

 

1♦ 1NT

2♦ 3NT:gambling with (Kx Kxx KJx xxxx)

 

1♥ 1NT

2♣ 3NT:5Cards ♣ upholding ,inferior-high-card in the whole hand

 

1♠ 1NT

2♦ 3NT:INTENSIVE 3nt with 5cards ♦ supporting

compare 3♥:splinter on major(♠ apparently)

 

1♠ 1NT

2♥ 3NT:SPLITER -- ♠?oh no!

***** when? we will sign-off 3nt with total 9cards ♥ and ♠ 0/1.

 

i advise this 3nt{1s-1nt,2h-3nt} show ♥ 4cards upholding and indicates 3NT. Something like:

JX

Jxxx

KJxx

AQx

and i think the singleton ♠ is NOT enough essentiality to show immediately.

 

i am interesting to hear the big sound ,which shout from oppositer:)

 

regards 000002

[inquiry]

Sooo, opener's rebid (and rebid options) aside...

 

It seems that there are several reasonable schools of thought:

 

School One -- 4♣/4♦ show "something" in the suit bid, probably a suit of at least one top honor and four cards, and a control (Axxx or Kxxx at minimum). Says nothing about a bypassed suit (i.e., 4♦ does not deny a diamond control). 3NT is just 12-14 balanced.

 

School Two -- 4♣/4♦ are splinters, presumably agreeing hearts with an expected 2-3 spades. Classic pattern is 3514/3541. 3NT might be 12-14 in "School 2A" or power raise of hearts (spade splinter?) in "School 2B."

 

School Three -- 4♣/4♦ agree hearts and are fit-jumps (concentration of values), likely short spades. 3NT is a strong heart raise without a COV.

 

Is this a fair statement? If not, any others to add or clarifications?

 

Assuming a complete set of "schools," what makes the most sense and what is most commonly used here (by competent bidders)?

 

It seems that some believe School One to be "expert standard." It seems to me that either School Two or School Three offers a better alternative, not sure which, but that School One is a mess. Any further thoughts?

School one and three are too close to the same to worry too much about. School two is relying on a simple rule for consitency. If responder will have no more than two spades, and in the long run, frequently only one (or less), the use of 4 minor for splinter is, well, too rare to justify.

 

The gimmicky 3NT rebid is fine if you agree not to included balanced or strong hands in your 1NT response, but is fairly non-standard.