4054

[jtfanclub]

1D followed by 2S after the 1NT rebid. I'm planning to bid clubs next.

2♠ shows 16+ and can be passed in my system.

Well, in that discussion with mikeh, I pointed out the newspaper hand where one player opens 1 club and their partner has xxxx Kxxx xxxx x or less.

 

However...

1) Most experts still wouldn't pass the reverse.

2) If they did pass, you'd be happy....your hand doesn't look good across junk like that.

3) You partner said 1NT, so he doesn't have subminimal trash anyways.

 

If your system allows passes with anything else, um, then I don't think you're playing reverses.

[mikeh]

Late to the thread, but I don' t like 3♣ over 1N: it smacks of masterminding... distorting the hand because you think that you have to be in charge.

 

So long as you either trust partner or (as the more recent posters suggest, you want to play good bridge) it seems to me that the correct approach is to force descriptively by 2♠.

 

Whatever happens, we bid clubs next, thus portraying a strong 4=0=5=4 while maintaining the force.

 

We DON'T need to be in charge of this train. We can and should allow partner to have input: thus I reject Ken's early post to the effect that we should picture possible holdings for partner and plan our auction accordingly. Here, we can provide a good initial description, and maybe partner can take command, or co-operate before we need to assume captaincy.

 

Now what we bid over 2N depends on what 2N means. For a B/I player, it probably means that he has a heart stop and no great support for diamonds. For an expert it would likely be artificial, suggesting that opener bid 3♣, where responder may be passing (opener doesn't have to bid 3♣ if he can't stand the idea of being passed there). In that case, I'd bid 4♣ over 2N to make sure we have a force, and to paint a very clear picture... heck, I like the idea of 4♣ so much I might bid it even if 2N were natural (but I haven't played 2N as natural for so long B) )

 

If partner bids 3♦ over 2♠, again it depends what that means. For those who use 2N as artificial, usually weak, 3♦ shows a good 1N call with diamond support, and I'd either bid an exclusion 4♥ or (more probably) bid 4♣ descriptively.

 

And so on.

 

With complex hands, the value of which depends on partner's holdings, it is usually best to make descriptive forcing calls and trust partner. I recognize that most BBO partners can't be trusted... but if you consistently bid properly, two things will/may happen:

 

1) your performance will be recognized and appreciated by those partners/opps/kibs who know how to bid, and you will find, gradually, better and better games and/or

 

2) your partners will get better as well, from seeing your example.

 

Either way, you win...not to mention that with good players you will enjoy the game more...good bridge is far more interesting than bad bridge :)

[han]

Kathryn, I looked at your blog, very nice. There were some things that I tried to clarify but it wouldn't let me post, just so you know.

[pclayton]

I think I slightly prefer 3♣ to 2♠. Its a huge winner when pard can immediately support. If we bid 2♠ first and pard takes a diamond preference, we are very awkwardly placed if 3N is the right spot when pard has heart cards.

 

1♦ - 1N - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♠ could be construed as a 3=1=5=4, but it is patterning and pard will have a great idea how to proceed. We'd love to hear a 4♥ Bluhmer here, wouldn't we?

[cherdano]

Kathryn, I looked at your blog, very nice. There were some things that I tried to clarify but it wouldn't let me post, just so you know.

Yeah maybe you could allow anonymous comments, Kathryn?

[mikeh]

I think I slightly prefer 3♣ to 2♠. Its a huge winner when pard can immediately support. If we bid 2♠ first and pard takes a diamond preference, we are very awkwardly placed if 3N is the right spot when pard has heart cards.

 

1♦ - 1N - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♠ could be construed as a 3=1=5=4, but it is patterning and pard will have a great idea how to proceed. We'd love to hear a 4♥ Bluhmer here, wouldn't we?

What would we bid, as responder, over 3♣ with

 

xxx K10x Jxx Axxx? I'm willing to bet few would dream of raising clubs

 

xx Kxx Qxx Axxxx again, I am far from sure that the expert consensus would be to raise to 4♣, altho this is more attractive than the previous hand

 

One problem is that the jump to 3♣ is sometimes manufactured on huge single-suited diamond hands. The usual stall by responder is the false preference, which hardly helps. Of course, opener now bids 3♠, but doesn't this initially ask for a♥ stopper for 3N?

 

My concern is that the auctions beginning with 3♣ add ambiguity to the auction, and require opener to guess while assuming captaincy without really knowing enough to place the contract.

 

And are we ever going to be comfortable passing 3N should partner bid it over any auction beginning with 3♣?I can't see it: we know they have 10 hearts, we know that partner has bid 3N thinking he is facing something other than 4=0=5=4.

 

If the cost of bidding 2♠ is usually avoiding 3N, then so be it.. I have enormous difficulty picturing any 3♣ bidder passing 3N... and even more difficulty thinking it right to do so. Try constructing hands on which we run 8 side winners after partner wins a heart trick, and you will find hands that do just fine in a minor suit game. And some of them will do quite nicely in a minor suit slam.

 

Finally, designing a sequence in the hope of extracting a Bluhmer (which denies any values in the suit bid) when the opps hold 10 hearts and have not bid is somewhat optimistic unless playing against opps bound by a vow of silence B) We are hearing 3N over 3♠.... 99.999% of the time.

[jdonn]

I prefer 3♣ as well for the reasons stated by Phil. I would like 2♠ if I thought I could bid 3♣ next, but too often partner will bid 3♦ instead and I have endplayed myself in the bidding. As well as if partner bid 2NT leb, and now I can't even bid 3♣ safely (imagine partner passing on a weak hand with six clubs!)

[pclayton]

I think I will enjoy arm-wrestling with you on this one Mike :)

 

What would we bid, as responder, over 3♣ with

 

xxx K10x Jxx Axxx? I'm willing to bet few would dream of raising clubs

 

I think pard would take a 3♦ preference. Over my 3♠, pard probably won't bid 3N, but if he mistakenly did, it will be a great contract. With this hand, pard will reject my slam overtures and will try 4♣ now and 5♣ over 4♠. Case closed.

 

After 2♠, your pard will bid 3♦, and I presume you are bypassing 3N to try 4♣. The anti-% 5♦ looks very imminent after 2♠. Doesn't a 4=1=5=3 or a 4=0=6=3 look like a likely pattern for you to have? Why would pard force 5♣ when you have never really shown clubs?

 

I hope you're not suggesting that:

 

1♦ - 1N - 2♠ - 3♦ - 4♣

 

implies better clubs than:

 

1♦ - 1N - 3♣?

 

Say it ain't so!

 

xx Kxx Qxx Axxxx again, I am far from sure that the expert consensus would be to raise to 4♣, altho this is more attractive than the previous hand

will rather try 4♣.

 

What a great catch for you and me! Over 2♠, pard bids 3♦. I presume you'll bid 4♣ like above and you'll glide into slam.

 

Over my 3♣, pard bids 3♦. Now this COULD be a false preference, but think about the context of the auction. If pard has only a doubleton diamond, he has 5 clubs. When I bid 3♠, I am guaranteed to hold either 4 clubs or 6 diamonds. Don't you agree? I doubt either of us are getting to 7♣, but we'll easily get to 6.

 

One problem is that the jump to 3♣ is sometimes manufactured on huge single-suited diamond hands. The usual stall by responder is the false preference, which hardly helps. Of course, opener now bids 3♠, but doesn't this initially ask for a♥ stopper for 3N?

 

My concern is that the auctions beginning with 3♣ add ambiguity to the auction, and require opener to guess while assuming captaincy without really knowing enough to place the contract.

 

What type of hand would you expect 3♣ to be a fragment on? I'm going to say most 31(63) hands will splinter and 2263's with great diamonds and a club fragment just shoot out 3N.

 

I'm not that concerned about a false preference of 3♦. When I next bid 3♠, pard will know:

 

1. I have 5 or 6 diamonds;

2. I have 3 or 4 spades

3. I have short hearts

 

How much better placed are you after 2♠? Pard will frequently bid 2N (which is what? Natural? A stall? I think many frequent partnerships wouldn't have a firm answer, much less a pick up).

 

And are we ever going to be comfortable passing 3N should partner bid it over any auction beginning with 3♣?I can't see it: we know they have 10 hearts, we know that partner has bid 3N thinking he is facing something other than 4=0=5=4.

 

If I pattern out with 3♠, and pard bids 3N, I will be very confident that its the right spot. Pard knows we have short hearts. Where do you want to play opposite: xxx, AQx, xxx, xxxx? 3N is a pianola, but 5 of a minor looks to be unplayable to me. Why is this such an unusual hand?

 

You've never really answered the central question of my last post:

 

If we bid 2♠ first and pard takes a diamond preference, we are very awkwardly placed if 3N is the right spot when pard has heart cards.

 

You imply that you are forever giving up on 3N. So be it.

[cherdano]

No matter what I do I will never pass 3N with this hand, I don't know how this got into the discussion. This is a 3-loser hand (with just one 1st round loser!) and I know we have a fit, I've got a lot of bidding to do.

 

I would bid 3♣. Partner likely bids 3♦, I will bid 3♠, now if partner bids 3N I can bid 4♠ and have given about as good a description of this hand as I can. If partner raises 3♣, great. If partner bids 4♣ over 3♠ (not unlikely IMO), then we have found the right strain and still have some space to guess the right level.

OTOH, if I start with 2♠, in many auctions I will have a hard time convincing partner that I have real clubs, which is bad since that is our most likely fit. If it goes 2S 2N 3C 3D 4C, isn't that a cue for diamonds? 2S 3D as mentioned by Josh is even worse.

 

Anyway I agree with Mike that the plan is to show a huge 4054 hand, not to elicit information from partner and then make a guess.

[SoTired]

deleted

[jillybean]

Kathryn, I looked at your blog, very nice. There were some things that I tried to clarify but it wouldn't let me post, just so you know.

Yeah maybe you could allow anonymous comments, Kathryn?

OK

[cherdano]

And are we ever going to be comfortable passing 3N should partner bid it over any auction beginning with 3♣?I can't see it: we know they have 10 hearts, we know that partner has bid 3N thinking he is facing something other than 4=0=5=4.

 

If I pattern out with 3♠, and pard bids 3N, I will be very confident that its the right spot. Pard knows we have short hearts. Where do you want to play opposite: xxx, AQx, xxx, xxxx? 3N is a pianola, but 5 of a minor looks to be unplayable to me. Why is this such an unusual hand?

Wow, you are very confident that 3N is the right spot? How do you think partner will bid with xx KJx Qxx Txxxx?

Our hand is, in terms of playability for 5m or 6m, so much stronger than the min we hold for 1D -1N-3C-3D-3S that I really don't see how we can ever pass 3N.

[pclayton]

And are we ever going to be comfortable passing 3N should partner bid it over any auction beginning with 3♣?I can't see it: we know they have 10 hearts, we know that partner has bid 3N thinking he is facing something other than 4=0=5=4.

 

If I pattern out with 3♠, and pard bids 3N, I will be very confident that its the right spot. Pard knows we have short hearts. Where do you want to play opposite: xxx, AQx, xxx, xxxx? 3N is a pianola, but 5 of a minor looks to be unplayable to me. Why is this such an unusual hand?

Wow, you are very confident that 3N is the right spot? How do you think partner will bid with xx KJx Qxx Txxxx?

Our hand is, in terms of playability for 5m or 6m, so much stronger than the min we hold for 1D -1N-3C-3D-3S that I really don't see how we can ever pass 3N.

Even with this crud, 3N is has a play. I'd think twice about it though with the very weak heart stopper and lack of quick tricks.

 

I know you love this hand Arend, but how much weaker can it be and still have the strength for 3♣? Not much IMO. OTOH, I think we can be somewhat stronger for a jump shift and not be able to open 2♣.

 

5=4=4's are notoriously overrated in terms of loser count. Sure, this is a 3 loser hand, but I'd feel a lot better is our hand looked like: ♠AKx, ♥---, ♦AKxxx, ♣KQJxx. If we only have an 8 card fit, the playing strength is diminished. If we catch a big fit in diamonds or clubs, I'll certainly be encouraged.

[jdonn]

How do you think partner will bid with xx KJx Qxx Txxxx?

I think he should bid 4♣. He can see that he usually has just one heart stopper opposite shortness, which is unlikely to be enough for 3NT. The minor suit support should make game good in one of them, probably clubs.

[mikeh]

I think I will enjoy arm-wrestling with you on this one Mike :D

 

sorry to disappoint, but there isn't much arm-wrestling coming from me :(

 

I tried to run a simulation, but my time is limited and in my initial run I had great difficulty coming up with any significant number of hands on which responder held 5-11 hcp and no 4 card major on which the opps were silent! When I looked at the handful of hands that satisfied that, out of the 100 I generated, it seemed to me, and I did not spend much time on this, that minor suit contracts were almost always better (or no worse, in terms of being likely to make) than 3N: one exception was responder holding AKx of hearts, with 4=2=4=3 shape 11 count, Qxx AK Qxxx 10xx, in which case 6N is fine, but I don't think the point of the exercise is to evaluate 3♣ or 2♠ with a view to opener being dummy in 6N.

 

So I suspect that the argument as to 3♣ or 2♠ is, in the real world, largely irrelevant.

 

I remain of the view that 3♣ is a call that reveals a lack of faith in partner (or ourselves).. while it may lead to the correct contract with equal or almost equal frequency as does 2♠, 2♠ has the huge advantage of involving partner at the low cost of forgoing a problematic 3N.

 

As for Josh's concern that the auction 1♦ 1N 2♠ 2N 3♣ may be artificial (as it would be for me), my solution is to bid 4♣ over 2N.. a bid that cannot possibly be misunderstood.

 

Let me suggest this thought experiment.

 

Imagine we have been given xxx Kxx xxx Axxx.

 

We are told that partner opened 1♦, reversed into 2♠ and jumped to 4♣. Please describe partner's hand... wouldn't we all describe a huge 4=0=5=4, gf values opposite a minimal hand?

 

Compare this with 1♦ 1N 3♣ 3♦ 3♠

 

what does partner's hand look like? Well, it might be 4=0=5=4, altho we'd wonder why he didn't bid 2♠, but it might well be 3=1=5=4 or even 2=2=5=4 or even 2=2=6=3 with no heart stopper.

 

Now, seriously, tell me which auction has the best chance of ending up in the correct spot....provided, and I concede that this is a non-trivial proviso, that the 'right spot' is not 3N.

 

Now, 3N MAY be the right spot, although my cursory simulation suggested that it will rarely be... but bear in mind that responder will/should rebid 3N on MANY hands after the 3♣ then 3♠ sequence where it is wrong to play 3N and I fail to see how opener is going to guess right. When you bid 3♣ then 3♠ you must know, in advance, whether you are going to guess to pass 3N or bid on.

 

If you are going to bid on, then I think it is incontrovertible that the natural auction that takes you to 4♣ over 2N is the better.

 

Josh also worried about 1♦ 1N 2♠ 3♦.

 

I am not worried about that: why wouldn't I bid 4♣? Maybe this could be construed as a cue, in that 3♠ is unavailable as a cue (it shows 5=6 or better), but my preference (and maybe I am being guilty of Red Queen bidding) is that it should be patterning out. If so, then I am clearly making a slam move and partner can evaluate accordingly. Frankly, if partner bids a constructive 3♦ over 2♠, I doubt that any rational sequence would get us to the wrong spot provided that I am allowed to bid naturally.

 

But, at the end of the day, I repeat my suspicion that while 2♠ begins more honest and co-operative bidding, and would result in an enhanced feeling of partnership trust and esprit, either approach will usually arrive at the same end position provided that we exclude 3N... which I suspect most of us would, at the table.

[jdonn]

Now, seriously, tell me which auction has the best chance of ending up in the correct spot....provided, and I concede that this is a non-trivial proviso, that the 'right spot' is not 3N.

I concede what you are saying, that a 2♠ rebid is more likely than 3♣ to reach the correct spot when we are excluding the main times that 3♣ is more likely to reach the correct spot. :(

 

Seriously I have no huge qualms with 2♠ or with thinking it's the best bid (I do not agree opener could be 2-2 in the majors for the other auction though. I would never bid that way just because I had xx of hearts, I show my shape first and foremost.) What I don't understand is your feeling that somehow bidding 3♣ is some anti-partnership shot that shows a lack of faith in partner and ourselves. That seems like some real hyperbole for a bid that one could very reasonably believe is more likely to work well, as I do. It seems to me you are just pulling that assertion from thin air.

 

But I agree with you that I would bid 2♠ as well if I was never going to pass 3NT.

[kenrexford]

I really don't get the Mikeh objection to a 3♣ call.

 

First, why is a 3♣ call a "distortion?" A 3♣ call is only a distortion if you have some strange requirement that, with 5440 shape, you must first bid the 4-card suit for which partner cannot have a fit rather than first bidding the 4-card suit for which partner probably has a fit, because the 4-card suit partner for which partner will not have a fit happens to be a major.

 

If many of us would bid 3♣ in this sequence, then a 3♣ call may be based upon a 4054 or 0454 pattern, and therefore the call is not a distortion. You cannot define your preference and then call anything else a distortion. That's arrogant, and frankly rather silly anyway. I, personally, like to bid suits that may be our strain rather than suits that will not be our strain.

 

Would it be a distortion to not bid out your two five-card suits with 3505 pattern just because of the happenstance that partner opened 1♠?

 

The silliness comes with extended auctions. If you open diamonds, reverse into spades, and then bid clubs, you may sound lijke you are showing 4153 or 4063 pattern. I'd rather not have that misread. I'd rather have partner think that I might have 3154 or 3064.

 

I'd even take this one more step. This is not a matter of trusting partner or something like that. It's a matter of not making a silly major-obsessed call that muddies the waters for no apparent reason and in fact creates a mis-description. Playing with anyone sane, I'd expect that the one pattern that cannot exist after a reverse to 2♠ is 4054, because you'd bid 3♣ with that hand.

 

If anything, if a pattern bidder, I'd be more like to bid 1♦...3♣...3♠...4♠.

[SoTired]

3C is the wrong rebid. It denies 4♠. You always bid majors before minors when you have a choice

[kenrexford]

3C is the wrong rebid. It denies 4♠. You always bid majors before minors when you have a choice

So, if RHO opens 1♠, then you should overcall 2♠ with 5-5 in the blacks?

 

How about if partner bids 2NT for the minors and you have four clubs and four spades?

 

1NT-2♣(Landy)-X(Stayman)?

[mikeh]

. Playing with anyone sane, I'd expect that the one pattern that cannot exist after a reverse to 2♠ is 4054, because you'd bid 3♣ with that hand.

This comment reveals an amazing ignorance about basic bidding theory.

 

Jumpshifts are gf. Reverses, as played by most, are not. Indeed, I know of no-one who plays that 2♠ after 1N is gf. I know of no competent player who, in a std approach, plays 3♣ as less than gf.

[kenrexford]

.  Playing with anyone sane, I'd expect that the one pattern that cannot exist after a reverse to 2♠ is 4054, because you'd bid 3♣ with that hand.

This comment reveals an amazing ignorance about basic bidding theory.

 

Jumpshifts are gf. Reverses, as played by most, are not. Indeed, I know of no-one who plays that 2♠ after 1N is gf. I know of no competent player who, in a std approach, plays 3♣ as less than gf.

OK, to be more precise.

 

The one pattern I'd never expect from a partner who first bid 2♠ as a reverse and who later forced game or showed an original holding of game-forcing values would be the 4054 pattern.

 

As we are about to make a slam move, I suspect, proving thereby an ability to make a game force initially, I want my entire sequence to make sense.

 

There is no "amazing ignorance about basic bidding theory" to that idea. Not understanding that idea suggests some ignorance on your part of more advanced bidding theory, perhaps.

 

This is very similar to the idea, for instance, played by some where a one-level major opening might be canape if weak. If you turn out to have a weak hand, partner might expect a canape. If you turn out to be strong, partner knows that your call was not canape.

 

Same thing here. If you have 4054 pattern, you might start with 3♣ or with 2♠. If the late bidding proves you to have started with 2♠ and to have 4054 pattern, partner will know that you were strong enough for a reverse but not strong enough to force game. If you start with 2♠ and late bidding proves that you were strong enough to force game, partner will know that you do not have a fourth club, or perhaps that your clubs suck. If you start with 3♣, partner immediately knows that you have GF values, and you may later confirm or suggest a fourth spade.

 

That seems rather simple, IMO.

[Guest Jlall]

As for Josh's concern that the auction 1♦ 1N 2♠ 2N 3♣ may be artificial (as it would be for me), my solution is to bid 4♣ over 2N.. a bid that cannot possibly be misunderstood.

such an obvious gerber bid can never be misread

[han]

I've been convinced by the 3♣ bidders. We know that we have a club fit, it's probably right to show immediately that we have a GF hand with clubs.

[cherdano]

So I suspect that the argument as to 3♣ or 2♠ is, in the real world, largely irrelevant.

 

I remain of the view that 3♣ is a call that reveals a lack of faith in partner (or ourselves).. while it may lead to the correct contract with equal or almost equal frequency as does 2♠, 2♠ has the huge advantage of involving partner at the low cost of forgoing a problematic 3N.

 

As for Josh's concern that the auction 1♦ 1N 2♠ 2N 3♣ may be artificial (as it would be for me), my solution is to bid 4♣ over 2N.. a bid that cannot possibly be misunderstood.

 

Let me suggest this thought experiment.

 

Imagine we have been given xxx Kxx xxx Axxx.

 

We are told that partner opened 1♦, reversed into 2♠ and jumped to 4♣. Please describe partner's hand... wouldn't we all describe a huge 4=0=5=4, gf values opposite a minimal hand?

 

Compare this with 1♦ 1N 3♣ 3♦ 3♠

 

what does partner's hand look like? Well, it might be 4=0=5=4, altho we'd wonder why he didn't bid 2♠, but it might well be 3=1=5=4 or even 2=2=5=4 or even 2=2=6=3 with no heart stopper.

 

Now, seriously, tell me which auction has the best chance of ending up in the correct spot....provided, and I concede that this is a non-trivial proviso, that the 'right spot' is not 3N.

 

Now, 3N MAY be the right spot, although my cursory simulation suggested that it will rarely be... but bear in mind that responder will/should rebid 3N on MANY hands after the 3♣ then 3♠ sequence where it is wrong to play 3N and I fail to see how opener is going to guess right. When you bid 3♣ then 3♠ you must know, in advance, whether you are going to guess to pass 3N or bid on.

 

If you are going to bid on, then I think it is incontrovertible that the natural auction that takes you to 4♣ over 2N is the better.

 

Josh also worried about 1♦ 1N 2♠ 3♦.

 

I am not worried about that: why wouldn't I bid 4♣? Maybe this could be construed as a cue, in that 3♠ is unavailable as a cue (it shows 5=6 or better), but my preference (and maybe I am being guilty of Red Queen bidding) is that it should be patterning out. If so, then I am clearly making a slam move and partner can evaluate accordingly. Frankly, if partner bids a constructive 3♦ over 2♠, I doubt that any rational sequence would get us to the wrong spot provided that I am allowed to bid naturally.

 

But, at the end of the day, I repeat my suspicion that while 2♠ begins more honest and co-operative bidding, and would result in an enhanced feeling of partnership trust and esprit, either approach will usually arrive at the same end position provided that we exclude 3N... which I suspect most of us would, at the table.

Mike now that I just read your comment again, it actually annoys me. Why can't you do without this "bid X shows a lack of faith in partner"-talk when we are just discussing about the best way to show this hand?

 

Anyway, you are in essence arguing that it is easier to convince partner we have real clubs by not bidding clubs first. This sounds like a contradiction in theory, and I think it is one in practice too.

 

Of course if you bid 1C 1N 2S 2N 4C that is natural, but assuming 3C is artificial why can't it be a huge 4153 hand? If you bid 1C 1N 2S 3D 4C then of course you are bidding out your shape, but again you are just suggesting a 4153 so far, and of course the difference between 4153 and 4054 is huge when partner's suit is clubs. (Oh and couldn't we have a 3163 fake reverse...)

OTOH, I claim that partner will always be able to read our club suit for real after a 3C jump rebid AND the followup auction.

 

And if we want to have a mastermind accusation competition, I am sure it is much easier to argue that it applies to showing length in a suit partner can't have than to showing length in partner's main suit (aka supporting) :)

[kenrexford]

Here's a thought:

 

You are allowed to open 1♦ with five spades and six diamonds, right?

 

You presumably may raise the reverse with three-card spade support, as a descriptive call, right?

 

If you had 5♠/6♦, reversed, and then heard partner make a descriptive raise of your spades, which establishes a fit, you'd like to cuebid or pattern out or do whatever you do, right?

 

So, this 2♠ reverse could cause some very serious problems if partner's next call, with something like QJx-xxx-xxx-Axxx or QJx-Axx-xxx-xxxx, is 3♠.