4054

[bid_em_up]

.  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.

Mike,

 

Do you agree that partner must have a minor suit fit after the 1N call?

 

Shouldn't your objective after 1N be to find your best fit? And reveal the fit you have with either minor immediately, rather than hiding it with 2S?

 

Do you agree that the given hand is worth a game force after 1N knowing that you have a fit in at least one, if not both minors?

 

Assuming you do, why are you insisting on making a bid (2S) that, according to your own words, is not game forcing? And it does absolutely nothing to help partner evaluate his hand for a minor suit game/slam.

 

I'm sorry, but anybody that bids 2S here reveals an amazing ignorance of basic bidding theory. The scissors cut both ways.

 

After the 1N rebid, I would expect the 2S rebid to be used explicitly for either 4-5, or 4-6 hands of reverse strength, or 5-6 hands, and not some hand where you are already known to have a fit with game forcing values and yet for whatever reason are refusing to show it.

 

 

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.

 

I also think that 2S is more of the masterminding bid, than the natural GF bid of 3C, but what the heck, to each their own.

 

EDIT: If I remember correctly, earlier in the thread you stated you preferred 2S because the jump shift to 3C might be made on a 3 card suit. While I somewhat understand this sentiment, I think you are making a mistake trying to use the reverse to prevent this possibility, instead of just bidding what you actually have. If you have jump shifted into a 3 card suit, the later auction should reveal that possibility, but I don't believe partner should be catering to that fact in his response after the 3C jumpshift. He should be treating it as a suit and natural, unless you have specific agreements otherwise.

 

jmoo.

[SoTired]

deleted

[SoTired]

deleted Edited September 27, 2007 by SoTired

[mikeh]

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) :)

Fair enough B) I got carried away in 'arm-wrestling' with Phil and overbid my hand...my apologies.

 

Turning to the meat of the argument, I remain of the view (since I am 'determined' B) ;) ) that 3♣ needlessly assumes captaincy and prevents responder from ever knowing what our hand looks like. I have still seen NO explanation of how opener announces a strong 4=0=5=4 hand after 3♣. No spade bid thereafter is length showing. Threrfore, responder cannot usually appreciate how his hand meshes.

 

As for the argument that jumping to 4♣ over an artificial (or natural) 2N after the 2♠ reverse might be on a 3=1=5=4 hand... I simply don't agree...even tho I do recognize that this is an awkward hand, I don't see how opener could meaningfully insist on an 11 trick contract on a 4=1=5=3 hand...how he could bypass 3N. It is the purity of the hand for a minor suit contract that permits, indeed requires, imo, giving up on 3N... and a 4=1=5=3 hand is not so pure.

 

Strangely enough, I could be easier talked into a 3♣ call on a monster 4=1=5=3 than on the actual hand, because I would expect to pass 3N if we got there with me on a 4=1=5=3 than on the actual hand.

 

Now, as I said in the post that ruffled feathers, on my modest simulation, it seemed at first blush that on most hands where the opps are silent either 3♣ or 2♠ work, so I'm not going to get bent out of shape over the difference.

 

I guess my main point is that 2♠ helps partner...obviously not immediately, but on the next round...while 3♣ leaves responder partially in the dark...it helps more immediately, but then forecloses (from the posts I have seen) providing an accurate picture of opener's hand....however, in most (all?) cases, this doesn't seem to matter much. But the leaving partner in the dark aspect, which seems to me to be wrong in principle, is what triggered the offending comment. Again, it was an overbid (misbid?) :)