Judgement call

[jdonn]

On this particular hand, 4 Diamond had worked best, it had reached 6 Diamonds opposite

♠ A7

♥ K7632

♦ KQJ5

♣ AJ

 

Or bidding was:

1 ♠ 2 ♥

2 ♠ 3 ♦

3 ♥ 3 ♠ (3 Spade showed 2 card spade support, so confirmed the club problem.

4 ♥  4 NT

5 ♣ 5 ♥

 

Well the trumps suit was not too solid, so one off.

5 Spade or 6 Diamonds are better contracts.

 

But this is was not the question, I think the wheel felt off  later, I just wanted to know your judgement in the most interessting situation of this bidding.

 

For all those who dislike the idea that 3 Heart normally shows 3 card support:

You normally raise 1 m 1 M to 2 M with 4 card support, but sometimes with three.

You normally have 6 cards for a weak two, 7 cards for a weak 3. etc.

Sometimes you don´t.

1♠ 2♥

2♠ 3♦

3♥ 3♠

3NT 4NT

6♦

 

The 4♥ bid was the problem in your auction, you only had a doubleton and a club stopper so why not 3NT as an option?

[mikeh]

I got here late, but I'd like to add my vote to david's re the sickness of the method.

 

I have no trouble with the 2♠ rebid, altho I don't object to 2N either. Stating that 2♠ denies 15 hcp is simply silly...it may be accurate, but, if so, it is a silly method. Responder's 2♥ is 'nearly gf', so I assume it promises a rebid of some kind, and, if it does, then forcing opener to consume bidding space, with a possibly misdescriptive bid, every time he holds a decent hand is idiotic.

 

But the real problem comes with 3♦. How on earth does this promise 4 cards or more in diamonds?

 

I assume that a 3♥ rebid, in the context of the announced agreements, would be passable, so responder, looking at a gf 2=6=3=2 for example, has to bid 3♦ to establish a force and in the hope of coaxing out of partner a heart preference.

 

This, btw, shows why it is impossible to raise 3♦ to 4♦...not only are we bypassing a plausible 3N; not only are we indicating some willingness to cooperate in an 11 or 12 (or 13) trick contract in a 4-4 fit where our support is xxxx; but we are in fact going to create havoc when partner made his 3♦ call on a hand such as Ax KQxxxx AQx xx.

 

This problem is a non-problem: take a look at the votes for 3♥.... this is so automatic that, in my view, this problem would be rejected by most editors of 'Its Your Bid' panels..... especially since, if 3♥ is rejected, there is no rational basis for any choice other than 3N (which is a distant second).

 

The fact that we may (and will) miss 6♦ is not a reason to vote 4♦ in the context of the agreed-upon methods.. it is an indictment of those methods, not an argument in favour of a bad bid that happens to work out.

[Halo]

3H may or may not be best, but if partner has a problem bidding his six card suit rather than playing in his three card diamond suit, the methods really are crazy.

[beatrix45]

3NT, wtp? Sure, sure you have other possible bids, 3♥ or 4♦, but the ability to play 3NT is normally the most important line to pursue. This time you have a decent (but, by no means a 100%) 6♦ spot, but 3NT always makes.

[Codo]

I got here late, but I'd like to add my vote to david's re the sickness of the method.

 

I have no trouble with the 2♠ rebid, altho I don't object to 2N either. Stating that 2♠ denies 15 hcp is simply silly...it may be accurate, but, if so, it is a silly method. Responder's 2♥ is 'nearly gf', so I assume it promises a rebid of some kind, and, if it does, then forcing opener to consume bidding space, with a possibly misdescriptive bid, every time he holds a decent hand is idiotic.

 

But the real problem comes with 3♦. How on earth does this promise 4 cards or more in diamonds?

 

I assume that a 3♥ rebid, in the context of the announced agreements, would be passable, so responder, looking at a gf 2=6=3=2 for example, has to bid 3♦ to establish a force and in the hope of coaxing out of partner a heart preference.

 

This, btw, shows why it is impossible to raise 3♦ to 4♦...not only are we bypassing a plausible 3N; not only are we indicating some willingness to cooperate in an 11 or 12 (or 13) trick contract in a 4-4 fit where our support is xxxx; but we are in fact going to create havoc when partner made his 3♦ call on a hand such as Ax KQxxxx AQx xx.

 

This problem is a non-problem: take a look at the votes for 3♥.... this is so automatic that, in my view, this problem would be rejected by most editors of 'Its Your Bid' panels..... especially since, if 3♥ is rejected, there is no rational basis for any choice other than 3N (which is a distant second).

 

The fact that we may (and will) miss 6♦ is not a reason to vote 4♦ in the context of the agreed-upon methods.. it is an indictment of those methods, not an argument in favour of a bad bid that happens to work out.

Hi Mike,

 

I normaly love your analyses, but not this time.

 

1. You need to know what to do with a weak opening hand in any given bidding system after a 2/1 response. The question whethert you prefer 2 NT or two of your major for this hand type is quite old and both schools are common. You have to life with the downsides of this approach to enjoy the upsides.

But to say that one of this aprroaches is silly is simply silly.

Why should it be "idiotic" or "silly" to use the less space consuming bid (2Spade) to show the most common strength-type (12-14)?

 

However, this threat opened my mind for a(nother) real downside. What to do with a GF 1633 or 2632 hand after this start?

 

2. IF the problem had been a non problem, why did just 37,5 % vote your obvious 3 ♥ bid or the "sick system"? ( I did vote 3 Heart too, btw)

 

3. I share your view that 4 Diamond won´t win in the long run, even if 3 Diamond di show a real 4 cards suit.