Why Rex drives me bonkers!

[microcap]

I do want to add that to me, while 3 diamonds is an ok bid, it has the distinct disadvantage of creating an extremely vague picture of your hand. After all, how would you bid with AKxx x Akxx xxxx? And isn't 3 diamonds really screaming that you want to play 3NT if partner has clubs stopped, which you know he probably doesn't?

[jdonn]

I do want to add that to me, while 3 diamonds is an ok bid, it has the distinct disadvantage of creating an extremely vague picture of your hand. After all, how would you bid with AKxx x Akxx xxxx? And isn't 3 diamonds really screaming that you want to play 3NT if partner has clubs stopped, which you know he probably doesn't?

There are a million auctions where you have four small in a suit and it leaves you no good bid to make. However a four card suit is generally considered stopped for the purposes of what bids mean, so to answer your question a 4144 hand will generally bid 3NT. The fact that a particular 4144 hand might not want to is a different matter.

 

3♠ now is clearly forcing if you choose that, but I prefer 4♠. Slam is a lot less likely now that partner bid 3♥, and partner knows you were interested anyway so it's possible for him to move with Kx AT9xxxx KQx x or something.

[foo]

Out of curiousity, what hand types would people assign to each of these sequences?

 

a= 1H-4S

b= 1H-1S;2H-4S

c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S

d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc

e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

[foo]

lol every thread has become foo vs everyone......

*shrug* as long as it's kept civil and about the bridge, it's fine.

 

No one learns anything if everyone agrees all the time. Polite debate is one major way new knowledge is found.

[han]

Agree with 3D.

[mike777]

3s as forcing over 3H is exactly the type of bid that should be discussed in more detail to help us, int. level players improve. It is just the type of bid that comes up alot which we think is forcing hopefully but we worry about what it shows on this type of auction. Forcing or not, if forcing what does it show compared to 4spades.

 

Again excellent hand to post, alot of meat here for many of us to learn and become more confident on these auctions.

[pclayton]

I have a hunch the call that caused the bonkers reaction was 4♠ and the beer contract was missed.

 

Foo - no one is trying to gang up on you, but when you are by yourself on just about every situation, isn't it time to re-evaluate your views about the game? I have never heard you once say, "hey, thats a good idea, perhaps I should try that", or "wow, I'm really in the minority here. What am I missing"?.

 

Instead you pontificate ad naseum.

[foo]

I don't feel "picked on" by any means. My skin is plenty thick.

...and I don't care to waste time on the personal here. The important thing is the bridge.

 

I try to back up every opinion I post with bridge logic and examples. I go into more detail the more controversial the issue is. If some choose to label that "pontification", that's their misinterpretation of an honest attempt to bring logic and evidence to a discussion.

 

EDIT: And Bridge is a game of skill, not a popularity contest. The "right" answer is not detemined by how popular it is, but rather by how well it works ITRW.

If Bridge was a game where the majority opinion defined what the correct answer was, it would be a very different game.

 

(...and if you have never seen me say "that's a good idea", or have never seen me apologize for being wrong, or have never seen me change my mind, then you have not been paying attention.)

 

So instead of giving me some personal sass, perhaps we can try answering the important question.

 

What hand types are best assigned to each of these sequences?

a= 1H-4S

b= 1H-1S;2H-4S

c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S

d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc

e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

[pclayton]

What hand types are best assigned to each of these sequences?

a= 1H-4S

b= 1H-1S;2H-4S

c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S

d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc

e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

a: AQJTxxxx and out

 

b: AQJTxxx(x) and an outside King

 

c: Something like: ♠AQJxxxx ♥x ♦AKx(x) ♣xx(x)

 

d: I suppose this is supposed to key card for spades, but I wouldn't try that without prior discussion.

 

e: Gad - wtf is this? It sounds quantitative to me - 5=1=4=3 and an 18-19 count.

 

Notice how none of these hands even remotely resembles a leap to 4♠ over 2♥ in the OP's auction.

[jdonn]

a= 1H-4S

b= 1H-1S;2H-4S

c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S

d= 1H-1S;2H-4N etc

e= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4N etc

c= ATxxxxx x AJx AQ

 

And Bridge is a game of skill, not a popularity contest.  The "right" answer is not detemined by many people believe it, but rather by how well it works ITRW.

It's not determined by how many people believe it, but there is a very strong correlation, one that it is pigheaded to ignore every single time.

[Winstonm]

I am of the opinion that this problem is more complex than thought by many. It is extremely difficult to get partner to support spades on a solitary (x) in the suit. Quite often after 3D we end up in a poor 3NT.

 

Give partner some holding like x, AJxxxx, Kx, KJxx and I would bet we end up in 3N more often than the superior 4S contract.

 

Also, given that partner has made a minimum, non-forcing rebid should we really be thinking slam? The question here should be reaching the best game contract, and I'm not sure 3D gives any assurance. The main benefit to the 3D bid is it allows us to play in a better heart fit than spade fit.

 

I'd almost think it worth sacrificing the weak jump shift in order to adopt the Reese-style game forcing jump shift. An immediate 1-suited, game-forcing 2S bid over 1H would go a long way in solving the problems of this hand.

[pclayton]

I am of the opinion that this problem is more complex than thought by many. It is extremely difficult to get partner to support spades on a solitary (x) in the suit. Quite often after 3D we end up in a poor 3NT.

 

Give partner some holding like x, AJxxxx, Kx, KJxx and I would bet we end up in 3N more often than the superior 4S contract.

 

Also, given that partner has made a minimum, non-forcing rebid should we really be thinking slam? The question here should be reaching the best game contract, and I'm not sure 3D gives any assurance. The main benefit to the 3D bid is it allows us to play in a better heart fit than spade fit.

 

I'd almost think it worth sacrificing the weak jump shift in order to adopt the Reese-style game forcing jump shift. An immediate 1-suited, game-forcing 2S bid over 1H would go a long way in solving the problems of this hand.

Sure Winston, but whats the hurry? We can construct hands from pard that give us slam in 3 different suits?

 

4♠ can wait.

[pclayton]

c= 1H-1S;2H-3D;3H-4S

 

c= ATxxxxx x AJx AQ

 

Actually I think this hand looks like 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♦ - 3♥ - 3♠ - 3/4 anything - 4♠.

[han]

I am of the opinion that this problem is more complex than thought by many. It is extremely difficult to get partner to support spades on a solitary (x) in the suit. Quite often after 3D we end up in a poor 3NT.

 

Give partner some holding like x, AJxxxx, Kx, KJxx and I would bet we end up in 3N more often than the superior 4S contract.

 

Also, given that partner has made a minimum, non-forcing rebid should we really be thinking slam? The question here should be reaching the best game contract, and I'm not sure 3D gives any assurance. The main benefit to the 3D bid is it allows us to play in a better heart fit than spade fit.

 

I'd almost think it worth sacrificing the weak jump shift in order to adopt the Reese-style game forcing jump shift. An immediate 1-suited, game-forcing 2S bid over 1H would go a long way in solving the problems of this hand.

I bet I would never end up in 3NT on this hand.

[jdonn]

I bet I would never end up in 3NT on this hand.

Didn't you listen to Winston? After partner bids 3NT you are barred! hehe

[Edmunte1]

I like methods where you can bid 2♠ here as an artificial game force, with 3 minor promising 5-5. That involves playing 1♥ 2♠ as about 6-9 with six spades.

I agree with that

[Halo]

I can't see anything better than 3D and then 3S over 3H.

 

Do we know that we don't belong in 6H from this auction? Would partner jump somewhere with AKQxxxx of hearts and an outside queen or so?

[benlessard]

Just to make sure we are on the same wavelength.

 

1H---1S

2H---2S is INVitationnal not a pure pull-out. You dont pull partner out of 2H if you have no interest for game. + i you have a really long S with game unlikely you can bid a direct 2S over 1H (2-8) with H shortness

 

1H---1S

2H---3S become a relly serious INV (my prefererence is forcing but its a least a very serious INV)

 

1H---1S

2H---3m followed by 3S is 100% GF that is basic bridge 101

you dont pull partner 2H if you have no interest for game. + i you have a really long S with game unlikely you can bid a direct 2S over 1H

[the hog]

I think 4S is poor for the reasons espoused by previous posters.

Having said this, I really dislike 3D as it is bidding a non existent suit. This appears to be a tendency that a number of 2/1 players have and I guess that unless you have discussed other methods that bid is really forced on you here. Excuse the unintentional pun.

 

Josh mentions that 1H 1S 2H 2S makes sense as a forcing bid, and indeed it does. The Poles play that 2NT is forcing in a sequence like this. This also makes a lot of sense. Why play in a 2NT contract when pd has advertised a 6 card suit? If you bring the suit in, you are likely to make 9 tricks; if not you are likely to go off.

 

My bids would be 2NT or 2S if those were agreed as forcing. 3D otherwise.

[foo]

So I, like The Hog, do not like distorting my 73's by bidding them as if they were 54's.

 

I also do not think slam is so odds on here that we should be jumping through all sorts of hoops or greatly distorting our hand type to cater to possible slam chances.

 

I also do not like the idea of 1H-1S;2H-2S forcing. *shudder*.

1/2 of the hands We bid on will be partscores. I'll sacrifice some partscore accuracy to improve game and slam bidding, but there is a limit.

For me, playing 1H-1S;2H-2S as forcing is past that limit.

 

Here's my take on what hands with 6+S use which sequences:

 

1= 1H-4S.

This a bid to make 4S as close to exactly as possible based on Opener's most common minimum opening hands.

Say 11-15 HCP and ~3-5 controls

(and 3 is more likely than 5 in terms of hard values. eg A's & K's).

Another way to look at it is that a minimum opener is likely to have 3 cards that are A's or K's.

 

We need a decent trump suit, ~14 losers, and 7+ controls between the two hands to rate to make 4S.

That means a direct 4S response has to show a hand that rates to give Us as close as possible to exactly those assets.

 

So Responder's hand should look like either

1ra= Dead minimum opening bid with 7 losers, or

1rb= 6- loser subminimum opening bid with little tolerance for any other likely strain.

pclayton's example of AQJTxxxx.x.xx.xx

fits, but you are going to wait a long time for that hand to come up.

 

More common and mundane IMHO is something like

AKhxxxx.x.(xxx.xx) or AJTxxxx.x.(AQx.xx) or AKhxxx.x.(Axx.xxx)

 

Now the important point. If these are the hands that go through 1H-4S, then

=any hand that gets to 4S via a slower route must be better=.

 

Which brings us to

2= 1H-1S;2H-4S.

 

Since 1H-4S shows 1ra or 1rb above, 1H-1S;2H-4S must show

2ra= A minimum opening bid with 6 losers, or

2rb= A 5 loser subminimum opening bid

(In this case, we are basically hoping for the "30 HCP deck effect" because of our shape to make 4S.)

 

Similar exercises can establish the hand types for the other sequences.

 

In my judgement, based on the above definitions

♠AT87543 ♥7 ♦AJ5 ♣AQ

fits 1H-1S;2H-4S marginally better than it fits any longer forcing sequence.

We have a decent chance (~50/50) at having the 10+ controls between the hands needed for a slam, but the rest of the hand is simply not that good (crappy long suit, 11/14 of our HCP are in our short suits, we have a stiff in pard's twice bid suit, etc)

 

All the invective being tossed around isn't going to sound like a logical counter argument to me, and neither are opposing hands that require low probability assumptions.

 

I would be very interested to see what a well written simulation would say about the odds of there being a slam are on boards that fit the auction thus far.

[dburn]

Don't mind 3D - would probably bid it at the table. Don't mind 3S either, but in general I need a rather better spade suit - partner is supposed to move towards slam with decent controls and a singleton spade. Of course, here I know he doesn't have decent controls, so if he does move, his spade support should be adequate.

 

But it's hard to answer these questions without some knowledge of the context in which the partnership operates. How often will Rex or Jay bid 2S as opposed to 2H on hands with three spades and six bad hearts? If the answer to this is "frequently", then I strongly prefer 3NT to 3D. If the answer is "not often" or "never", then I prefer 3D to 3NT.

 

Over partner's 3S, will bid 4C and pack up if he signs off. Over 4S, will bid Blackwood. Over 3NT, will pass.

[foo]

dburn makes an interesting point.

 

In the "old days" when 2nd round jump rebids by responder were Forcing rather than invitational, ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ would have been a fine hand to go through

1H-1S;2H-3S

[pclayton]

dburn makes an interesting point.

 

In the "old days" when 2nd round jump rebids by responder were Forcing rather than invitational, ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ would have been a fine hand to go through

1H-1S;2H-3S

It still is for Matt and I.

[dburn]

Oh, 3S is forcing (because 2S is invitational - if you have J109xxxx None Qx Kxxx you pass 2H and get a minus score instead of a plus, but that's life in the big city, and why they invented weak jump shifts in some big cities).

 

It's just that to bid a forcing 3S, you ought to have a hand more resembling KQJxxxx x Ax Qxx than your actual hand does. Then, partner with such as x Axxxxx Kxx AKx can do something sensible (such as raising you to six).

 

Maybe you would bid 2S over 1H with the hand I have just quoted, or maybe you would bid 4S with it. I wouldn't blame you for doing either, but if with the actual hand (A10xxxxx x AJx AQ) you bid 4S at either your first or your second turn, I would... well, I wouldn't blame you for taking up bridge, for many people who are no good at it do that, but I would wonder vaguely why you felt qualified to post in a forum for advanced and expert-class players.

[microcap]

I am really happy at the quantity and depth of the responses---thank you all!

 

 

So here's the denouement of WHY REX DRIVES ME BONKERS!

 

Rex knows the meaning of every book bid ever invented, so he knows that over 2♥ that neither 2♠ or 3♠ is forcing in normal 2/1. So in fact, he bid 3♦ over my 2♥ rebid. However, over my 3♥ bid, he bids 4♥!!!!

 

But the happy ending is:

 

Now my RHO doubles 4!♥. I pass, and now Rex bids 4♠ as he is got scared. RHO doubles again, as he is just as confused as I am.

 

My hand was: [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sqjhak10xxxdkxc985]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]. From my perspective over 3♦, I can't support ♠ with 2 cards opposite 4 or 5, and can't bid 3NT, so it was 3♥ by default.

 

Rex said I have an obvious 3♠ rebid over 3♦, so he bid 4♥ as I cannot have anything in spades, then got scared by the double. Anyone agree with him?

 

I said that only one bridge player in the world could ignore a 7 card spade suit after the first round-- :(

 

And the beauty was, we made 4 easily and picked up 5 imps as there was no double in the other room---hats off to Rex for fooling opponents! LOLL