Why Rex drives me bonkers!

[foo]

Oh, 3S is forcing (because 2S is invitational - if you have JT9xxxx 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.

Most of the players, and most of the authoritative texts I know of, say that

1H-1S;2H-2S is nf.

 

For example, Truscott's _The Bidding Dictionary_ lists this as sequence 3434 on p51.

 

The description is given as ?6-9? strength, 6+S, 2-H, ? in the minors, Hand Type "Y" and note 312.

Note 312 says nothing useful to our current discussion, but hand type Y is described on pxv of the preface as

"Y: Suggests An End To The Auction. Partner is not barred, but usually passes."

 

Similarly, the current standard approach is that 1H-1S;2H-3S is Inv

(as can be seen on the same page as sequence 3439. :( )

 

Which means ATxxxxx-x-AJX-AQ has become a bidding problem it would not be if

1H-1S;2H-3S was GF.

 

My analysis of what to do with the OP hand in the context of Standard bidding as defined by texts such as those I'm referencing is in other posts.

 

I'll be happy to consider refuting arguments. Direct or implied attacks/insults/smarmy personal comments lack either logic or evidence and are therefore content free. Not honest attempts at forwarding the discussion.

 

Such a refutation would start something along the line of

"Opener's most likely shapes are <mumble list>. Opener's most likely values are <mumble list>. This results in a n% chance that Opener will pass 4S when We belong in slam and n% is too high to be reasonable.

Therefore bidding ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ via 1H-1S;2H-4S is too likely to result in a bad score and thus is a bad way to bid this hand."

 

*goes and repacks/relights pipe while grabbing a pad of paper to start said calculations for himself*

 

As I said before, I'd be interested in seeing the results of a well designed simulation of this issue.

[foo]

My hand was: 

♠QJ  ♥AKTxxx ♦Kx ♣985

Now =that= is about what I expected opener to have on this auction. :(

[glen]

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

I disagree, as I like methods that start this hand 1♥-2♠

[foo]

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

I disagree, as I like methods that start this hand 1♥-2♠

You think ATxxxx-x-AJx-AQ is right for a Strong Jump Shift of 1H-2S?

[glen]

You think  ATxxxx-x-AJx-AQ  is right for a Strong Jump Shift of 1H-2S?

No, I call the TD when I have only 12 cards.

 

As to the correct hand, I think waiting (and waiting and waiting) for 20 points or so for the traditional "Strong Jump Shift" is ineffective. The better method is to use the strong jump shift on hands that have some slam interest due to good shape and extras, but no way to really show this on a slower auction.

[foo]

You think  ATxxxx-x-AJx-AQ  is right for a Strong Jump Shift of 1H-2S?

No, I call the TD when I have only 12 cards

I mistyped an "x" in a hand my fingers are getting cramped from repeating all day.

We all know what the hand is by now ad nauseum

 

ATxxxxx-x-AJx-AQ

 

There. Happy? Jeez.

 

EDIT- for spelling of obscure Latin phrases I don't use very often in print. :unsure:

[dburn]

Happy?

 

Not particularly - the actual Latin phrase was "ad nauseam", but looking back over the contributions to this forum, it seems that even people who know how to bid do not know Latin. Mind you, the Italians would not have got (or as you might say "gotten", but that is because you speak neither English nor Latin) this auction wrong, and they would not have said "ad nauseum" either.

 

Memo to microcap: it was fairly clear to bid 3S rather than 3H over 3D. I mean, partner already knows you have six hearts and a minimum. If that was all he needed to know, he would not have bid 3D. When he does, you should not bid that heart suit again - rather, you should look for something else to do, in which context 3S stands out a very long way.

 

Memo to foo: I will ask someone to give me a copy of "The Bidding Dictionary" for Christmas. It seems that I have much to learn.

[ceeb]

Why does everyone assume we're going to play in spades? A large part of the reason that I choose the 3D call is because if the bidding continues 3H - 3S - 3NT that's probably our spot. Yes, partner could have x, AJ109xx, Kxx, K10x where spades is better, but there's also --,KQJ9xx,K10x,Kxxx.

[jdonn]

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-- :unsure:

He is right about the 3♠ part, he is wrong about the 4♥ part, and you are right with your final comment. That seems like everything :)