Your bid

[G_R__E_G]

Playing standard, what would you rebid (and why) after opening 1♥ and partner responding 2♣?

 

♠KJxx ♥KQTxx ♦A ♣Jxx

[ArtK78]

Playing "standard", unless you consider this hand to have "extras", this is a 2♥ rebid. I don't think the hand is quite good enough for a raise to 3♣, but it is close.

 

Playing 2/1 GF, it becomes a matter of style how you want to approach this hand. You could raise to 3♣, or you could bid 2♠ intending to bid 3♣ over partner's expected 2NT rebid. Rebidding 2♥ would not be right if you are in a game forcing auction unless you have an agreement that the other choices show a better hand than this. I would bid 2♠ intending to raise clubs at my next turn (unless partner does something unexpected, such as raising one of my major suits).

[Apollo81]

2♠, I think this is enough to force game.

[jdonn]

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

[hrothgar]

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

What he said

[Cascade]

I am not so sure that an ordinary 5-4-3-1 with 14 points including only one ace is enough for a game force. That leaves 2♥ as the only option.

[neilkaz]

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

Me too and I like my T in ♥ if I end up in a 5-2 fit and it won't hurt to hold this card in 3NT.

[Guest Jlall]

I would not stop below game...2S

[han]

I like this hand.

[mikeh]

I don't understand what 'liking this hand' has to do with bidding 2♠.

 

Put me down for 2♥, the bid that maximizes the chances of a good auction.

 

3♣ is wrong: even in 2/1 a 2♣ call can be on a 3 card suit: with a good 3=3=4=3, for example, 2♦ is often the right call, especially if the diamond suit is not a slam-appropriate holding. In standard, 2♣ is even more suspect... and note that we haven't even got into a rexfordian discussion of semi-artificial 2♣ responses :)

 

2♠ is unnecessary if the object is to find a spade fit: 2♥ allows partner to bid 2♠.

 

2N is obviously a misdecription

 

So 2♥ is what is left.

 

And it is forcing: in standard, 2♣ forces beyond 2♥ (at least, in the standard that I am familiar with..if 2♥ is nf, then 2♠ is the only logical choice and I change my bid)

 

If the auction proceeds 2♠, I raise to 3♠.... forcing since 2♠ was itself a gf

 

If the auction proceeds 2N, I bid an easy 3♣... well, I claim it is easy, and I think it is forcing, but if not, I just bid 3N... after all, if 2N is nf, we ain't missing a slam by my ignoring clubs

 

If the auction proceeds 3♣, I bid 3♠, forcing, pass 3N and otherwise raise to 5♣

 

So I get to game all the time anyway.

 

Meanwhile, I don't think this hand justifies the very strong sequence of 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ then later, over anything, a club bid. That's how we'd bid with the same shape and 2 or 3 more hcp.

[han]

I don't understand your argument against 2S Mike. 2H is forcing therefore you won't bid the more descriptive 2S?

 

On a good day you'll be able to bid 1H followed by 2S followed by 3C, showing a 4-5-1-3 pattern with extras. Sounds good to me! Since I would open with about a king less I consider this extras.

 

I also agree that the hand looks better after 2C than after a 2D call by partner.

 

Edit: was too hasty and now notice your last line. If you think that 1H.. 2S.. 3C shows at least a 16-count then I agree that we are not worth it obviously. I don't know what is standard and I don't really care but I thought 2S just showed enough to force to game.

[cherdano]

I don't understand any bid except 2♠ here.

[jillybean]

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

What ♣ fit?

 

Easy 2♥

[655321]

Agree with mikeh.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't understand your argument against 2S Mike. 2H is forcing therefore you won't bid the more descriptive 2S?

Agree, don't get it. You didn't really list any reason to dislike showing your hand, just that it's not necessary to find a fit. This is the same reasoning I see novice players use for not bidding 1H p 1N p 2S (not saying you are a novice obviously Mike!!!!!). The point is to best describe your hand so that partner knows xxx diamonds is not very good for NT but xxx spades is fine, etc.

[jdonn]

2♠ because of the club fit, if partner had bid my short minor I would rebid 2♥.

What ♣ fit?

 

Easy 2♥

Haha, I think your confidence is growing jilly!

[mikeh]

I don't understand your argument against 2S Mike. 2H is forcing therefore you won't bid the more descriptive 2S?

 

On a good day you'll be able to bid 1H followed by 2S followed by 3C, showing a 4-5-1-3 pattern with extras. Sounds good to me! Since I would open with about a king less I consider this extras.

 

I also agree that the hand looks better after 2C than after a 2D call by partner.

 

Edit: was too hasty and now notice your last line. If you think that 1H.. 2S.. 3C shows at least a 16-count then I agree that we are not worth it obviously. I don't know what is standard and I don't really care but I thought 2S just showed enough to force to game.

I would bid 2♠ if my diamond Ace were in any other suit..same shape, same count, but a far, far stronger hand. While I understand the desire to commit to game (I am doing so as well) I think that the reverse then clubs (which has to be the bidding plan unless partner bids a major over 2♠) shows a hand of more playing strength than we hold. At the risk of sounding condescending, and recognizing that all the 2♠ posters so far KNOW this, honour location is an often overlooked consideration for a lot of players...maybe I am giving it too much weight here, but (obviously) I don't think so.

[cherdano]

I don't understand your argument against 2S Mike. 2H is forcing therefore you won't bid the more descriptive 2S?

 

On a good day you'll be able to bid 1H followed by 2S followed by 3C, showing a 4-5-1-3 pattern with extras. Sounds good to me! Since I would open with about a king less I consider this extras.

 

I also agree that the hand looks better after 2C than after a 2D call by partner.

 

Edit: was too hasty and now notice your last line. If you think that 1H.. 2S.. 3C shows at least a 16-count then I agree that we are not worth it obviously. I don't know what is standard and I don't really care but I thought 2S just showed enough to force to game.

I would bid 2♠ if my diamond Ace were in any other suit..same shape, same count, but a far, far stronger hand. While I understand the desire to commit to game (I am doing so as well) I think that the reverse then clubs (which has to be the bidding plan unless partner bids a major over 2♠) shows a hand of more playing strength than we hold. At the risk of sounding condescending, and recognizing that all the 2♠ posters so far KNOW this, honour location is an often overlooked consideration for a lot of players...maybe I am giving it too much weight here, but (obviously) I don't think so.

I think the difference is just that you require more for the sequence 1H 2S 3C than the rest of us.

[Cascade]

I really don't get that this hand is a game force.

 

Maybe I have misunderstood the conditions which stated 'standard'. I assumed this was not 2/1.

 

The vulnerability is also not stated which might make a difference in a close call.

 

Given so many excellent posters have suggested Game Forcing I did a simulation with these parameters:

 

Partner has 12 hcp and four or five clubs or 11 hcp and six clubs - i think this is generous as partner will often have less than this (unless 'standard' now means 2/1 as I commented above);

 

Partner has three or fewer hearts;

 

Partner is 4=4 in the minors or has longer clubs;

 

Partner has more clubs than spades.

 

Here is the exact code:

 

((hcp(south)==12 and clubs(south)>=4) or
(hcp(south)==11 and clubs(south)>=6)) and

hearts(south)<=3 and

((diamonds(south)<=clubs(south) and clubs(south)==4) or
(diamonds(south)<clubs(south))) and

(spades(south)<clubs(south))

 

Any game (spades, hearts, no trumps or clubs - I didn't actually check diamonds) made only just over 35% of the time. It would be worse when partner has only 11 hcp without extra length or 10 hcp with extra length.

[han]

What did you mean by "any game made just above 35% of the time"?

 

The usual objections to double dummy analysis apply, it is not hard to imagine that 3NT makes more often in practice.

 

I don't make a habit out of avoiding games with 25+ HCP. The form of scoring was not given and may matter.

[jdonn]

You are assuming 25+ for the partnership, and if it's a mere 25 we have a 9 card fit. Then trying to show it's optimistic to game force?

 

At least I don't think you should say you don't "get" forcing to game.

[Cascade]

What did you mean by "any game made just above 35% of the time"?

 

The usual objections to double dummy analysis apply, it is not hard to imagine that 3NT makes more often in practice.

 

I don't make a habit out of avoiding games with 25+ HCP. The form of scoring was not given and may matter.

"any game" meant we had 10 or more tricks in spades or hearts or 9 or more tricks in NTs or 11 or more tricks in clubs.

 

The code:

 

game = (tricks(north,spades)>=10) or (tricks(north,hearts)>=10) or (tricks(south,notrumps)>=9) or (tricks(south,clubs)>=11)?1:0

 

Yes I am aware of these objections my experience every time I have tried to test double dummy with single dummy is that it has always been close. My personal analysis has always been with specific hands and situations rather than general situations. My understanding is that in general double dummy favours declarer at high levels and single dummy favours declarer at lower levels.

 

On this particular simulation there is a hidden advantage in favour of the declaring side in that the game percentage might actually be lower as occasionally we will bid the wrong game 5♣ when 3NT is cold or vice versa etc.

[kenrexford]

How this is a debate is beyond me.

 

Reasons why I think 2♠ is obvious:

 

1. I and everyone else opens an 11-count with 5-4 in two suits. This is a King better. A King better is enough to rebid naturally, even 2♠.

 

2. The quality of my suits is unashamed.

 

3. I happen to have club support.

 

4. I happen to have a stopper in the to-be-unbid suit.

 

5. Partner won't bid 2♣ unless strong enough for my 2♠ call with this hand to be right.

 

6A. If partner bids 2♠ after 2♥, and I then bid 3♠, I will be weaker than this.

 

6B. If I have to bid 4♠ after 2♠, I just lost bidding space.

 

7. I have a six-loser hand, rather than 7, or even 8.

 

8. My well-placed 10 actually gives me 14.5 HCP

 

9. A 2♥ call may be passed, which is wrong when it happens.

[Pisagor22]

I don't understand what 'liking this hand' has to do with bidding 2♠.

 

Put me down for 2♥, the bid that maximizes the chances of a good auction.

 

3♣ is wrong: even in 2/1 a 2♣ call can be on a 3 card suit: with a good 3=3=4=3, for example, 2♦ is often the right call, especially if the diamond suit is not a slam-appropriate holding. In standard, 2♣ is even more suspect... and note that we haven't even got into a rexfordian discussion of semi-artificial 2♣ responses :P

 

2♠ is unnecessary if the object is to find a spade fit: 2♥ allows partner to bid 2♠.

 

2N is obviously a misdecription

 

So 2♥ is what is left.

 

And it is forcing: in standard, 2♣ forces beyond 2♥ (at least, in the standard that I am familiar with..if 2♥ is nf, then 2♠ is the only logical choice and I change my bid)

 

If the auction proceeds 2♠, I raise to 3♠.... forcing since 2♠ was itself a gf

 

If the auction proceeds 2N, I bid an easy 3♣... well, I claim it is easy, and I think it is forcing, but if not, I just bid 3N... after all, if 2N is nf, we ain't missing a slam by my ignoring clubs

 

If the auction proceeds 3♣, I bid 3♠, forcing, pass 3N and otherwise raise to 5♣

 

So I get to game all the time anyway.

 

Meanwhile, I don't think this hand justifies the very strong sequence of 1♥ 2♣ 2♠ then later, over anything, a club bid. That's how we'd bid with the same shape and 2 or 3 more hcp.

this is your hand.

♠KJxx ♥KQTxx ♦A ♣Jxx

 

And if your partner's hand is like :

♠ATxx ♥x ♦xx ♣AQxxxx

 

after your 2♥ bid you force him to gamble :

 

cause you say you could be bidding it when you have 4 or less spades

 

firstly if you have 4 spades;

* and If he assumes you dont havet 4 spades, and if he bid 2NT then you will never be aware of your spade fit. (NT , you will have to play after this bid)

 

secondly, if you dont have 4 spades;

* and if he assumes you might have 4 spades and bids 2♠ then you will also need to face another gamble : "stop at 2NT or bid 3NT" (anyone who

bids 3NT after these bids can be forgiven)

 

let me tell you what this hand to do with 2♠ :

 

because your partner cant see your hand , with this bid you will maximize his information about your hand , which is much more effective to decide rather than maximizing possible biddings left....

 

Regards.

[Cascade]

I really don't get that this hand is a game force.

 

Maybe I have misunderstood the conditions which stated 'standard'. I assumed this was not 2/1.

 

The vulnerability is also not stated which might make a difference in a close call.

 

Given so many excellent posters have suggested Game Forcing I did a simulation with these parameters:

 

Partner has 12 hcp and four or five clubs or 11 hcp and six clubs - i think this is generous as partner will often have less than this (unless 'standard' now means 2/1 as I commented above);

 

Partner has three or fewer hearts;

 

Partner is 4=4 in the minors or has longer clubs;

 

Partner has more clubs than spades.

 

Here is the exact code:

 

((hcp(south)==12 and clubs(south)>=4) or
(hcp(south)==11 and clubs(south)>=6)) and

hearts(south)<=3 and

((diamonds(south)<=clubs(south) and clubs(south)==4) or
(diamonds(south)<clubs(south))) and

(spades(south)<clubs(south))

 

Any game (spades, hearts, no trumps or clubs - I didn't actually check diamonds) made only just over 35% of the time. It would be worse when partner has only 11 hcp without extra length or 10 hcp with extra length.

arrrgggggg

 

Just discovered an inadvertent comment character in my code where I set the hand in the OP so I wasn't dealing that hand properly in the simulation. :P

 

Game is well over 50% which makes more sense.

 

Sorry I worked on this yesterday when I was busy with something else while I was in and out of home.