another 2over1 rebid

[jillybean]

Dealer: East Vul: EW Scoring: IMP ♠ AQ754 ♥ K ♦ KJ2 ♣ J864

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  1♠

 Pass  2♣    Pass  ? 

 

Please explain your rationale below!

[the hog]

Depends on partnership style. If 3C shows extras, then you need to rebid 2S. If 3C doesn't show extras, then tha bid is obvious. NEVER WILL I REBID 2D, do you read that, Ken?

[han]

Haha, agree with ron.

[Apollo81]

I would rebid 3♣ whether it showed extras or not, though this is pushing it if it does.

[pclayton]

3♣ even if it shows extras. This hand is just good enough IMO. Then:

 

---Over 3♦, 3♠ (punting)

---Over 3♥, 3N

---Over 3♠, 4♠, unless we play Frivolous 3N (Sorry, BI)

 

2♦ is sort of sexy, but it just delays the issues on this hand.

 

Support with support, dammit!

[neilkaz]

3♣ even if it shows extras. This hand is just good enough IMO. Then:

 

---Over 3♦, 3♠ (punting)

---Over 3♥, 3N

---Over 3♠, 4♠, unless we play Frivolous 3N (Sorry, BI)

 

2♦ is sort of sexy, but it just delays the issues on this hand.

 

Support with support, dammit!

Agreed as one doesn't need much extra IMHO, and you have 4 card support.

[mikeh]

3♣ even if it shows extras. This hand is just good enough IMO. Then:

 

---Over 3♦, 3♠ (punting)

---Over 3♥, 3N

---Over 3♠, 4♠, unless we play Frivolous 3N (Sorry, BI)

 

2♦ is sort of sexy, but it just delays the issues on this hand.

 

Support with support, dammit!

Agreed, with the exception of the reference to frivilous (or it's more sombre sibling, serious) 3N which doesn't belong in a B/I forum.. as I saw Phil acknowledged).

 

This is truly a minimum 'extras' hand, but it does have 4 card support and it does have 4 controls, albeit one is a stiff. The heart K is not known to be worthless, so I wouldn't downgrade it enough to make this hand a true minimum.

 

Besides, the hand is wrong for the alternatives.

 

2♦ is plain silly... bid clubs next and partner will have entirely the wrong idea of your minor suit shape.

 

2♠ is ok on strength and length, but partner will often bid 2N next and then you are torn. Your red cards say 3N, but your clubs say 3♣, and the former avoids the fit and the latter distorts your honour location.

 

So while 3♣ is a slight overbid, it is going to make your life a lot easier afterwards, while the easier 2♠ call may put you in an impossible spot later.

 

While we all have 'rules' for bidding, the truth is that there are many hands which don't fit nicely into our formal structure... we have to distort and the object is to make the least distortion. Thinking ahead with respect to possible auctions can help. And a good default rule is that it is usually better to support with support if that is a reasonable choice.. however, I want to stress that this is only 'usually' better :lol:

[brianshark]

Assuming 3♣ shows extras (else there is no problem) then I will NOT bid 3♣. I don't think the soft values in my short suits are that great.

[jtfanclub]

I have a 14 count and 4 card support, and some shape, sort of. Looks like extras to me (barely). But maybe that's why I'm not an expert.

[jillybean]

Ok, this is where I am coming a little unstuck. In bygone days I would happily raise partners 2♣ with xxx, a practice that was quite correctly, labeled “terrible”. Now I find myself going out of my way to avoid a raise of partners 2m, apparently I just need to find some balance again. :)

[jdonn]

Ok, this is where I am coming a little unstuck. In bygone days I would happily raise partners 2♣ with xxx, a practice that was quite correctly, labeled “terrible”. Now I find myself going out of my way to avoid a raise of partners 2m, apparently I just need to find some balance again. :)

Don't raise with 3, raise with 4, and stop pulling your hair out :)

[neilkaz]

Ok, this is where I am coming a little unstuck. In bygone days I would happily raise partners 2♣ with xxx, a practice that was quite correctly, labeled “terrible”.  Now I find myself going out of my way to avoid a raise of partners 2m, apparently I just need to find some balance again.  :)

Don't raise with 3, raise with 4, and stop pulling your hair out :)

Yes, with 4 card support, the ♣ suit has lots of potential and maybe where you belong so bid your distribution. Even if PD's 2/1 is not a GF 2/1 and some min in SAYC, some game should be a favorite, IMO.

[kenrexford]

NEVER WILL I REBID 2D, do you read that, Ken?

LOL!!! Right after I clicked "2♦."

[Codo]

I agree with the sane bidders.

With

♠ AQ754

♥ J

♦ KJ2

♣ k864

 

this is a clear 3 Club bid (showing extras).

 

With the given hand I would understand a downgrade.

[andy_h]

3C should show my hand - extras or no extras (but 4card support). It'll make the followup auction easier than a 2S

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

3C, showing the fit.

 

Playing SAYC, i.e 2C promises another bid, 3C is a

slight overbid, but not much.

I would feel better if 3C would be nonforcing, or if

2C was already gameforcing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pclayton]

I agree with the sane bidders.

With

♠ AQ754

♥ J

♦ KJ2

♣ k864

 

this is a clear 3 Club bid (showing extras).

 

With the given hand I would understand a downgrade.

Playing 2/1, I'd splinter this with 3♥.

[ArtK78]

I agree with the sane bidders.

With

♠ AQ754

♥ J

♦ KJ2

♣ k864

 

this is a clear 3 Club bid (showing extras).

 

With the given hand I would understand a downgrade.

I agree with the 3♣ bidders.

 

I am not making any assumptions as to sanity.

[Finch]

Ok, this is where I am coming a little unstuck. In bygone days I would happily raise partners 2♣ with xxx, a practice that was quite correctly, labeled “terrible”. Now I find myself going out of my way to avoid a raise of partners 2m, apparently I just need to find some balance again. :)

Bearing in mind that fact that I don't actually play SA, so I may be talking rubbish...

 

Once of the ideas of a SA 2/1 is that responder promises another bid. So if you, as opener, raise 2C to 3C you have in practice forced to game (particularly as I think 1S - 2C - 3C - 3S is played as forcing). That means that you have to have extra values to raise a 2/1, as initially responder has shown no more than a decent 10-count.

 

That leads to the odd position where you can have 4-card support for partner's suit and yet you aren't allowed to show it, you have to make some form of minimum rebid and raise the suit next round.

 

[if only you played a nice simple system like Acol, where 1S - 2C - 3C is non-forcing showing a minimum hand with four-card club support. Admittedly life is very difficult when you have a forcing hand with club support, but at least it's more obviously natural bidding.]

[Vilgan]

I'd bid 3♣ probably. Surprised 3♥ wasn't part of the poll playing 2/1, since if the K was something smaller I think its fairly automatic, and still a possibility even w/ the K imo.

[han]

[if only you played a nice simple system like Acol, where 1S - 2C - 3C is non-forcing showing a minimum hand with four-card club support. Admittedly life is very difficult when you have a forcing hand with club support, but at least it's more obviously natural bidding.]

In one system you have to make up a bid when you have extras, in the other you have to make up a bid when you don't. I don't see why one system is more natural than the other.

 

Clearly old fashioned 2/1 is the way to go if you want natural auctions.

[kgr]

3♣ even if it shows extras.

agree

[Winstonm]

I believe Mike Lawrence nails this one with his recommendation that the raise of the minor should be either extra values OR an unbalanced hand with 4-card support.

[jdeegan]

:) 3♣. After that, I am pulling in my horns.