Echognome Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 ♠x♥KQxxx♦xx♣AKxxx Playing 2/1, you are dealer. 1♥ - 2♦2♥* - 3♦? *3♣ would have shown extras. What shall we do now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 This type of hand shows why 3D should be bid very rarely, and should be a very strong suggestion about diamonds. Josh always mocks me saying I only make this bid with 7 solid diamonds, but the auction is pretty much impossible if 3D is not well defined, and even then it's tough. All that being said, I think the right bid is 4D with a likeminded partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 4d I guess I miss what the problem is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 i abstain on the grounds that I know how badly p of this hand misbid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 This type of hand shows why 3D should be bid very rarely, and should be a very strong suggestion about diamonds. Josh always mocks me saying I only make this bid with 7 solid diamonds, but the auction is pretty much impossible if 3D is not well defined, and even then it's tough. All that being said, I think the right bid is 4D with a likeminded partner. This seems inconsistent. Whereas I like and agree with the general theory as to the diamond rebid, this seems to lead to a natural conclusion that this auction essentially demands that the final contract be in a red-suit strain or 3NT. If this is correct, which seems consistent with the thinking, then it seems to follow that 4♣ and 4♦ each agree diamonds. The key would then seem to be what 4♣ would mean in this context and what 4♦ should mean. I'm not sure what the difference should be precisely, but this hand seems to fit into the vast majority of possible 4♣ meanings, mainly because my diamond suck but I have AK in diamonds. 3♠also enters my mind, but that seems to be the hedge bid and ambiguous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 This type of hand shows why 3D should be bid very rarely, and should be a very strong suggestion about diamonds. Josh always mocks me saying I only make this bid with 7 solid diamonds, but the auction is pretty much impossible if 3D is not well defined, and even then it's tough. All that being said, I think the right bid is 4D with a likeminded partner. This seems inconsistent. Whereas I like and agree with the general theory as to the diamond rebid, this seems to lead to a natural conclusion that this auction essentially demands that the final contract be in a red-suit strain or 3NT. If this is correct, which seems consistent with the thinking, then it seems to follow that 4♣ and 4♦ each agree diamonds. Yes, I totally agree, not sure why this is inconsistent we are in complete agreement! My general style is to only cuebid when I have a good hand for partner to tell them "I have a good hand for you" I would cuebid with a stronger hand, and just raise with a minimum hand so that when I later cuebid he knows my hand was not good. I know this is not your cuebidding style :P Maybe mine is a bit primitive but it seems to work ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 When in doubt, temporize... Mark me down for 3♠. I'll pas a 3N rebid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 When in doubt, temporize... Mark me down for 3♠. I'll pas a 3N rebid Do you think partner will bid 3N with 1 black suit stopper and not the other stopped? If so this is not going to be a success when you play 3N opposite no spade stopper :P TBH I don't understand the desire to play 3N with this hand, we have no diamond filler and we have a stiff spade and potentially 2 suits to set up if we play in diamonds. Even if pard has spades stopped he needs solid diamonds for 3N to be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 What's wrong with 4♣? Would that show a better hand and/or 6-4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted April 28, 2008 Report Share Posted April 28, 2008 This type of hand shows why 3D should be bid very rarely, and should be a very strong suggestion about diamonds. Josh always mocks me saying I only make this bid with 7 solid diamonds, but the auction is pretty much impossible if 3D is not well defined, and even then it's tough. All that being said, I think the right bid is 4D with a likeminded partner. This seems inconsistent. Whereas I like and agree with the general theory as to the diamond rebid, this seems to lead to a natural conclusion that this auction essentially demands that the final contract be in a red-suit strain or 3NT. If this is correct, which seems consistent with the thinking, then it seems to follow that 4♣ and 4♦ each agree diamonds. Yes, I totally agree, not sure why this is inconsistent we are in complete agreement! My general style is to only cuebid when I have a good hand for partner to tell them "I have a good hand for you" I would cuebid with a stronger hand, and just raise with a minimum hand so that when I later cuebid he knows my hand was not good. I know this is not your cuebidding style :P Maybe mine is a bit primitive but it seems to work ok. Actually, in retrospect I think your approach makes a lot of sense. If I understand correctly, 4♦ would be somewhat of a bleck bid, whereas 4♣ would be a completely artificial power diamond raise, sort of a Last Train of sorts? Makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 29, 2008 Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 4♣ for me. Must show a very shapely min 55, which is more or less what I have. Even if pard takes it as some sort of diamond raise, I'm ok with it. A direct 4♦ is also nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 29, 2008 Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 I probably dont have as extreme a view as Justin about this 3♦ bid, but the essence is the same. Clear 4♦ call to me. I really don't see what the point of bidding clubs is when partner didn't bid 3♣ and we have xx diamonds and a singleton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted April 29, 2008 Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 4♦. And then hide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 29, 2008 Report Share Posted April 29, 2008 4♦. And then hide. What are you hiding from? You have four controls and a singleton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.