weird rebid problem

[gwnn]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=shkj7xxxdxckqjxxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

p-1♥-p-1♠

2♦-?

[mike777]

I would try 2H for now. The bidding may not be over. :blink:

[ArtK78]

I opened this hand because it is 6-6.

 

It is still 6-6.

 

3♣.

[rogerclee]

I don't understand what is weird about this. 3♣.

[jdonn]

Anyone who doesn't rebid 3♣ should be..... oops about to say something bad, biting tongue!

[mikeh]

A good hand for a gadget... a 'weak must speak' inversion of Good/Bad 2N... 3♣ natural, based on shape not power... power goes through 2N.

 

In original G/B, the weak hand bid 2N and the strong hand bid at the 3-level... but it is when one has a weak hand that the opps are most prone to be fighting for the contract at the 3-level, so it makes sense to help partner out by showing one's shape.. and with the strong hand, we are more likely, than with the weak, to be able to bid 2N and still show our shape later.

 

But this is a 3♣ bid anyway... the Bridge Gods should deny any other caller any more 6-6 hands... they don't deserve them :)

[catatonic]

pass

 

you really think this is going to be passed out unless pt has lots of diamonds? on hands like this he who buys the contract often gets the minus score , and so far all you know suggests a misfit

[pclayton]

3♣. 4♣ is a splinter.

[Cascade]

3♣ is normal and should be standard but i fear not. I think many probably particularly weaker players would think they require extra strength for a 3♣ bid here.

[655321]

3♣.

 

I don't get it.

[kenrexford]

I'd agree that this is a "weird" rebid problem, if "weird" modifies "problem" is the sense that it is weird for this to be a problem.

 

On a side note, however. I'm not sure that I agree with pclayton that 4♣ would be a splinter. I used to think so, but now I am starting to think that natural makes more sense.

[awm]

I'd bid 3♣.

 

This bid requires extras. I have good play for 4♥ or 5♣ opposite one (working) ace and a mild fit, or even opposite ♥Qx and out. I consider this to mean that I have extras. :)

 

Any method where I have to bid 2NT in this auction to show/deny extras without reference to holding a diamond stopper seems off to me -- isn't it very possible that 3NT from partner's side is the best game contract?

[Apollo81]

3♣, the easiest call ive seen on here in a while

[the hog]

Playing Good/Bad, this is an obvious 2NT bid. Not having this gadget I would bid 2H, as "Yes", 3C requires extras, despite Wayne's thinly veiled insulting comment :-)

[jdonn]

Playing Good/Bad, this is an obvious 2NT bid. Not having this gadget I would bid 2H, as "Yes", 3C requires extras, despite Wayne's thinly veiled insulting comment :-)

Mine was going to be a lot less thinly veiled but I sighed and wised up. This thread is a reason I never predict a unanimous response any more, because no matter how obvious it should be we have....a very diverse constituency :rolleyes:

 

You know extras can come in the form of shape too.

[the hog]

Playing Good/Bad, this is an obvious 2NT bid. Not having this gadget I would bid 2H, as "Yes", 3C requires extras, despite Wayne's thinly veiled insulting comment :-)

Mine was going to be a lot less thinly veiled but I sighed and wised up. This thread is a reason I never predict a unanimous response any more, because no matter how obvious it should be we have....a very diverse constituency :)

 

You know extras can come in the form of shape too.

Sure Josh, this shape is nice and I have a nice hand but...

I expect to get to show my C suit at some point in the auction, but I don't want to treat the posted hand the same way as I would bid:

xx AKQxx x AQJxx or even better.

At red I would have opened the shown hand with a 2 suited opening if that were available.

 

You are correct about a diverse lot here, and I also should probably exercise more tolerance with those who have no bidding judgement. eg those who bid 3H on the 7222 problem in the Adv forum. :rolleyes:

[andy_h]

3♣, next.

[Cascade]

Playing Good/Bad, this is an obvious 2NT bid. Not having this gadget I would bid 2H, as "Yes", 3C requires extras, despite Wayne's thinly veiled insulting comment :-)

I didn't intend to insult.

 

I merely meant that many would play 3♣ as requiring extras. I think that is probably standard but do not think it should be.

 

I was not saying or suggesting that having this 'standard' view makes you a weaker player.

[CSGibson]

3♣. Even if it shows extra playing strength, I have it (assuming partner isn't 6-6 in the pointed suits)

[the hog]

Playing Good/Bad, this is an obvious 2NT bid. Not having this gadget I would bid 2H, as "Yes", 3C requires extras, despite Wayne's thinly veiled insulting comment :-)

I didn't intend to insult.

 

I merely meant that many would play 3♣ as requiring extras. I think that is probably standard but do not think it should be.

 

I was not saying or suggesting that having this 'standard' view makes you a weaker player.

You missed the smiley?

[effervesce]

3♣. A non-problem playing a strong club system.

[rogerclee]

3♣. A non-problem playing a strong club system.

Are you implying that this is a problem if you're not? :)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

..., I would go with 3C, I am going to play game,

wont be the first time I am going down.

 

I may have passed the first time, but given I hold

10HCP, ... I am pretty certain I would have opened.

As it is the opponents bidding may help partner to

judge my strength correctly, espesially if you happen

to play 2NT as some kind of (reverse) good-bad.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Free]

3♣, this isn't even an overbid.

[mhais]

:) 3c