Where did this one go wrong?

[ArtK78]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=saqxhqxdakq8xxxcx&s=skjxxxhakxxdxcqxx]133|200|Scoring: MP

1♦ - 1♠

3♣ - 3♥

3♠ - 4NT

5♠* - 6NT

 

* 2 key cards plus ♠Q[/hv]

 

If you have specific criticism of any particular bid (other than the final call), please provide an alternative. The alternative to the final call is obvious.

[jdonn]

It's fine to bid 3♣ on these hands (I swear!) but clearly if this is allowed in the partnership south is taking a huge risk to bid 6NT.

 

Then again who says anything went wrong? Your lead opps...

[pclayton]

This hand is a poster child for an inverted 2♦ rebid. Many more like this and I might take it up :)

 

Its so easy to criticize 3♣ here, but when my partners bid diamonds, clubs and spades, I think its safe to assume the club bid was at least on a fragment. I know people don't like reversing into phony majors, but I might have bid 2♥ and then raised spades. while I'm not showing a 3=2=7=1, I imply a 3=3=6=1.

 

6N is a wild gamble. Opposite the expected: AQx, x, AKQxxx, Kxx 6♠ is good but 6N is dicey.

[Finch]

It takes up a little more room, but it's also a poster child for a 4D rebid showing 3=7 in the pointy suits.

[ArtK78]

Typically, the 4♦ rebid shows 4 card support (at least that is how I understand it).

 

On the actual hand, a diamond was led! Unfortunately, diamonds were 4-1 and there was no squeeze. So, even without a club lead, you are back to the question of what went wrong.

 

I don't know about an inverted 2♦ rebid, but it is another example of the usefulness of a forcing 3♦ rebid.

[TimG]

I don't know about an inverted 2♦ rebid, but it is another example of the usefulness of a forcing 3♦ rebid.

I started to suggest that a forcing 3♦ was another solution, but I think that in KS where 3♦ would indeed be forcing, the proper rebid with this hand would be 2♥.

[jdonn]

Very nice that three people in a row have managed to suggest three different methods that can solve the problem. I was worried we would get opinions about what should have happened with the actual agreements!

[rogerclee]

Bidding 3C with this is not fine, 2H is superior in every way. It is lower, it is less risky that partner will go crazy over it (since he will have 5 hearts if he does), and you have more in hearts.

[pclayton]

Bidding 3C with this is not fine, 2H is superior in every way. It is lower, it is less risky that partner will go crazy over it (since he will have 5 hearts if he does), and you have more in hearts.

Right. Whatever excitement 2♥ generates; we know that pard's spades are better.

[han]

Agree, 2H is much better.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I dont like 3C, if it was intended as a splinter, but

I also dont like the alternative 4D.

If 3C is natural, the bid is ..., than you have to go

with 4D, if you think the support is sufficient.

 

Hard to say, what I would have bid, since I would not

been there, I would have opened 2C (Benjamin)

with the intention to show a semi frocing hand with

diamonds.

Not being able to open 2C, I guess I would have gone

with 3D, an underbid, I know.

 

3H, 3S are fine, so is 4NT and 5S.

 

I dont think 6NT is a real option, it gambles heavily on

a running diamond suit, which North ,may or may not

have, so I think 6S is clear cut, hence most of blame

goes to South, part of the blame to North, if 3C was

mnatural, if you lie to partner you are responsible, if

the final result is terrrible.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[cherdano]

Bidding 3C with this is not fine, 2H is superior in every way. It is lower, it is less risky that partner will go crazy over it (since he will have 5 hearts if he does), and you have more in hearts.

I agree.

[jdonn]

Bidding 3C with this is not fine, 2H is superior in every way. It is lower, it is less risky that partner will go crazy over it (since he will have 5 hearts if he does), and you have more in hearts.

2♥ is fine too, although I wish I could find in a dictionary what "in every way" means to post here. 2♥ is a major and a higher ranking suit than the one where you probably want to play, so it's not-superior in at least two ways.

 

What would you rebid if the queen of hearts was a diamond? Or a club? Or what if the queen of spades was a diamond? Or some combination of two of those things? I think it's a fantasy land to assume (without special methods - see prior posts!) that 3♣ must be a real suit. So even if you like 2♥ better on the particular hand, you still haven't addressed the real problem of how to avoid this type of contract in general.

[TimG]

Very nice that three people in a row have managed to suggest three different methods that can solve the problem. I was worried we would get opinions about what should have happened with the actual agreements!

The strong 3-card raise is an acknowledged trouble hand for standard/eastern scientific methods. See BW MSC for periodic mention. I doubt anyone here is going to suddenly solve the problem with the methods specified (none, so an Eastern Scientific approach assumed).

[kenrexford]

I don't like 6NT.

 

I also do not like the lie about hearts. I would much rather bid 3♣ because it sounds like a likely made-up suit.

 

Also, 1♦-1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ would be really useful if a cuebid in support. I don't think it gains in the end to have two options for manufactured bids.

[benlessard]

This was already discussed, and for me its an obvious 2H. Switch the major around and ill still bid 2S (unless we play that 1S is forcing)

 

I dont care about any argument about made up suit or disturbing the shape you can take a time machine to a long gone era and see that JS and reverse can be done on 2 card fragment.

 

1D-----1S

2H

 

here 2H is your cheapest forcing bid so its an efficient way to show the strong 3 card raise hand & strong hand without a club stopper. Also sooner or later its going to be fun to be able to show the stiff in clubs wich a artificial 2Nt or a super phony 3C will never be able to do.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...20jumshift&st=0

[RichMor]

The strong 3-card raise is an acknowledged trouble hand for standard/eastern scientific methods.  See BW MSC for periodic mention.  I doubt anyone here is going to suddenly solve the problem with the methods specified (none, so an Eastern Scientific approach assumed).

Yes this is one of the typical Master Solver's Club 'nightmare hands'.

 

It used to be that the panel roughly split into 2 groups, one would rebid 3♦ and say 'if I get by this round .....' the other would raise a major response with strong 3-card support.

 

Lately a lot of the panelists make up a reverse or an off-shape 2NT rebid.

 

I don't remember seeing a problem where any panelist made a jump shift rebid on a singleton.

 

Maybe a general solution - in the context of 2/1 methods - is to agree that a jump rebid of opener's minor specifically shows or denies(you pick) 3-card support for responder's major.

[jdonn]

The strong 3-card raise is an acknowledged trouble hand for standard/eastern scientific methods.  See BW MSC for periodic mention.  I doubt anyone here is going to suddenly solve the problem with the methods specified (none, so an Eastern Scientific approach assumed).

Yes this is one of the typical Master Solver's Club 'nightmare hands'.

 

It used to be that the panel roughly split into 2 groups, one would rebid 3♦ and say 'if I get by this round .....' the other would raise a major response with strong 3-card support.

 

Lately a lot of the panelists make up a reverse or an off-shape 2NT rebid.

 

I don't remember seeing a problem where any panelist made a jump shift rebid on a singleton.

 

Maybe a general solution - in the context of 2/1 methods - is to agree that a jump rebid of opener's minor specifically shows or denies(you pick) 3-card support for responder's major.

I have seen one where it was made on a void. Ax Jxx AKQJxxxx -, 1♣ P 1♥ P ? I'm sure it would get no points on this forum, but 3♣ is a completely valid bid.

[mike777]

I understand those experts that reverse into 2 card suit or even those that jump shift into a stiff club and who can get out into spades.

 

I will try 3d and hope I can "just get past this round"

[TylerE]

It's threads like this that re-affirm my belief as to the superiority of strong club methods.

 

In my methods of choice

 

1♣ (16+) - 1♥ (GF. 5+ ♠)

1♠ (Trump ask) - 2♣ (exactly 5 cards, 1 of top 3 honors)

2♦ (Ask in ♣) - 2♠ (3rd round)

2NT (Ask in ♦) - 3♥ (2nd)

3♠ (Ask in ♥) - 4♠ (AK or AQ)

6♠

 

Notice how we get to stop at the 4 level oppisite no hearts.

[Cascade]

It takes up a little more room, but it's also a poster child for a 4D rebid showing 3=7 in the pointy suits.

That is my preferred treatment with this hand.

 

The room is often not an issue as if you have 10 cards in the two bid suits then 3NT would require partner to have a lot in the other two suits.

[Cascade]

Very nice that three people in a row have managed to suggest three different methods that can solve the problem. I was worried we would get opinions about what should have happened with the actual agreements!

 

...

 

I have seen one where it was made on a void. Ax Jxx AKQJxxxx -, 1♣ P 1♥ P ? I'm sure it would get no points on this forum, but 3♣ is a completely valid bid.

Are these the actual agreements that the opening poster failed to mention in his initial statement of the problem.

 

Do you call this system "Natural"?

 

It maybe a valid bid but I can't think why anyone would ever want to make it.

[jdonn]

I don't mean to imply 3♣ shows 0+ clubs. I'm saying every bid is a misbid (I guess technically 5♦ isn't, but it's easy to see why one would want to avoid that choice), and it is reasonable to choose that particular misbid.

 

As for why anyone would want to bid 3♣, I bet you can imagine why anyone wouldn't want to bid any other particular bid. Which answers the question.

[rogerclee]

Bidding 3C with this is not fine, 2H is superior in every way. It is lower, it is less risky that partner will go crazy over it (since he will have 5 hearts if he does), and you have more in hearts.

2♥ is fine too, although I wish I could find in a dictionary what "in every way" means to post here. 2♥ is a major and a higher ranking suit than the one where you probably want to play, so it's not-superior in at least two ways.

Why is bidding a major necessarily inferior? That is silly.

 

As far as hearts being above the suit I most likely want to play thus that being a problem, that is a mirage. I most likely want to play spades if partner raises hearts. If partner does not raise hearts there is no danger with hearts being a higher ranking suit than diamonds.

 

Josh, why are you pretending to be dense and not understand that bidding hearts is less dangerous than bidding clubs when you have 3 spades? You are usually the one making this point in these threads.

 

If your two "arguments" for bidding clubs rather than hearts are because hearts are a major and because bidding a major is worse than bidding a minor, those are really poor arguments. Do you have any at all? I really doubt it because there are none, which is why I said 2H is superior than 3C in every way.

 

In this case I would say "every way" is more descriptive (Qx instead of x), cheaper (allowing us more room to sort out where we want to play), and less dangerous (because if partner likes hearts we have a spade fit, but if partner likes clubs he may raise to 4 and we have to play 5D rather than a superior 3N, or a poor 6D when partner misevaluates his clubs).

[jdonn]

I'm not pretending, I really am dense. Ok you win, I forgot that no matter how few times rogerclee has seen a situation in his life relative to anyone else, anyone who believes an idea he hasn't considered before is possible is an EFFIN MORON!

 

As a parting thought, have you considered there is a very good chance you want to play in diamonds, especially at slam, even with a 5-3 spade fit? That is the response to most of your silly arguments.