Where did this one go wrong?

[rogerclee]

Josh, I don't understand why you cannot have a bridge discussion without the use of sarcastic comments and insults. Is it because you cannot form logical cohesive arguments, or rebuttals to others arguments? Your posts really follow this pathetic pattern of trying to bully people into not arguing with you by simply being mean rather than trying to argue logically.

 

So far in this thread your arguments for bidding 3C rather than 2H have been:

 

1) It is better to bid a major than a minor

2) Hearts is higher than diamonds

 

Now you are adding in that you might want to play diamonds rather than spades even with a 5-3 fit.

 

The first 2 are pretty ridiculous, your new argument seems to imply that bidding 3C makes you more likely to find diamonds on that small subset of hands than 2H would. There is no evidence that this is the case, and I would disagree with that.

 

Your arguments for why 3C are better than 2H other than "you are rogerclee and i am jdonn RAWRRRRrrrrrrrr" seem to be very weak. I think my arguments for why 2H is a better bid than 3C are very strong.

[jdonn]

Again my fault, I thought you were the one who called me dense! Ok I love you.

 

If you look at my first reply to you, I thought I was trying to garner some of your bridge insights, but then you only quoted the portion where you thought you could shoot me down. Oh wellll. What would you rebid with Axx x AKQxxxxx x? If you don't like that example, I'm trying to find one you wouldn't open 2♣, but want to force to game with after the response, and have a stiff club and stiff heart. Does such a hand exist for you?

[rogerclee]

Again my fault, I thought you were the one who called me dense! Ok I love you.

 

If you look at my first reply to you, I thought I was trying to garner some of your bridge insights, but then you only quoted the portion where you thought you could shoot me down. Oh wellll. What would you rebid with Axx x AKQxxxxx x? If you don't like that example, I'm trying to find one you wouldn't open 2♣, but want to force to game with after the response, and have a stiff club and stiff heart. Does such a hand exist for you?

I didn't mean to imply or say there is no hand where I would jumpshift with short clubs, but I just think that on this hand 2H stood out. Though probably there is no hand I would jump shift into a singleton club, I just find it toooo much of a distortion and puts too much pressure on partner but I would and have jumpshifted into a doubleton before. I do think there is a big difference between even xx and x because if partner likes his K or KQ or dislikes his lack of values in the suit that at least is correct with xx but not with x. Love you too !H

[the hog]

I think 3C is one of the worst bids I have ever seen. What a total misdescription. 2H is a little better, but not much. Why not play an artificial 2NT rebid?

[mike777]

I know some people who play 2nt jump rebid to show this type of long strong minor suit hand. But they also open balanced 17-19 with another bid which then affects other bids..... so it becomes a matter of system not judgement.

 

What I find more interesting is the discussion that some find reversing into a 2 card major or jump shifting into a stiff club winning bridge, at the table, in top flight bridge.

[cherdano]

Again my fault, I thought you were the one who called me dense! Ok I love you.

 

If you look at my first reply to you, I thought I was trying to garner some of your bridge insights, but then you only quoted the portion where you thought you could shoot me down. Oh wellll. What would you rebid with Axx x AKQxxxxx x? If you don't like that example, I'm trying to find one you wouldn't open 2♣, but want to force to game with after the response, and have a stiff club and stiff heart. Does such a hand exist for you?

I haven't had one yet. Once I have been dealt a 3181 hand worth a GF after a 1S response I will think about it.

They must have a strange dealer at these best hand tournaments.

[kenrexford]

I think 3C is one of the worst bids I have ever seen. What a total misdescription. 2H is a little better, but not much. Why not play an artificial 2NT rebid?

The response to this is simple. There are two things that you cannot do in bridge. First, you cannot stop mid auction and ask partner if he thinks that such-and0such convention would be a good idea to handle such-and-such problem, and then agree to that, and then use that convention to resume the sequence. Second, you cannot stop mid-auction to announce that you have no bid for the hand you were dealt, in the given auction, and then simply move on to the next board.

 

What I find more interesting is the discussion that some find reversing into a 2 card major or jump shifting into a stiff club winning bridge, at the table, in top flight bridge.

 

The problem that you (Mike) may have with a jump shift to 3♣ is that it sounds like a mis-description of your hand. That was, at least, what Hog felt. However, 3♣ does not show clubs. It is not a "misdescription" for a call to not show that which it does not promise. A Stayman 2♣ bid does not show clubs, even though it might be bid with clubs actually in one's hand. 3♣, instead, shows game-forcing values and is often bid with clubs. However, it is not always bid with clubs, as this hand illustrates.

 

It is really silly for Hog to suggest that 3♣ is a mis-description while advocating an artificial 2NT call. How about this -- 3♣ is, in fact, an artificial call. Tada! Problem solved. 3♣ shows a GF hand with either diamonds and clubs or just long diamonds and too strong to bid a NF 3♦; in either the former or the latter event, Opener might also have a spade fragment, or a heart fragment, or a club fragment.

 

This is, of course, also relevant to the Josh-Roger debate. If 3♣ is an artificial call, and if 2♥ is not (but Opener might lie), then 3♣ is superior to 2♥, in that making a lie with Qx rather than a 4-card suit has costs, whereas bidding 3♣, an artificial bid, never has the "you lied" problem.

 

And, don't anyone claim that 3♣ is not really and artificial bid. If a bid is routinely made despite not having any real suit, because the primary message dominates (the primary message being "= GF"), then the bid is artificial. A lack of appreciation of that fact does not make the call a natural call. Actually, I would suggest that people who really expect 3♣ to be natural should alert the call as an unusual agreement, almost "brown sticker." ;)

[rogerclee]

Ken, if you want to make one of them artificial why not 2H? It makes sense (to me) to make the cheaper one artificial since there is more room to sort everything out. It seems arbitrary to say 3C is artifcial, but 2H is not, and also theoretically incorrect.

[kenrexford]

Ken, if you want to make one of them artificial why not 2H? It makes sense (to me) to make the cheaper one artificial since there is more room to sort everything out. It seems arbitrary to say 3C is artifcial, but 2H is not, and also theoretically incorrect.

Because, for better or worse, majors rule.

 

Also, I'm not so sure that clubs-as-artificial is so "theorectically incorrect." If I was able to pick a suit to treat as assuredly natural, it would be hearts, because a heart fit is most likely to be the fit where we can agree trumps at a low enough level (3♥) to effectively cuebid, and because it is wildly more likely that partner will actually raise the suit that he can raise below 3NT rather than the suit where he must bypass 3NT.

 

Also, keep in mind that a Jump Shift sets a GF, which per force establishes room to "work things out." In contrast, a reverse does not establish a GF, requiring that the partnership work out not just strain but also level, which takes more room.

 

Finally, space savings is only an asset if the space saved is useful. Sometimes it makes sense to dump all of the available space into one sequence line of two rather than to split the space evenly between the two lines if the split of space yields two "C" auctions but the concentration of space yields a "D" and an "A" auction. A 2.0 average loses in the end to a 2.5 average.

[cherdano]

3♣ is not really an artificial bid.

[han]

If I would want to make an artificial bid it would be 2C or 2H.

[kenrexford]

3♣ is not really an artificial bid.

That sounds like saying that the lady is somewhat pregnant. A bid if artificial if it does not promise the suit named. A 3♣ call does not promise the suit named. Hence, it is artificial.

 

Or, it is like the explanation that a bid is "semi-forcing." A call is either forcing or it is not. Er, wait -- the ACBL has defined bids as "semi-forcing." Never mind that... :blink:

[han]

Do you alert all your jumpshifts to the 3-level even if you don't have a special agreement about it? If not, why not if you think that they are artificial bids? If so, you are crazy.

[kenrexford]

Do you alert all your jumpshifts to the 3-level even if you don't have a special agreement about it? If not, why not if you think that they are artificial bids? If so, you are crazy.

I do not alert them because it is standard.

 

What, are you denying that Opener can and occasionally does bid 3♣ (for example) with fewer than three clubs?

[mike777]

ok I try 3d here..as I said.

 

reversing into 2 card suit or jumpshift into one card suit I will leave for others.

 

If we agree we do not bid fake suits then...partner will know 3d is really a wide ranging but ...ok wide bid.......

 

 

1) unbalanced shortness somewhere..

2) I guess denies 4h or 4s or 4c....(reverse)

3) so far so good

4) range sucks.....not so good.

5) agree this bid not that great..random....

6) If I can just get past this round. :blink:

[cherdano]

Do you alert all your jumpshifts to the 3-level even if you don't have a special agreement about it? If not, why not if you think that they are artificial bids? If so, you are crazy.

I do not alert them because it is standard.

 

What, are you denying that Opener can and occasionally does bid 3♣ (for example) with fewer than three clubs?

Not sure what you mean by "occasionally", but I don't think I have done it so far, ever.

[pclayton]

Majors feh.

 

I will avoid a jump shift into a major, but I've never had a problem reversing into 2♥ like this hand and having a problem. It is a big space saver.

 

As far as Josh's fictional 3=1=8=1 hands and the like; I might jump shift into 3♣, but if i did I would sure as heck rebid my diamonds the next round. Why would I withhold an 8 bagger?

[Cascade]

Do you alert all your jumpshifts to the 3-level even if you don't have a special agreement about it? If not, why not if you think that they are artificial bids? If so, you are crazy.

I do not alert them because it is standard.

 

What, are you denying that Opener can and occasionally does bid 3♣ (for example) with fewer than three clubs?

The ACBL alert chart says for conventional/artificial "All other conventional and/or artificial bids" under the heading "Alert".

 

If your 3♣ jump shift does not show anything particular in clubs then it is definitely conventional or artificial.

 

There is nothing in the alert regulations to say that because someone considers a conventional/artificial bid is "standard" that it does not need an alert.

 

Not alerting if you have an understanding to bid this way is simply hiding your understandings from the opponents.

[Codo]

Is there anybody out there who makes a bidding plan before he opens the north hand 1 Diamond?

Because if you do, you will know that you will have no rebid after your partners response.

 

Maybe you have an agreement that 2 NT or 3 ♦ is forcing. But if you don't have this tool avaiable, you know that the bidding will be a mess within 5 seconds.

 

I think you should open this hand 2 ♣ and take it from there. Not because it is the clearest GF ever, but because you will avoid more problems then you create.

[the hog]

I think 3C is one of the worst bids I have ever seen. What a total misdescription. 2H is a little better, but not much. Why not play an artificial 2NT rebid?

The response to this is simple. There are two things that you cannot do in bridge. First, you cannot stop mid auction and ask partner if he thinks that such-and0such convention would be a good idea to handle such-and-such problem, and then agree to that, and then use that convention to resume the sequence. Second, you cannot stop mid-auction to announce that you have no bid for the hand you were dealt, in the given auction, and then simply move on to the next board.

 

What I find more interesting is the discussion that some find reversing into a 2 card major or jump shifting into a stiff club winning bridge, at the table, in top flight bridge.

 

The problem that you (Mike) may have with a jump shift to 3♣ is that it sounds like a mis-description of your hand. That was, at least, what Hog felt. However, 3♣ does not show clubs. It is not a "misdescription" for a call to not show that which it does not promise. A Stayman 2♣ bid does not show clubs, even though it might be bid with clubs actually in one's hand. 3♣, instead, shows game-forcing values and is often bid with clubs. However, it is not always bid with clubs, as this hand illustrates.

 

It is really silly for Hog to suggest that 3♣ is a mis-description while advocating an artificial 2NT call. How about this -- 3♣ is, in fact, an artificial call. Tada! Problem solved. 3♣ shows a GF hand with either diamonds and clubs or just long diamonds and too strong to bid a NF 3♦; in either the former or the latter event, Opener might also have a spade fragment, or a heart fragment, or a club fragment.

 

This is, of course, also relevant to the Josh-Roger debate. If 3♣ is an artificial call, and if 2♥ is not (but Opener might lie), then 3♣ is superior to 2♥, in that making a lie with Qx rather than a 4-card suit has costs, whereas bidding 3♣, an artificial bid, never has the "you lied" problem.

 

And, don't anyone claim that 3♣ is not really and artificial bid. If a bid is routinely made despite not having any real suit, because the primary message dominates (the primary message being "= GF"), then the bid is artificial. A lack of appreciation of that fact does not make the call a natural call. Actually, I would suggest that people who really expect 3♣ to be natural should alert the call as an unusual agreement, almost "brown sticker." :P

That is a typical lawyer's comment. You criticise my artificial 2NT because I can't stop midway and ask partner, and then propose an artificial 3C. look, I don't mind 3c as some sort of artificial bid if thats what you want to play. I bet that is not what the op meant it to be.

[Finch]

Do you alert all your jumpshifts to the 3-level even if you don't have a special agreement about it? If not, why not if you think that they are artificial bids? If so, you are crazy.

I do not alert them because it is standard.

 

What, are you denying that Opener can and occasionally does bid 3♣ (for example) with fewer than three clubs?

I don't think I've ever bid 3C on this auction with fewer than three clubs, and only very rarely with 3. As far as I'm concerned, 3C is natural, and partner is entitled to raise clubs. With 5-card support and a weak hand, partner is entitled to raise clubs to the 5-level.

 

I admit that I have discussed with partners some specific sequences where an ostensibly natural call might be made on a 3-card suit.

 

We alert 1D - 1S - 2D - 2H; we specifically play that 1D - 1S - 2D - 2H - 3H is forcing; we have agreed that 1D - 1S - 2D - 2H - 3H - 3NT shows not 4 hearts and doubt about the club stop, but all other continuations promise hearts.

 

Similarly we have agreed that 1D - 1M - 3C - 4/5C - 4/5D includes the possibility of a 3-card club suit, but nothing shorter.

 

I've never done a 2-card reverse either (although I admit I would do it on this hand, I've just never been dealt this hand).

 

While we're in the 'what would be bid if we were playing different methods' mindset, if I were playing them I would of course open an Acol 2 in diamonds.

[ArtK78]

Wow.

 

I didn't realize when I posted this problem that I would start such a vitriolic discussion.

 

Just thought I would add a little more information about what happened at the table.

 

After the auction was over and a diamond was led, my hand hit the table. Immediately, one of the opponents called for the TD (this was an ACBL matchpoint pairs game on BBO). After a short pause, the TD asked me if my 3♣ bid was natural. I told him that yes, ostensibly it was a natural call, and I did not alert it. I then added that my partner obviously thought it was natural, or else he would not have bid 6NT holding Qxx of clubs. The TD replied "Good point!"

[jdonn]

After the auction was over and a diamond was led, my hand hit the table.

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

hehehe

[ArtK78]

After the auction was over and a diamond was led, my hand hit the table.

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

hehehe

Did you note my earlier post, where I noted that diamonds were 4-1 and no squeeze developed?

 

Down 1, while 6♠ is easy.

[RichMor]

Because, for better or worse, majors rule.

 

Also, I'm not so sure that clubs-as-artificial is so "theorectically incorrect."  If I was able to pick a suit to treat as assuredly natural, it would be hearts, because a heart fit is most likely to be the fit where we can agree trumps at a low enough level (3♥) to effectively cuebid, and because it is wildly more likely that partner will actually raise the suit that he can raise below 3NT rather than the suit where he must bypass 3NT.

 

Also, keep in mind that a Jump Shift sets a GF, which per force establishes room to "work things out."  In contrast, a reverse does not establish a GF, requiring that the partnership work out not just strain but also level, which takes more room.

 

Finally, space savings is only an asset if the space saved is useful.  Sometimes it makes sense to dump all of the available space into one sequence line of two rather than to split the space evenly between the two lines if the split of space yields two "C" auctions but the concentration of space yields a "D" and an "A" auction.  A 2.0 average loses in the end to a 2.5 average.

Sorry I don't have any clever insults to add to the discussion. Guess I will just have to talk about bridge.

 

Ken,

 

OK 'majors rule'. But I don't see any evidence that 'a Heart fit is most likely to be the the fit where we can agree trumps............'.

 

The direct evidence from the auction is that responder has some cards in Spades and has more Spades than Hearts. The indirect evidence is that opener does not have a lot of cards in Hearts because of the choice to open 1♦.

 

So if we are going to use the rest of the bids to investigate degree of major suit fit, then we should focus on Spades.

 

I think it is better to lie with 2♥ than to lie with 3♣ becasue the lower bid makes it cheaper for responder to show extra Spade length and easier for opener to show Spade support.

 

As to 'a reverse does not establish a GF' and 'the partnership (must) work out not just strain but also level'; that's true. But the reverse gives the partnership much more room. So I don't see any upside for 3♣ just because it is a GF.

 

Lastly, when we dump or split available bidding space, doesn't it make most sense to assign more hand types to the lower bid (2♥) than to the higher(3♣) ?