Where did this one go wrong?

[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

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

 

Down 1, while 6♠ is easy.

No I didn't. Boo!

[kenrexford]

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♣) ?

Think through the possible actual continuations.

 

If I bid 3♣, partner knows that I either have clubs and diamonds OR just clubs. He will usually bid 3♦ to find out, although a 3♥ or 3♠ call works, as this solves MY personal problem (I can agree spades either by bidding 3♠ over 3♥ or 4♥ over 3♠). If he bids 3♦, I can bid 3♠, which should clarify matters properly. If he bids 4♣, then I can rule out spades.

 

If I bid 2♥, partner might be able to bid 2♠, which helps me but to no real gain over the alternative auction. If he bids 2NT, I am well placed to focus diamonds. If he bids 3♣, GF, I am OK. If he bids 3♦, also GF, I am in better shape than after 3♣-3♦, because diamonds are clearly focused. However, I expect that this action is highly improbable. If he bids 3♥, I have the problem.

 

When he does bid 3♥, on this hand I want to bid 3♠ as a natural call, agreeing spades. If it means that, then we are well-placed for spade sequences. However, we would be equally well-placed in that event, because partner, over 3♣, could bid 3♦ or 3♥, allowing me to bid 3♠, placing us in the same situation.

 

However, what if I do have hearts? Now, because of this maneuver, I cannot cue a spade card at all. In fact, I think 4♦ would logically not be a cue either, as that would be my call with this hand. So, my only option is a general, meaningless 4♣ "cue," whatever that means. If my heart suit is assured, I have 3♠, 3NT, 4♣, and 4♦ available.

 

So, I am better in heart-based sequences if 2♥ is always real.

 

What about the club suit, then? Why not simply make 3♣ always real, which helps in club-based sequences?

 

The problem with that is frequency. For partner to be interested in exploring a club game, he would need to bypass 3NT. If you play that 3♣ is "semi-natural," meaning a three-bagger is possible, then he needs five clubs for this, maybe. But, even if he can raise clubs, his call of 4♣ does not really gain us anything. He could bid 4♣ after an artificial 3♣ anyway. Where it gains is in that slim area where a raise to 4♣ only makes sense if my clubs are real. That small situation seems to be of less frequency than the simple 4-4 heart fit.

 

I may be wrong, but it seems logical to me.

[oldman5757]

I will leave it to the theorists to slug it out. Out in the world I'd bid 4♦ and owe P a trump. It wouldn't occur to me to bid 3♣ as I play that it's a (more or less) real suit. To bid 2♥ would occur to me, but I see no reason to bid it when I can define my hand within a very narrow range with 4♦. P should have no difficulty in knowing how to proceed. Even if we end up in 4-3 ♠ fit, worse things have happened. As others have noted, showing strong 3-card support is always tricky. :D

[han]

A trump short is not a narrow range.

[mike777]

[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.

Here is one email response. Much of this may have been said in other posts in this thread but I thought it was a nice summary.

 

"There is of course a simple solution to these hand types, and almost every regular partnership in the world has added such a solution to their methods. Have a way to show a strong undefined hand!

 

Method 1: Play a strong club. Now we just open 1C and let the fun start.

 

Method 2: Play Gazili, as many of the Italian pairs do. A 2C rebid is forcing for one round, either showing a strong hand (strong club up to a 2C opener) or minimum with clubs and the suit opened. By the way, a similar treatment was part of K-S.

 

Method 3: Play an artificial jump shift, as many top American pairs do. After 1D-1H, 2S is an artyificial jump shift, showing a variety of different game forcing hands. Responder relays on most hands to find out what opener is doing. After 1D-1S, 3C is the artificial game force.

Summary: Cheapest jump shift is an artificial game force (could be natural of course). Notice that this frees up the other jump shifts to show natural good hands (5-5) or better, that are less than a game force. Example: You hold x, AKJTx, AKxxx, xx. You open 1H and partner bids 1S. You can now bid 3D, getting the hand described perfectly. Notice that if you had the same shape and a game force, you will bid an artificial 3C, and partner would bid 3D to find out what you have (strong 1-suiter, strong 2-suiter with either clubs or diamonds, or strong with 3 card spade fit). "

[kenrexford]

Cheapest J.S. = 3♣

[CSGibson]

[hv=s=sa9xhakxdakqj9xcx]133|100|1♦-1♥,

3♣-5♣,

5♦-6♣,

6N - swish[/hv]

 

This hand came up in the life master pairs, and my partner and I also invented a 3 club response on a similar hand type (we don't play Gazzili or an artificial 2N, and the last time I faked a reverse on a 3 card spade suit, I wound up playing a 3-3 fit at the 5 level. Both partners decided to play their 4-3 fit after careful exploration). Anyway, the nightmare auction came up where responder had a weak hand with 5 clubs, but the defenders led a spade, and 12 tricks wrapped up on a pseudo-squeeze when both defenders kept too many clubs.

 

Partner had:

[hv=s=sa9xhakxdakqj9xcx]133|100|1♦-1♥,

3♣-5♣,

5♦-6♣,

6N - swish[/hv]

 

Just thought it was an eerily similar problem (not the same, obviously, since P responded hearts instead of spades)

[benlessard]

If I bid 2♥, partner might be able to bid 2♠, which helps me but to no real gain over the alternative auction. If he bids 2NT, I am well placed to focus diamonds. If he bids 3♣, GF, I am OK. If he bids 3♦, also GF, I am in better shape than after 3♣-3♦, because diamonds are clearly focused. However, I expect that this action is highly improbable. If he bids 3♥, I have the problem.

If the bidding goes

 

1D-------1S

2H-------3H

3S-------???

 

opener hand is

 

3451

3361

3271

 

Looks like you are very well placed here.

[kenrexford]

[hv=s=sa9xhakxdakqj9xcx]133|100|1♦-1♥,

3♣-5♣,

5♦-6♣,

6N - swish[/hv]

 

This hand came up in the life master pairs, and my partner and I also invented a 3 club response on a similar hand type (we don't play Gazzili or an artificial 2N, and the last time I faked a reverse on a 3 card spade suit, I wound up playing a 3-3 fit at the 5 level. Both partners decided to play their 4-3 fit after careful exploration). Anyway, the nightmare auction came up where responder had a weak hand with 5 clubs, but the defenders led a spade, and 12 tricks wrapped up on a pseudo-squeeze when both defenders kept too many clubs.

 

Partner had:

[hv=s=sa9xhakxdakqj9xcx]133|100|1♦-1♥,

3♣-5♣,

5♦-6♣,

6N - swish[/hv]

 

Just thought it was an eerily similar problem (not the same, obviously, since P responded hearts instead of spades)

That is a 2♣ opener, IMO.

[RichMor]

<snipping out me quoting you qouting me>

Think through the possible actual continuations.

 

If I bid 3♣, partner knows that I either have clubs and diamonds OR just clubs.  He will usually bid 3♦ to find out, although a 3♥ or 3♠ call works, as this solves MY personal problem (I can agree spades either by bidding 3♠ over 3♥ or 4♥ over 3♠).  If he bids 3♦, I can bid 3♠, which should clarify matters properly.  If he bids 4♣, then I can rule out spades.

 

If I bid 2♥, partner might be able to bid 2♠, which helps me but to no real gain over the alternative auction.  If he bids 2NT, I am well placed to focus diamonds.  If he bids 3♣, GF, I am OK.  If he bids 3♦, also GF, I am in better shape than after 3♣-3♦, because diamonds are clearly focused.  However, I expect that this action is highly improbable.  If he bids 3♥, I have the problem.

 

When he does bid 3♥, on this hand I want to bid 3♠ as a natural call, agreeing spades.  If it means that, then we are well-placed for spade sequences.  However, we would be equally well-placed in that event, because partner, over 3♣, could bid 3♦ or 3♥, allowing me to bid 3♠, placing us in the same situation.

 

However, what if I do have hearts?  Now, because of this maneuver, I cannot cue a spade card at all.  In fact, I think 4♦ would logically not be a cue either, as that would be my call with this hand.  So, my only option is a general, meaningless 4♣ "cue," whatever that means.  If my heart suit is assured, I have 3♠, 3NT, 4♣, and 4♦ available.

 

So, I am better in heart-based sequences if 2♥ is always real.

 

What about the club suit, then?  Why not simply make 3♣ always real, which helps in club-based sequences?

 

The problem with that is frequency.  For partner to be interested in exploring a club game, he would need to bypass 3NT.  If you play that 3♣ is "semi-natural," meaning a three-bagger is possible, then he needs five clubs for this, maybe.  But, even if he can raise clubs, his call of 4♣ does not really gain us anything. He could bid 4♣ after an artificial 3♣ anyway.  Where it gains is in that slim area where a raise to 4♣ only makes sense if my clubs are real.  That small situation seems to be of less frequency than the simple 4-4 heart fit.

 

I may be wrong, but it seems logical to me.

Ken,

 

Continuing to consider continuations:

 

1) I think you meant 'I either have clubs and diamonds or just diamonds'

Right ?

 

 

2) Agree that the sequence

1♦ - 1♠

2♥ - 3♥

3♠

is ambiguous when one is playing a could-be-false reverse. Is opener patterning out with 3-4-5-1 or control bidding for Hearts or cancelling the original message and showing 3-card Spade support and denying Hearts ?

 

But a similar ambiguity exists in the sequence

1♦ - 1♠

3♣ - 3♦

3♠

when one is playing could-be-false jump shift. Is opener showing Spade support or control bidding for Diamonds(or Clubs and Diamonds ?)

 

A partnership needs to resolve these questions based on explicit agreement or general principles('if it can be natural then it is natural') or their personal version of bridge logic.

 

I suggest that after

1♦ - 1♠

2♥ - 3♥

opener rebids 3♠ to cancel Hearts and show 3-card Spade support. If opener has Hearts then 3NT = ♠ control surrogate and 4 of a minor is a natural control bid for Hearts.

 

Over to you.

[han]

I agree with Ken that this is a 2C opening but having opened 1D, how can you not rebid 2H on that hand (A9x AKx AKQJ9x x) and how could you fear getting to play in hearts???

[kenrexford]

Ken,

 

Continuing to consider continuations:

 

1) I think you meant 'I either have clubs and diamonds or just diamonds'

Right ? [yes]

 

 

2) Agree that the sequence

1♦ - 1♠

2♥ - 3♥

3♠

is ambiguous when one is playing a could-be-false reverse. Is opener patterning out with 3-4-5-1 or control bidding for Hearts or cancelling the original message and showing 3-card Spade support and denying Hearts ?

 

But a similar ambiguity exists in the sequence

1♦ - 1♠

3♣ - 3♦

3♠

when one is playing could-be-false jump shift. Is opener showing Spade support or control bidding for Diamonds(or Clubs and Diamonds ?)

 

A partnership needs to resolve these questions based on explicit agreement or general principles('if it can be natural then it is natural') or their personal version of bridge logic.

 

I suggest that after

1♦ - 1♠

2♥ - 3♥

opener rebids 3♠ to cancel Hearts and show 3-card Spade support. If opener has Hearts then 3NT = ♠ control surrogate and 4 of a minor is a natural control bid for Hearts.

 

Over to you.

If the auction is 1♦-1♠-3♣(?)-3♦, then 3♠ is natural. Minors are the b!tc#es of the bridge world. If Opener wants to pursue a diamond slam, he can bid 3♠ naturally, as a pattern bid, of course.

 

As to the solution of the 3NT surrogate...

 

This is a reasonable idea.

[CSGibson]

I agree with Ken that this is a 2C opening but having opened 1D, how can you not rebid 2H on that hand (A9x AKx AKQJ9x x) and how could you fear getting to play in hearts???

 

Because in my auction, partner responded 1 heart, so 2 hearts is non-forcing.

 

As to the other: you're probably right about making it a 2 club opening, but our agreements for opening 2 clubs and then rebidding a minor suit are that it is a 3 loser hand using losing trick count. It might be right to upgrade anyway, but opening 1 diamond is acting within partnership agreements.

 

The point wasn't a hey-look at this great auction, but that these fake jump-shifts can really back fire if you and partner aren't on the same page (even though it worked out for us in this event, I'm sure it wouldn't have if we were playing in a different bracket).

 

Sorry, didn't mean to thread-jack, just meant to add another example of a similar decision as this poster was faced with.