Under Bidder Strikes Again

[han]

Bidding practice

 

xxx

KQxxx

AKQxx

-

 

1C - 1H

2C - 2D (art. GF)

3C - ??

[rogerclee]

I don't get it.. I would bid 3D. If 2D was GF 3C can contain a very good hand ie Ax xx Jxx AKQxxx.

[mike777]

3d even assuming pard can have much much less, much more often. :)

In fact I will assume pard cannot have this hand but has: :)

 

Kxx....xx....xx...AQJxxx

[Echognome]

I would have bid 3♦ over 2♣ showing a 5-5, but understand if you play that as a splinter.

 

In the latter case, I bid 3♦ for now. I'm still not sure what strain we want to play in.

[mike777]

I would have bid 3♦ over 2♣ showing a 5-5, but understand if you play that as a splinter.

 

I would play this as 4h and 6d and invite. :)

[Echognome]

I would have bid 3♦ over 2♣ showing a 5-5, but understand if you play that as a splinter.

 

I would play this as 4h and 6d and invite. :)

Well no claims that my treatment is standard. I also play that all invites bid 2♦, so 3♥, e.g. would be GF. Sorry if I made it seem that what I played was standard, because it's not.

 

For example, playing with Jason, I would have the same problem that Han did.

[655321]

Partner passed me in 3♣ one time, same auction (but we were not playing 2♦ artificial), and with a similar hand - club void, nothing in spades, 14 HCP in the red suits. 3♣ was the last making spot. I had something like KJ to 7 clubs and a ten count.

 

Not sure that I would be brave enough to Pass, but it could easily be right, and I suspect it is best. Probably I would bid a cowardly 3♦.

 

3d even assuming pard can have much much less, much more often. :)

In fact I will assume pard cannot have this hand but has:    :)

 

Kxx....xx....xx...AQJxxx

Why will you assume partner has that hand when you heard him bid 3♣ over 2♦?

[mike777]

"Why will you assume partner has that hand when you heard him bid 3♣ over 2♦?"

 

 

 

This would seem to be the typical hand my partner might have...ok maybe I am a bit pessimistic but really...not that much.

 

Also I thought I have seen Han post that he does not open sound.

 

In any case it seems 3d is our system bid.

[ArtK78]

It seems that 3♦ is your only bid.

 

You have 5-5. You bid hearts, you made an artificial game forcing 2♦ call, so now you show your second suit.

 

So far, no problem. The problem may come on the next call.

[TimG]

It seems that 3♦ is your only bid.

 

You have 5-5. You bid hearts, you made an artificial game forcing 2♦ call, so now you show your second suit.

Yeah, I can't see doing anything else.

[pclayton]

Given that we still may have game in three strains opposite

 

Kxx, Ax, xx, QJxxxx;

 

Ax Ax xxx Qxxxxx

 

xxx AJ Jx KQxxxx

 

and none of these are would I would call full openers, I can't see passing.

 

I also understand that hands like Kxx x xx AQJxxxx offer little chance for game, but it's a little pessimistic to play pard for specifically 3=7 in the blacks here.

[cherdano]

Given that we still may have game in three strains opposite

 

Kxx, Ax, xx, QJxxxx;

 

Ax Ax xxx Qxxxxx

 

xxx AJ Jx KQxxxx

What do you think 3♣ shows? Are you seriously rerebidding clubs with Qxxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♥ when you have ♥AJ and ♣KQxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♠ with ♠Kxx and ♣QJxxxx?

I mean, rebidding 2♣ with these hands is ugly, but you have to do it, but 3♣???

[Echognome]

I'm a bit confused by any discussion of passing. Han wrote that his methods were 2♦ is an artificial game force. Therefore, partner can have a very good hand and still bid 3♣ as he knows you won't pass it! I can understand a discussion of pass if 2♦ was a one-round force.

[cherdano]

I'm a bit confused by any discussion of passing. Han wrote that his methods were 2♦ is an artificial game force. Therefore, partner can have a very good hand and still bid 3♣ as he knows you won't pass it! I can understand a discussion of pass if 2♦ was a one-round force.

But 3♣ is also a descriptive bid.

If partner is of the school that would often raise 1♥ to 2♥ with 3 hearts, and usually give preference to 2♥ over 2♦ with Hx in hearts, then the chances of making game have decreased quite a lot. We will make game opposite maximums (see Roger's example), but probably go down opposite minimums. Since partner is more likely to hold a minimum than a maximum, there is certainly a good case for passing.

[Echognome]

I'm a bit confused by any discussion of passing.  Han wrote that his methods were 2♦ is an artificial game force.  Therefore, partner can have a very good hand and still bid 3♣ as he knows you won't pass it!  I can understand a discussion of pass if 2♦ was a one-round force.

But 3♣ is also a descriptive bid.

If partner is of the school that would often raise 1♥ to 2♥ with 3 hearts, and usually give preference to 2♥ over 2♦ with Hx in hearts, then the chances of making game have decreased quite a lot. We will make game opposite maximums (see Roger's example), but probably go down opposite minimums. Since partner is more likely to hold a minimum than a maximum, there is certainly a good case for passing.

I understand, but also think that if partner held something like:

 

x x JTxx AKQJxxx

 

They would be none too pleased to be playing in 3♣.

 

And let me put it yet another way. If we were going to pass 3♣, why did we choose to game force?

[mike777]

Partner may have opened 5c with gnome's example hand or 1nt with Roger's example. It is still possible partner has a good hand so 3d.

[keylime]

3♦ here. Allow pard to bid the NT, or maybe make a 3H rebid - I don't expect 3C to deny something like a x-3-x-6 hand.

[mike777]

I would expect 3c to deny 3h.

[pclayton]

What do you think 3♣ shows? Are you seriously rerebidding clubs with Qxxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♥ when you have ♥AJ and ♣KQxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♠ with ♠Kxx and ♣QJxxxx?

I mean, rebidding 2♣ with these hands is ugly, but you have to do it, but 3♣???

Arend, the point of these hands isn't to show what a 3♣ call is supposed to look like, it supposed to demonstrate that even opposite many sub-miumums that game is still something we want to bid.

[cherdano]

What do you think 3♣ shows? Are you seriously rerebidding clubs with Qxxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♥ when you have ♥AJ and ♣KQxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♠ with ♠Kxx and ♣QJxxxx?

I mean, rebidding 2♣ with these hands is ugly, but you have to do it, but 3♣???

Arend, the point of these hands isn't to show what a 3♣ call is supposed to look like, it supposed to demonstrate that even opposite many sub-miumums that game is still something we want to bid.

Phil, please re-read what you just wrote. Paraphrased, you just said "these examples were not meant to have anything to do with the auction, they were just meant to prove that I am right'.

[pclayton]

What do you think 3♣ shows? Are you seriously rerebidding clubs with Qxxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♥ when you have ♥AJ and ♣KQxxxx? Or 3♣ instead of 2♠ with ♠Kxx and ♣QJxxxx?

I mean, rebidding 2♣ with these hands is ugly, but you have to do it, but 3♣???

Arend, the point of these hands isn't to show what a 3♣ call is supposed to look like, it supposed to demonstrate that even opposite many sub-miumums that game is still something we want to bid.

Phil, please re-read what you just wrote. Paraphrased, you just said "these examples were not meant to have anything to do with the auction, they were just meant to prove that I am right'.

???You can 'paraphrase' this anyway you want Arend.

 

HTF do we know who's "right" here anyway LOL. We haven't even seen the other hand.

[TimG]

HTF do we know who's "right" here anyway LOL. We haven't even seen the other hand.

In my opinion, seeing the other hand will not prove anyone right; it is enough to know that we have established a forcing auction, so we cannot pass 3♣ whether or not it worked out on this particular hand.

[TimG]

What was the result here. I understand it was bidding practice, but I'm still curious about the "under bidding".

[rogerclee]

What was the result here.  I understand it was bidding practice, but I'm still curious about the "under bidding".

The result was that I made fun of Han, but stopping in 3♣ seems right on the actual set of hands. I forgot what I actually held, sorry, but I was 3-7 in the blacks.

[han]

If you want to hear the real story you can pm me. I don't want to embarrass clee in public.