Strain and Level Trouble

[MarkDean]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=saqt875hq6d2ct876]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Partner deals, opps silent:

1♦-1♠

2♣-?

[whereagles]

3♣. If pard can bid 3♠ on the way up, we'd have found a close 4♠.

[Hanoi5]

3♠, how on earth will partner know we have 6♠'s?

[Free]

3♣, lets see what partner has to say to that.

[rogerclee]

3♣, I suspect there are more hands now where we are making 5♣ than 4♠ (where we can't get to 4♠ after starting with 3♣).

[gnasher]

2♠. I usually play this as constructive to invitational, with 3♠ being forcing. Even playing 3♠ as invitational, it's an overbid with this hand.

 

With no high cards at all in the minors, 5♣ looks a long way off, so unless partner takes further action I'm happy to lose the club fit.

[andy_h]

2S too, whether this would be construed as constructive or not. Agree that 3S seems like an overbid if that is the invitational bid.

I just feel 2S is a much safer level and very likely to make if 3C is also making, but if partner has a weaker hand I would prefer to be in 2S (my good spade intermediates really help). If he still moves on after 2S, I can revert back to clubs if necessary.

[skjaeran]

2♠, constructive.

[OleBerg]

2♠ hoping it is constructive, but I bid it either way.

[jdonn]

2♠, surprised at the 3♣ bids.

[whereagles]

2♠, surprised at the 3♣ bids.

That's funny.. I was pretty sure you were going to bid 3♣ :)

[Phil]

2♠ and then clubs over a 2N rebid.

[jdonn]

2♠ and then clubs over a 2N rebid.

4♣ I would think.

[Phil]

2♠ and then clubs over a 2N rebid.

4♣ I would think.

Definitely, since our ♥Q isn't garbage with pard's 2N rebid.

 

(overused Gerber joke deleted).

[Apollo81]

I'll hog the hand and bid 2♠. Last time I checked they still paid more for the major suit contracts.

[keylime]

At MPs, 2♠. At IMPs tho, 3♣. If pard has extras I can offer choice of games at 4♠.

[mikeh]

Another example of how we get a change in consensus after a good player posts a detailed explanation of his bid (not that I am saying that everyone who voted for 2♠ wouldn't have done so before gnasher's post... after all, my immediate reaction was to bid 2♠ for reasons that are almost verbatim with his).

 

For those who think we can get back to spades after 3♣, why? When would partner think to bid 3♠ on say Jx Kx Axxxx AQxx? This is a hand that can and should raise a constructive 2♠ bid to 3♠. Yet opposite a potentially 4 card spade suit, and no heart card, how can this hand bid 3♠?

 

We need a LOT to make an 11 trick game in clubs, given the robustness of our club suit, our lack of a diamond filler, and our soft heart holding, and we will usually be able to reach clubs later when he can handle this dummy. However, I disagree with the notion of 4♣ over a 2N rebid.

 

I think it close between 3N, 3♣ and 4♣, but 9 tricks may be easier than 11, given that I would expect us to be on a 4-4 trump fit and my trump are poor.

 

white, I'd opt for the conservative, but still value showing 3♣... I'd expect partner to work out that I hold 6 decent spades and 4 poor clubs (what else could I have?) but the heart Q is too good a card for notrump to overlook it.

 

I'd opt for 3N, expecting it to be a slight favourite over 5♣.. which he might not bid anyway if I merely invite. BTW, this type of hand shows why double dummy analysis is likely to be misleading... my guess would be that a there will be many hands on which a diamond lead is best for the defence, yet would rarely be led.

[MarkDean]

So, a constructive 2♠ was not available, otherwise I would have gladly bid it. To me, some of the temptation of 3♣ is that I do want to take a stronger call then 2♠, but perhaps not as high/inviational as 3♠.

 

At the table, I bid 3♠, due to my pretty good intermediates and my increased hope for club help. Partner bid 4♠ with x Axx AKQxx Jxxx, which was not a good contract. My counterpart at the other table bid 3♣.

[hanp]

So, a constructive 2♠ was not available, otherwise I would have gladly bid it. To me, some of the temptation of 3♣ is that I do want to take a stronger call than 2♠, but perhaps not as high/inviational as 3♠. [typo corrected]

 

I don't have a constructive 2S call availble either. An invitational 1D - 2S would be an option (and a lot more attractive than 1S followed by 3S) but it is a stretch. I don't think that your reasoning for 3C is bad, I would never expect my partner to raise (the non-constructive) 1D - 1S - 2C - 2S with the Jx Kx AQxxx Axxx that mikeh gave. However, Mike is right that it very unlikely that you can get back to spades after 3C, unless parter has 3-card support, a weak doubleton in hearts or 3-card spade support (but in the latter case it doesn't matter what you do).

 

Convenient hand for playing a constructive 2S.

[Hanoi5]

Why didn't your partner bid 3NT?

 

I wonder if with such a lousy club suit a 1NT rebid might have been better.

 

I was the only one who bid 3♠ from here so we can play together and get to terrible contracts...

[mikeh]

So, a constructive 2♠ was not available, otherwise I would have gladly bid it.  To me, some of the temptation of 3♣ is that I do want to take a stronger call then 2♠, but perhaps not as high/inviational as 3♠. 

 

At the table, I bid 3♠, due to my pretty good intermediates and my increased hope for club help.  Partner bid 4♠ with x Axx AKQxx Jxxx, which was not a good contract.  My counterpart at the other table bid 3♣.

We presumably chose to accept the reality that the lack of a constructive 2♠ rebid would make this hand-type problematic.

 

But the lack of the tool does not, imo, justify overbidding a misfitting (in spades) 8 count with zero hcp in partner's suit and the real possibility of very short spades opposite.

 

If we don't like our methods, the appropriate action is to change methods, not to overbid in an effort to make good the deficit... else we risk getting to silly contracts as happened here... and on a not so remote day, the contract is doubled.

 

As it is, the fact that 2♠ is not defined as constructive does not reduce the maximum strength it shows (or not by much).. it operates to widen the range, not to lower the top of the range.

 

Partner knows that we may have this good a hand, and so while he will be a little more conservative than opposite a constructive rebid, he will, at this vulnerability and at imps, stretch if needed to invite once you announce the 6 card suit.

 

So while I agree that the lack of a constructive definition for 2♠ makes the bid less palatable, I really don't see any useful alternative. 3♣ 'worked' but that doesn't make it best... it worked by getting to a good partscore, but 2♠ would have done the same thing, and the exercise is to maximize game chances while preserving partscore safety. 3♣ offers a worse route to most good games than does 2♠, while 3♠ lacks safety and overstates values in any event, especially when partner will and should stretch to accept.

[whereagles]

Actually, why did pard raise your 3♠ with a singleton? His hand seems like a 3NT bid :)

[MarkDean]

I cannot answer for partner. Though it was online, perhaps he needed to be dummy to do something.

[mikeh]

As opener, with x Axx AKQxx Jxxx, if I were to bid game after an invitational 3♠, I would always bid 4♠.

 

To bid 3N here, with a short(ish) single stopper in the suit they are likely to lead, and an anti-positional one at that, is the type of error that many players make when deciding which game to bid after an auction such as 1♠  1N  3♠.

 

Good players will bid 3N on doubleton support far more often than they do on singleton support... with a singleton, the tendency is to raise the major, not to bid 3N. Lesser-skilled players tend to run to notrump with the stiff, and to raise with the doubleton. However, the doubleton usually increases the chances that the suit will develop for tricks quickly, and perhaps run immediately, making the 9 trick game attractive, while the stiff argues that partner will usually have to lose the lead in spades more than he would opposite a doubleton, making it far more probable that the opps can establish and then run their own suit in notrump.

 

I would bid game, and I think that decision is in itself far closer than the decision as to which game to bid... for me, the decision to bid spades is easy.

 

To test this, construct hands on which partner has about 9-10 hcp with a decent or better 6 card suit in spades. Sure, on some of them, 3N will work, but I think that you will find that 4♠ is usually a better spot, which is not at all surprising given the quick trick nature of your hand.

[whereagles]

Which game to choose with a singleton depends on how solid a suit the invitational 3♠ requires. If the suit can be half-broken (as it can around here), you probably don't wanna be in 4♠ with 6 opposite a stiff.