Judgement Call

[kfay]

Void

A9

A9854

AQ9643

 

You open 1♣, partner responds 1♠.

 

At this point you can either make a reverse into diamonds or bid 3♦ showing a hand with 5=6 in the minors but insufficient strength to reverse.

[kenrexford]

The 3♦ bid is one with which I'm not familiar. However, here's a suggestion. Hands that have 6-5 pattern have offensive power even with 0 HCP. Add some points in, and you get a LOT of offensive power. This actual hand, for example, is a 4-loser LTC hand, albeit fit-dependent. The lack of body hurts the real trick-taking power. But, a 4-loser hand, even fit-dependent and weak in body, is "strong enough" for a reverse.

 

I'd suspect that most 6-5 minors hands you will actually see (with no competition from the opponents) will be similarly strong in some way.

 

So, you might want a better defintion developed for the strength of the 3♦ call, other than "not strong enough for a reverse."

[whereagles]

Glad to have that 3♦ gadget available. I could hardly wish for a better hand to use it :lol:

[jdonn]

Considering the hand would be opened with the ace of hearts less, and that I hate the gadget anyway because it uses up absurd amounts of space, I will reverse.

[kenrexford]

Considering the hand would be opened with the ace of hearts less, and that I hate the gadget anyway because it uses up absurd amounts of space, I will reverse.

But, wouldn't you tolerate it if space was unnecessary because the bid was extremely well defined? I mean, I'd rather play a huge number of other things instead, and I agree with you, but the "eating up space" problem at least could be mitigated if the bid had a much better definition.

[bill1157]

Void

A9

A9854

AQ9643

 

You open 1♣, partner responds 1♠.

 

At this point you can either make a reverse into diamonds or bid 3♦ showing a hand with 5=6 in the minors but insufficient strength to reverse.

why not make 1♣-1♠-2♦ show the weaker hand?

 

Bill

[jdonn]

Considering the hand would be opened with the ace of hearts less, and that I hate the gadget anyway because it uses up absurd amounts of space, I will reverse.

But, wouldn't you tolerate it if space was unnecessary because the bid was extremely well defined? I mean, I'd rather play a huge number of other things instead, and I agree with you, but the "eating up space" problem at least could be mitigated if the bid had a much better definition.

No, because the problem is not only that you don't have room to have a good auction, it's that you are just getting really high. What if all poor partner wants to do is go back to your first suit?

[skjaeran]

2♦ reverse.

 

I'd never play the 3♦ gadget since it's definitely unsound and 3♦ as a minisplinter is much more useful.

[Free]

Void

A9

A9854

AQ9643

 

You open 1♣, partner responds 1♠.

 

At this point you can either make a reverse into diamonds or bid 3♦ showing a hand with 5=6 in the minors but insufficient strength to reverse.

why not make 1♣-1♠-2♦ show the weaker hand?

 

Bill

Because showing a 6-5 is more precise than showing a reverse. After a reverse you can still have all sorts of hands, so you want the extra space available to explore.

 

I'd be happy with both reverse and 3♦, but I think the hand is worth a reverse.

[mikeh]

The 3♦ gadget is awful.. one of the worst pet treatments I have seen recently.

 

If you can't see this... if you think I am being overly dogmatic and conservative, try getting a good hand simulator and generate hands consistent with the auction. If you are honest with yourself, I bet you find that the extra level of bidding you have destroyed would have been very useful... of course, if you pretend that responder should know you hold these cards, then I am sure your gadget will often work well :P

 

If I had agreed to play it I would use it expecting to be able to later say; I told you it was bad :(

 

otherwise, playing good bridge, I would reverse... yes, it is light, but it is pure in the sense that I have good controls.

 

When I rebid 3♦, partner will know that I reversed primarily on shape, not power. Now I am at the same point as if I had jumped to 3♦, but partner has had a chance to tell me something about his hand (and I might be in 3♣ over an ingberman or lebensohl sign-off).

 

For example, if, as seems plausible from the opps' silence, he makes a strength showing preference to 3♣, I am far, far better off than if he had made an ambiguous preference to 4♣ over 3♦... I mean... is that even forcing? or constructive? Or weak? Or all of the above?

[hanp]

Definitely reverse. I think mikeh is being overly dogmatic.

[gnasher]

If I were playing this method, I'd expect 3D to promise sufficient playing strength for a reverse but with limited high card strength, and I'd be delighted to be able to bid 3D. The risk of getting too high is compensated for by the chance to describe the hand without overstating the high-card strength.

 

I wouldn't worry about the loss of space for constructive purposes - 1C-1S;2D-2H or 1C-1S;2D-2S doesn't help me to decide what contract we belong in. With a 6-5, it's probably better to show my hand and let partner decide where to play.

[kenrexford]

I preface this by saying that I HATE the idea.

 

But, if 3♦ makes any sense as 6-5, I think you would be able to handle the auction possibilities better if a few additional rules were in place, like:

 

1. 0-1 of Responder major. Thus, if Responder bid 1♠, you would want to have 0265 or 1165, not 2065.

 

2. Great body. Hence, A65432 A5432 is completely not allowed, but KQJ1098 KQJ109 is perfect. How much body? Not sure. But, a lot.

 

3. Poor quick count. Not A-A-A-void, for sure. But, maybe not Aceless with two stiffs either. Not sure where the cutoff is.

 

4. Expectation of a four-loser hand.

 

Of course, making the bid not cramp the bidding in any way that hurts makes it never occur, but that's OK, because a lot of us hate the bid anyway. LOL

[kfay]

For the record this wasn't a thread asking about whether or not you like the treatment. I am aware of the merits of splinters here and in fact made that call the other day with a different partner since I only play this method with one person.

 

The question was only if you had the method available to you what call would you make? If you could only bid 2♦ are you totally disconcerned or a little concerned? Surprised at the backlash really.

[ArtK78]

I have no problem with a 2♦ rebid on opener's hand.

 

Using 3♦ to show this hand has some merit, but it is not something that I use. I have a specific agreement as to the meaning of a double reverse - it shows an invitational to game splinter bid in support of responder's suit OR a hand too good for a game forcing splinter bid (the game forcing splinter bid would be a triple reverse - in this case, 4♦). I understand that others differentiate between a singelton diamond and a void in diamonds with their 3♦ and 4♦ calls, but I prefer to differentiate by strength.

 

In my opinion, using the double reverse for a splinter of some type is more useful than reserving it for a 5-6 minor suited hand, especially since the opponents are likely to be in the auction if you hold a 5-6 minor suited hand without great power.

[mike777]

Void

A9

A9854

AQ9643

 

You open 1♣, partner responds 1♠.

 

At this point you can either make a reverse into diamonds or bid 3♦ showing a hand with 5=6 in the minors but insufficient strength to reverse.

2c the void in partner's suit worries me. No big objection to 2d, reverse.

[karlson]

Don't care for the gadget, would reverse anyway.

[marcD]

I play that gadget too but a more typical hand for 1♣-3♦ would be

- xx KQTxx KJTxxx (or a hand just a tad stronger say AQTxxx in club where 4NT would be a misbid) . The key point is that the bid shows a high ODR . Here with 3 aces and no fillers the hand does not qualify .

In spite of the spade void I would still reverse (the alternative of 2♣ being even more of a misdescription). Not confident this will lead to a good result though

[kenrexford]

I play that gadget too but a more typical hand for 1♣-3♦ would be

- xx KQTxx KJTxxx (or a hand just a tad stronger say AQTxxx in club where 4NT would be a misbid) . The key point is that the bid shows a high ODR . Here with 3 aces and no fillers the hand does not qualify .

In spite of the spade void I would still reverse (the alternative of 2♣ being even more of a misdescription). Not confident this will lead to a good result though

There you go! "High ODR" is what I was saying, essentially.

 

The problem with the OP was that we have a hand that may or may not qualify for a bid that means something ambiguous with a question as to whether we would or would not whip out the convention with that hand.

 

The answer is, "If 3♦ shows this hand, yes. If not, no. If you don't know, decide better what the bid means for next time."

[rogerclee]

I don't get why people's opinions' are so strong in this thread (especially mikeh!), when this is just a question of our agreement. If we play that 2♦, 3♦ shows 15+ HCP and 3♦ shows 11-14, which seems rather normal to me, then wow what do you know, we have a 3♦ bid!

[kenrexford]

I don't get why people's opinions' are so strong in this thread (especially mikeh!), when this is just a question of our agreement. If we play that 2♦, 3♦ shows 15+ HCP and 3♦ shows 11-14, which seems rather normal to me, then wow what do you know, we have a 3♦ bid!

What are you talking about? I just read through every post, and almost everyone says either that they do this themselves or something like, "Seems strange, but OK -- if you do this then...."

 

I thought everyone seemed kind of willing to play ball.

[gwnn]

I think this jump reverse=5-6 with less than a reverse is an old Italian invention that went out of fashion. The fact that nobody else has remarked this makes it likely that I didn't recall correctly, but I definitely heard of it, and wouldn't use it.

[hanp]

I think it was a Garozzo idea.

[mikeh]

Well, I did say that I would use the gadget if I had agreed to play it... so there is some limit to my dogmatism B)

 

Moreover, my post at least contained some arguments as to why this method seems (virtually) unplayable... and I note that no-one who thinks this method is ok has addressed these issues. Now, perhaps that is because my raising them is seen as thread-jacking, or the issues are uninteresting B)

 

 

But, if I were to actually bid 3♦ here, I might well have some real interest into how partner:

 

1. signs off in 4♣

2. sets clubs as trump en route to slam

3. sets diamonds as trump en route to slam

4. sets diamonds as trump while inviting game

5. sets clubs as trump while inviting game

 

 

I'd like to know if 3♠ by him was forcing... or invitational... or to play

 

The first 5 questions seem reasonable to me..... and simply having the OP agreement that 3♦ shows somewhere between this hand and, I assume, a hand such as x x KQJxx KQJxxx leaves me troubled.

 

It does seem to me that there is NO natural scheme that accommodates answers to every one of these 5 questions... maybe we have to invoke an artificial 3♥ call by responder as some kind of mark-time bid.

 

I post criticisms like this for two equally valid (to me) reasons: one altruistic and the other selfish.

 

I know that quite a few players adopt gadgets without thinking through the consequences. Raising issues like how responder bids various plausible hand types is one way of helping such players think a little deeper.. even and especially if they end up disagreeing with me... at least they have gone that extra step

 

The second reason is that there are many good, thinking players on this site, and by revealing my concerns, I often find that someone has already got an answer or that I have missed something, and thus my own bridge knowledge is expanded.

[MarkDean]

Well, I did say that I would use the gadget if I had agreed to play it... so there is some limit to my dogmatism B)

 

Moreover, my post at least contained some arguments as to why this method seems (virtually) unplayable... and I note that no-one who thinks this method is ok has addressed these issues. Now, perhaps that is because my raising them is seen as thread-jacking, or the issues are uninteresting B)

 

 

But, if I were to actually bid 3♦ here, I might well have some real interest into how partner:

 

1. signs off in 4♣

2. sets clubs as trump en route to slam

3. sets diamonds as trump en route to slam

4. sets diamonds as trump while inviting game

5. sets clubs as trump while inviting game

 

 

I'd like to know if 3♠ by him was forcing... or invitational... or to play

 

The first 5 questions seem reasonable to me..... and simply having the OP agreement that 3♦ shows somewhere between this hand and, I assume, a hand such as x x KQJxx KQJxxx leaves me troubled.

 

It does seem to me that there is NO natural scheme that accommodates answers to every one of these 5 questions... maybe we have to invoke an artificial 3♥ call by responder as some kind of mark-time bid.

 

I post criticisms like this for two equally valid (to me) reasons: one altruistic and the other selfish.

 

I know that quite a few players adopt gadgets without thinking through the consequences. Raising issues like how responder bids various plausible hand types is one way of helping such players think a little deeper.. even and especially if they end up disagreeing with me... at least they have gone that extra step

 

The second reason is that there are many good, thinking players on this site, and by revealing my concerns, I often find that someone has already got an answer or that I have missed something, and thus my own bridge knowledge is expanded.

I have never played the method in question, but it seems reasonable to me. If I could have two different 3♦ bids, I would certanily use this gadget, I just do not think it is worth giving up the splinter.

 

Here is a possible method over 3♦ (obviously not perfect, I took 90 seconds to make it up).

 

4m = invitational.

3♠ = GF, nat

3NT = to play.

3♥ = forces 3♠, can pass, or continuations:

4m = slamming.

3NT = forces 4♣, to sign off, or bid 4♦ to ask about major suit dist or key card or something.