The Misadventures of Rex and Jay #5651

[microcap]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sakj1098h94d83caq5]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Playing 2/1, you open 1♠. Partner responds 1NT. Opps all pass.

 

Do you rebid 2♠ or 3♠ and why? Or something else, though that would surprise me...

 

:)

[mtvesuvius]

2♠. Reason: Because 3♠ is insane. :)

[Hanoi5]

I don't want to bid just 2♠. I might bid 2♣, expecting partner to bid anything and then take a better shot at finding the best level. 3♠ it's another possibility, though I should be stronger.

[whereagles]

The good hcp concentration and superb spade intermediates make it worth a 3♠ rebid for me.

[microcap]

Actual spades were AKJ1043 don't know if that makes a difference

[ArtK78]

Not quite good enough for a 3♠ rebid. 6 losers by MLTC. A 3♠ rebid should be made on a 5 loser hand. I bid 2♠ and I will drive to game opposite any game try.

 

I do not think that a 3♠ rebid is insane. I have seen (and made) far more insane bids than 3♠.

[miguelm]

Interesting... With 5 losers I bid 4S because 1NT response hold, in average, 1,5 tricks (a BIG world class player told me so, so please don't ask where is that written lol).

 

This is a 2,5 spade bid lol as one could (should?) count the Club suit as 1,5 losers.... on the other hand, looking at the scoring type and colours, 3S it is :)

[Apollo81]

This is a maximum 2♠ bid; this bid has a significantly wider range than 3♠ because partner can invite over it.

[mikeh]

2♠... this is not a problem. Maybe if we played precision, we'd think about 3♠

[Phil]

2♠ but I appreciate 2♣.

[jdonn]

2♠ but I appreciate 2♣.

Apparently I do that more than most, but I hate it on a hand with spades so good that they don't need any support. Something like AKxxxx xx JT AKx is much better since if partner passes there is a very reasonable chance you are in the best suit. So 2♠ for me.

[JLOL]

ez 2

[awm]

This is very close for me, to the degree that I would bid 3♠ with the original hand, but 2♠ with the slight downgrade of spots to AKJT43.

 

For the people saying "easy 2♠", keep in mind that we've all seen an awful lot of ten-counts with mediocre suits suggested as 1♠...2♠ sequences. The range of the 2♠ rebid is getting pretty wide. The actual hand is worth about seven tricks (5.5 spades and 1.5 clubs) which is more or less what I'd expect for a 3♠ rebid, and you have play for game opposite a lot of pretty mediocre hands which wouldn't raise a 2♠ call.

[Fluffy]

This is a hand where LTC lies, you only have 6 losers, but you have nothing else. Partner with 2 red aces will look angry at you when you play an awful game.

[hanp]

I agree that it is fairly close Adam (though I would bid 2S) but where did you see an awful lot of 10-counts with mediocre 6-card suits?

[whereagles]

Probably only 2♠ if no good intermediates, yeah.

[mikeh]

This is very close for me, to the degree that I would bid 3♠ with the original hand, but 2♠ with the slight downgrade of spots to AKJT43.

 

For the people saying "easy 2♠", keep in mind that we've all seen an awful lot of ten-counts with mediocre suits suggested as 1♠...2♠ sequences. The range of the 2♠ rebid is getting pretty wide. The actual hand is worth about seven tricks (5.5 spades and 1.5 clubs) which is more or less what I'd expect for a 3♠ rebid, and you have play for game opposite a lot of pretty mediocre hands which wouldn't raise a 2♠ call.

Well, if you insist upon opening 10 counts with mediocre 6 card suits with 1♠, you get what you deserve. I open some 10 counts but they sure as heck are not bad hands with bad suits.

 

Finally: I don't understand those whose bidding analysis is based on the notion that we should never miss any games that afford decent play.

 

Bridge is an inexact science, and no bidding method ever invented reaches all and only all decent or better games. If your method results in missing game on this one, I assume it is part of the cost you get from choosing this method, and is outweighed, in your mind, by the benefits on other hands.. if that is not true, change methods... but don't start zigging and zagging within the framework of a method. Yes, if you open light, the 2♠ rebid is wide.. but you solve nothing by jumping to 3♠... you have narrowed the range of 2♠ at the cost of widening the range for 3♠... and that makes no sense whatsoever... since 3♠ hands are more likely to be involved in game or slam decisions, and hence the cost of rendering those auctions inefficient is higher than the cost of the inefficient 2♠ rebid.

[jdonn]

This is a maximum 2♠ bid; this bid has a significantly wider range than 3♠ because partner can invite over it.

I had missed this but it's a good point. If I can (for simplicity) call the combined range of 2♠ and 3♠ 11-18, then you certainly don't want to split it in half like 11-14 and 15-18. You would want to split it into approximately 2/3 and 1/3 like 11-bad 16 and average 16 to 18 (which I think is almost exactly the normal expert range) because partner can invite over 2♠, allowing you to split that range in half and end with three equal ranges.

 

I suppose you might want to allocate just slightly more to the higher range so that partner doesn't have to invite too often over the lower range and potentially go down opposite a minimum, but it would still be about 11-15 and 16-18.

[neilkaz]

2♠ for me, but if my ♣5 were the ten, then 3♠. No criticizm for either choice from me with the OP hand.

[kenrexford]

2♠.

 

2♣ a close second. I would bid 2♣ with the same black cards but 3-1 or 1-3 in the red suits.

[skjaeran]

2♠ for me playing standard methods.

 

2♥ transfer with my favourite methods, showing 2.5♠ or better.