6-5 18 count

[MickyB]

[hv=d=n&s=skj9xxhqdacakjxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1♥:2♣

2♦

 

2♣ is GF, 2♠ now would be 4SF.

 

Hidden:

If you bid 2♠ or 2NT, partner will bid 3♥.

 

[gnasher]

Over 2♦, I'd be able to bid 3♠, natural.

 

Without that agreement, I suppose 2♠-3any-3♠ is natural. I'd start with 2♠, then:

 

- Over 2NT or 3♣ I bid 3♠

- Over 3♦ I bid 3NT

- Over 3♥ I bid 4♦, cue-bid.

[P_Marlowe]

3S, showing a game forcing hand with 6-5.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[peachy]

Playing 2/1, bid 2S and then repeat spades next round. In 2/1, 2S is either natural or a hand that lacks clear direction, asking opener to describe more of his hand. Obviously, this time the 2S is natural :)

 

Playing methods where 2C does not create a gameforce, I would still bid 2S and repeat spades. 3S could be splinter with diamonds agreed, at least that is how I would take it without agreements with a good partner.

[billw55]

The OP states that 2♣ is game force. Therefore agree with 2♠, the whole point of 2/1 is to save space.

 

When partner rebids 3♥ we have a near total misfit, at this point I am having no thoughts of slam and must choose between 3NT and 4♥.

[mike777]

2s and then 3s over 3h .....easy, just bidding out my hand. I still got thoughts of slam, partner is unlimited and I got 18 and two big cards, QH and AD.

[whereagles]

I'm not too confident about this, so a plain 2♠ + 3NT for me.

[mikeh]

2♠ then rethink...

 

Over 2N: 3♠ then 4N over 3N...slight overbid

 

Over 3♦: quiet 3N but really, really worried that we are missing slam. Partner is unlimited, and will often pass with 15-16 due to the possibility that we have a misfitting 13. I am close to a natural 4N, but hate the communication problems....and really hate going down in a below-slam hand when I hold 18 opposite an opener.

 

Over 3♥: in the methods I learned, and still play, 3♥ shows a good 6=4 in the reds...with a minimum, rebid 2♥, intending to bid 3♦ over 2N.

 

Opposite a good hand, my hand really grows up.... that heart Q is awesome despite the communication problems. I am going to push hard for slam....fortunately I don't have to commit to whether I am going to go to 6♥ (never 6N due to entry problems) at this point.

 

But how to continue? I think I agree with Gnasher that 4♦ is a heart slamtry..but I don't think it has to promise the Ace.... it is the ONLY non-natural bid available below game, so it cannot be rigidly confined. A rebid of spades or clubs would suggest playing a black suit despite opener's 64, and 3N is to play while 4♥ will limit our hand.

 

So I bid 4♦ and over 4♥, I bid....???? not sure.... keycard or 5♥? I think 5♥ because it implies all kinds of side controls while not tipping off the opps to lead spades rather than clubs, and is the bid that, I think, allows partner, having listened to the auction, to guess most intelligently....whereas I don't think that any keycard answer will help me very much.

 

Tough hand.

[mike777]

If pard rebids 3nt over 3s I would now rebid 4h. 5H would be my second option over 3nt.

[jdonn]

What are these signoffs in 3NT? We have an 18 count with a good main suit and honors in both of partner's suits. Does a misfit just mean there can't be slam regardless of combined strength?

 

Over 2♠ if partner bids:

2NT I bid 3♠

3♣ I bid 3♠

3♦ I bid 4NT natural

3♥ I bid 4♦ slam try in hearts

[gnasher]

After 2♠-3♥, can 4♣ be suggesting a trump suit? It seems inconsistent with bidding FSF on the previous round. I'm changing my bid in this sequence to 4♣, cue-bid.

[mikeh]

After 2♠-3♥, can 4♣ be suggesting a trump suit?  It seems inconsistent with bidding FSF on the previous round.  I'm changing my bid in this sequence to 4♣, cue-bid.

your call with AKxx x x AKJxxxx?

 

I'm not suggesting this is a good example...I'm at work and coming up with examples on the spur of the moment is dangerous/difficult, and maybe we wouldn't have bid 2♠. But I do think that it is wrong, in principle, to use a rebid of a naturally bid suit as an inferential cuebid in support of a suit for which we have so far neither shown nor implied a fit.

 

How about AJxxx void x AKJxxxx?

 

Note, I am assuming that we didn't have a descriptive 3♠ jump available over 2♦...I appreciate that some would, even tho I wouldn't.

 

I think 4♦ is safe precisely because there are vanishingly few, if any, hands on which we would want to fix diamonds as trump at the 4-level that would not have raised diamonds at the 3-level... the auction 1♥/2♦/3♥ denies 5 diamonds, so we can't (can we?) be setting a 4-3 fit beyond 3N.

[gnasher]

your call with AKxx x x AKJxxxx?

I'd have bid 3♣ over 2♥. On this hand surely I should be saying "I have a load of clubs" rather than asking vague questions?

 

How about AJxxx void x AKJxxxx?

Presumably I bid 2♠ with the intention of showing my spade suit on the next round. I can't see why partner's rebidding my void should make me change my mind. If I want to insist on clubs with this type, I can always bid 3♠ and then convert 3NT to 4♣.

 

One of the benefits of 2/1 game-forcing is that you can make natural, descriptive bids instead of clumsily bidding FSF and hoping to be able to show our hand later. That means that Fourth Suit sequences can be reserved for hands that genuinely lack a clearcut natural call (together with the special case of a hand that wants to bid the fourth suit naturally).

[ONEferBRID]

If 2C = 2/1 GF ( with a real Cl suit ), then 2S is natural... ostensibly showing a 4s/5c hand.

3S!-jump over 2D would be a splinter for Diam....

 

Next, 3S over 3H shows your 5/6.. that "was the easy part" in 2/1.

Partner knows your shape but not your strength.

Likewise you don't know partner's strength.

I've seen some threads here where Opener has "less than eleven" with a shapely hand.

 

Partner may have 3 card Sp support, but may very well make a suit preference bid

with 2 cards: Honor-x would be nice.

 

Eventho you have nice red fillers for partner's suits, I'm afraid slam is out of the picture.

 

If partner rebids 3NT over 3S, I'm passing.

 

Of course we may never know what was best because only 1 of 10 posts follows up with partner's hand. [ I guess only the "thrill of the hunt" reigns supreme here.].

[mike777]

if:

 

1h=2c

2d=2s

3h=3s

3nt=4h

?

 

 

My guess is pard will come down with

 

xx...AK98xx...KQJx....x

 

 

 

:ph34r:

[mikeh]

your call with AKxx x x AKJxxxx?

I'd have bid 3♣ over 2♥. On this hand surely I should be saying "I have a load of clubs" rather than asking vague questions?

 

How about AJxxx void x AKJxxxx?

Presumably I bid 2♠ with the intention of showing my spade suit on the next round. I can't see why partner's rebidding my void should make me change my mind. If I want to insist on clubs with this type, I can always bid 3♠ and then convert 3NT to 4♣.

 

One of the benefits of 2/1 game-forcing is that you can make natural, descriptive bids instead of clumsily bidding FSF and hoping to be able to show our hand later. That means that Fourth Suit sequences can be reserved for hands that genuinely lack a clearcut natural call (together with the special case of a hand that wants to bid the fourth suit naturally).

my second example was flawed, since obviously one rebids spades here, even with a 2 card discrepancy and a weakish suit.

 

But I am not so sure about the first one: my partners, with a weak 4=5=4=0, rebid 2♦ over 2♣, and now, if we don't bid 2♠, we'll never fnd the suit, which would be embarrassing. Opposite QJxx Axxxx Axxx void, we miss an easy slam (not a cold slam, but we will make 7 quite often and 6 most of the time). I don't think that 3♠ by opener, over 3♣, would be viewed by most experts as showing a 4 card suit. Maybe I'm wrong there.

 

Anyway, rather than getting bogged down in hastily created and low-frequency examples, I'd rather stick to the proposition that one should not use a rebid of a naturally bid suit as an inferential cuebid for a suit for which you have not previously shown support. Especially when we have an alternative that, while not entirely satisfactory, is virtually free from ambiguity, at least in the general message it (4♦)shows: slam try in hearts.

[MickyB]

Partner would rebid 2♦ with a minimum 6-4 in our style.

[gnasher]

But I am not so sure about the first one: my partners, with a weak 4=5=4=0, rebid 2♦ over 2♣, and now, if we don't bid 2♠, we'll never fnd the suit, which would be embarrassing. Opposite QJxx Axxxx Axxx void, we miss an easy slam (not a cold slam, but we will make 7 quite often and 6 most of the time). I don't think that 3♠ by opener, over 3♣, would be viewed by most experts as showing a 4 card suit. Maybe I'm wrong there.

(This is about responder's actions with AKxx x x AKJxxxx.)

 

I imagine that most people who play 2♠ by responder as Fourth Suit Forcing do the same when it's opener bidding the fourth suit. So yes, bidding 3♣ with 4027 will miss a spade fit opposite 4540.

 

Personally, I'd be more concerned about the fact that

  1♥-2♣

  2♦-2♠

  3♦/♥-4♣

is one level higher than

  1♥-2♣

  2♦-3♣

Auctions where you get to the four level without knowing what trumps are are bad, especially if there's a fair chance that you belong in 3NT. I estimate that opener will be 6-4 or 5-5 about ten times as often as he'll be 4540.

 

Also, if you really had bid 2♠ with this 4027 shape, over 3♥ you might bid 3♠. If partner raises that, being 3640, you might be in a tricky contract, but it's probably no worse than where 4♣ would have got you. And 3♠ does leave open the possibility of playing 3NT.

 

Anyway, rather than getting bogged down in hastily created and low-frequency examples, I'd rather stick to the proposition that one should not use a rebid of a naturally bid suit as an inferential cuebid for a suit for which you have not previously shown support.

There are many auctions where that would be a silly rule. For example:

  1♣-1♠

  2NT-3♠ (forcing)

  4♣

is obviously a cue-bid, because the previous auction makes it impossible that opener would suggest clubs as trumps at this point.

 

I think that the sequence

  1♥-2♣

  2♦-2♠

  3♥-4♣

falls into the same category.

 

Having said that, I agree that we should be wary of ambiguity, and I wouldn't risk a 4♣ cue-bid unless I was sure partner would be on the same wavelength.