Bidding plan

[paulg]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sahak98xdkxxxcakt]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(Pass) Pass (Pass) 1♥

(Pass)  1♠   (Pass)   ?[/hv]

Perhaps too easy a problem?

[Hanoi5]

I would have opened 2NT. Now I'd bid 3♦ or 2NT, depending on whether partner would expect me to have 5♦ or not.

[Codo]

Partner expect me to have a balanced 18-19 count if I rebid 2 NT now.

Opening 2 NT had been an alternative but I had tried 1 Heart too.

And now I bid my second suit with 3 ♦.

 

In the US where "fake" jumps are more common, 3 club has a lot to say for it, but as my regular partners do not read BBF, they won't understand it.

[P_Marlowe]

3D.

 

I would have opened 1H, but if you have to, go ahead and open 2NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jdonn]

Yes it's too easy.

 

Opening 2NT is hopeless. You can end up in 3NT with a cold grand. Or end up in 3NT going down with a cold small slam.

 

3♣ in the US? I think you totally misunderstand the style, it's for hands with no other good bid, not hands with a 4 card side suit that hasn't yet been bid! No one would rebid 3♣.

[gwnn]

3d wtp

[dellache]

3♦ wtp ??

[paulg]

The problem with 3♦ is that you will probably miss the club slam opposite partner's hand:

 

♠Jxxx

♥x

♦Q10

♣Qxxxxx

 

... although I accept that there are some potential issues with the 2♦ rebid that I chose :)

[mtvesuvius]

3♦ for sure.

 

2♦ is LOL

[Jlall]

Cardsharp, no offense but I think you (and many people in general) are failing to look at the bigger picture with a hand like this.

 

What is the bigger picture?

 

1) Let's not miss game.

2) Let's try to describe our hand, and hope it works out.

 

Sure there are problems after 3D, like missing clubs. But what is the alternative? If you bid 2D, you are not observing points 1 and 2.

 

Partner might pass 2D, and when you're this powerful with a bidding partner, you have almost surely missed game. Also, 2D does not begin to describe a hand this powerful, and since it is NF has an upper limit of 18 typically (and not all 18s).

 

I think if you step back and think about it logically, you will realize that this statement "let's bid 2D, and risk missing game quite often, and underbid our hand by a king, in order to be able to find 6C on a small subset of hands if that's right" is absurd.

 

Sometimes bridge really is this simple, you open 1H and bid 3D, showing hearts and diamonds and a good 18 to 21. That is what you have, ez game.

 

Even your example hand is pretty unconvincing. You give a hand where 6C has pretty good play but is not cold, so you bid 2D....but if you bid 2D you will play there instead of the 3N you would have bid after 3D.

 

You cannot find every perfect slam, and cannot cater to every possibility.

[pooltuna]

Cardsharp, no offense but I think you (and many people in general) are failing to look at the bigger picture with a hand like this.

 

What is the bigger picture?

 

1) Let's not miss game.

2) Let's try to describe our hand, and hope it works out.

 

Sure there are problems after 3D, like missing clubs. But what is the alternative? If you bid 2D, you are not observing points 1 and 2.

 

Partner might pass 2D, and when you're this powerful with a bidding partner, you have almost surely missed game. Also, 2D does not begin to describe a hand this powerful, and since it is NF has an upper limit of 18 typically (and not all 18s).

 

I think if you step back and think about it logically, you will realize that this statement "let's bid 2D, and risk missing game quite often, and underbid our hand by a king, in order to be able to find 6C on a small subset of hands if that's right" is absurd.

 

Sometimes bridge really is this simple, you open 1H and bid 3D, showing hearts and diamonds and a good 18 to 21. That is what you have, ez game.

 

Even your example hand is pretty unconvincing. You give a hand where 6C has pretty good play but is not cold, so you bid 2D....but if you bid 2D you will play there instead of the 3N you would have bid after 3D.

 

You cannot find every perfect slam, and cannot cater to every possibility.

Amen... I think the quote that applies is "play for the best result possible and not the best possible result" :)

[paulg]

Cardsharp, no offense but I think you (and many people in general) are failing to look at the bigger picture with a hand like this.

I certainly don't take offence and always hope that you contribute to a thread.

 

Of course you are right that this hand is just far too strong to make a non-forcing rebid, even though there is a trend to avoid jump rebids with three-suiters.

 

But I did not tell you the complete story of how successful my action was. And this was the amusing part of the thread ... even when my action is right, it is wrong.

 

Partner, bless her, did not pass 2♦ but gave preference to 2♥ because I might be 6-4. However it did take her 3 minutes to do this, but then only a microsecond to pass 3♣ :D

 

Diamonds were 6-1, hearts 5-2, so the club slam would fail, but still worth 5 IMPs against the (strange) 4♥ in the other room.

 

(This is a LOL on myself, btw)

[Old York]

A very difficult hand for any system

 

My methods allow me to open 2♣ with this hand, and a 2♦ negative

The hand is unbalanced with 5+QT and 22+ total points, 4 losers

I will survive :D

2♣ - 2♦

2♥ - 3♣

3NT - p

 

Tony

[bid_em_up]

The problem with 3♦ is that you will probably miss the club slam opposite partner's hand:

Seriously?

 

If partner cannot bid spades over 1H, cannot raise 3♦ to 4♦ diamonds, and cannot make a legitimate heart raise at this point (I will assume you could distinguish between a real raise and a simple preference here), then how many clubs do you think he has? Yes, partner may have failed to bid a bad four card spade suit, but imo, this is less likely than him having fewer than four spades.

 

So, he has no more than 3 spades, 2 hearts, and 3 diamonds normally in this sequence, therefore he should have at least 5♣.

 

Now see if you can find the club slam (if it actually exists). If not, you will at least make it to 5♣.

[RichMor]

2NT, crude but so what ?

[Jlall]

2NT, crude but so what ?

You are showing 18-19 balanced with a prime unbalanced 21...

[akhare]

Seems like an easy enough 3♦ to me...

[Cyberyeti]

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

 

By the methods I play (unusual even here), my choice would be a GF unbalanced 2N or 2♦, 3♦ is 2 good suits but not a great hand, AQJxx, KQ10xx or similar.

[the hog]

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

snipped

Isn't this oxymoronic? If its forcing he can't pass, no matter what.

3D is an obvious bid for me playing standard methods.

[paulg]

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

2♦ is not forcing in the UK.

[gordontd]

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

2♦ is not forcing in the UK.

Indeed not.

[shintaro]

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

2♦ is not forcing in the UK.

Indeed not.

:D

 

 

SNAP gordon

 

:rolleyes:

[gwnn]

Isn't this oxymoronic?

Agree, you have to be an ox AND a moron to pass it :rolleyes:

[Cyberyeti]

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

2♦ is not forcing in the UK.

Indeed not.

It's forcing for one round over 1♥-1♠ in every version of acol I've ever played over the last 35 years.

 

My point above about passing forcing bids was that I normally play a system with no strong bids other than 2♣, so we'll sometimes respond with what's not really a response and settle that we've improved the contract if partner changes suit and we pass a technically forcing bid. We'd certainly bid 1♠ over 1♥ and pass 2♦ with a 4144 4 count, playing in a 4-1 fit sucks.

 

A better description would be to say we play it as forcing if you actually had a standard response.

[gnasher]

It's forcing for one round over 1♥-1♠ in every version of acol I've ever played over the last 35 years.

That makes it forcing in your partnerships.

 

This sequence is not widely played as forcing in the UK. Agreeing to play "Acol" certainly implies that it's non-forcing. I would be astonished if you can find any published description of Acol by a British author that says it's forcing.