Axx KQJxx Q KQTx

[straube]

This hand keeps nagging me.

 

I have Axx KQJxx Q KQTx

 

1H-1N(f), 2C-2H, 2N-3N

 

Partner has J9xx xxx xxx Axx

 

I think he has a clear correction to 3H there but he faults me for not GF (1H-1N, 3C) and also for showing me a diamond stopper with my 2N rebid.

 

I think he's all wet. But should I rebid 2S instead of 2N? What does 2N show in terms of outside strength (if anything)?

[wank]

2n was shandy. 3n was at least cocaine - very possibly a speedball

[Fluffy]

2♠ focuses on diamond shortness, but with stiff queen it is not so clear that it is superior to 2NT, stiff queen is often better than 2 small.

 

I play 2NT shows 16-17, it doesn't matter much, but 5422 and for me 5332 are also possible.

 

3NT is a big bad mistake, he can gamble a pass of 2NT or bid 3♥ and play there.

 

When I face a 4-6 HCP 3 card raise to a strong hand I normally go down in 3 or 4 of the major, didn't find a way to avoid it.

 

 

resuming

 

Rebidding 2♣ vs 3♣: 100% clear to bid 2♣

Bidding 3♥ instead of 3NT: 100% clear to bid 3♥ instead, only option is to gamble a pass

Bidding 2♠ vs 2NT: 60-40 for 2♠ in my opinion but it is a real decision.

[mike777]

This hand keeps nagging me.

 

I have Axx KQJxx Q KQTx

 

1H-1N(f), 2C-2H, 2N-3N

 

Partner has J9xx xxx xxx Axx

 

I think he has a clear correction to 3H there but he faults me for not GF (1H-1N, 3C) and also for showing me a diamond stopper with my 2N rebid.

 

I think he's all wet. But should I rebid 2S instead of 2N? What does 2N show in terms of outside strength (if anything)?

 

 

Prefer 2s not 2nt.

 

 

Prefer 1s not 1nt.

 

 

1h=1s

2c=2h

2s=p

[mtvesuvius]

Your partner is, to put it diplomatically, out of his mind.

 

1N is the normal call planning on making the weak preference to 2♥. 1♠ is ridiculous.

 

Your hand is a clear 2♣ call, 3♣ is awful. The 2♠ vs 2N problem is an interesting one, and I'd probably go for 2♠, however 2N is not unreasonable at all. Bidding 3N with partner's hand deserves a nomination for worst bid of the month (worse than even pirate22!).

[kenrexford]

The part I find most humorous is the 3NT call in the context of complaining that Opener did not jump shift for a GF. Does Responder fret not making a slam move?

 

I think the entire sequence by Opener is good.

 

As to the 2♠ rebid idea, I have a little concern there. After having discussed this very sequence, I am liking a theory of a friend of mine. Suppose that you have Opener with 4513 pattern and extras but not good enough to reverse. There is something to be said for opening 1♥, rebidding 2♣, and then rebidding 2♠ if partner courtesy corrects to 2♥.

 

This deal actually supports that idea. Responder might well opt a nice 3♠ invite in this sequence:

 

1♥-P-1NT!-P-

2♣-P-2♥-P-

2♠-P-3♠...

 

Whether this seems right or not is unclear, but I kind of like the theory.

[Flameous]

I'm not sure I'm with Ken here, but I pretty much prefer 2NT here. Bidding 2S yells to the opps that I have weakness in diamonds and are certain to attack it if we end up in 3NT. It's true that if I bid 2S and partner chooses 3NT I know I'm in a good contract but following Hamman's rule, I want to find the way to 3NT and preferably not to tell opps what to lead. This all is of course based on having that singleton Q which often helps in NT.

 

As has been said, partner's 3NT bid was totally nuts and even suggesting you to bid 3C is even more nuts.

[straube]

I'd also been wondering what to do with a 17 1-5-3-4. I think I'd rebid 2C and then "reverse" into 3D because I know partner has tolerance for hearts, I get to show my pattern, and we might pick up a superior diamond fit (less likely to have a great club fit after partner's correction).

 

So the way I bid it, I probably have 2-5-2-4 but might have 3-5-1-4 if I have a stiff diamond honor.

 

Sound right?

[whereagles]

I actually agree to 2NT, on grounds that Q singleton is just about the same as xx. But I wouldn't oppose to 2♠.

 

Anyway, opener's 3rd bid certainly wasn't the problem. Responder's 3NT was. 3♥ is clear.

[gordontd]

After having discussed this very sequence, I am liking a theory of a friend of mine. Suppose that you have Opener with 4513 pattern and extras but not good enough to reverse. There is something to be said for opening 1♥, rebidding 2♣, and then rebidding 2♠ if partner courtesy corrects to 2♥.

So, you aren't strong enough to reverse, but you're strong enough to force to the three-level when partner hasn't shown anything extra?

[Phil]

Hate 2N. Partner should pass I think. 2♠ is 1000% clear.

 

Hate 3N even more. He is completely burying you and portraying a 4333 5 count as a 8-9 count with a doubleton heart.

[nigel_k]

1. The 2♣ rebid is 100% correct and I'm surprised your partner would try to use this hand as evidence against it.

 

2. I prefer 2NT to 2♠ as partner will usually have something in diamonds so I would not feel that stiff queen is a weakness. Pass is an option here as well, certainly it is a minimum for further action.

 

3. Partner has an obvious 3♥ bid at the end since he has insufficient values for game and there is bound to be a weakness in either spades or diamonds. 2♥ could be anything up to 9 HCP and you stretched to bid 2NT to cater for that so it's very wrong for him to punish you by bidding game on a 4333 5 count.

[mikeh]

I'm with the 2N rebidders....that stiff Q is (often) huge.....partner will always hold ♦ length if he bids 3N (well, any sane partner with an ounce of understanding of the game would).

 

I'd bid 2♠ with AQx x in the pointeds, but pretending the stiff Q is a stiff x makes no sense to me in the context of partner having only 2 hearts, fewer than 4 spades, and fewer than 5 clubs....all of which criteria would need to be satisfied for him to have a hand that (1) responds 1N rather than 1♠, (2) raises 2N to 3N rather than bidding 3♥, and (3) at no time, either over 2♣ or 2N, shows a club fit.

 

BTW, i agree with his 1N bid...the above analysis was dependent on his holding a hand with only 2 hearts AND enough strength to bid 3N...such hands should almost always respond 1♠ with 4.

 

He will almost always be at least 3=2=4=4, and will very often hold 5 diamonds.

 

The fact that his hand doesn't meet this argument merely states the obvious: he knows nothing about the game (but we already knew that from his absurd criticism of 2♣)

 

BTW, the only argument I can halfway accept for 2♠ is that the opps might play me for the hand I'd be showing, rather than the hand I have......and so avoid the killing spade lead. But on a constructive auction where I don't yet know if we even belong in game, and am inviting partner to make the final decision, I prefer to describe my hand accurately to partner rather than try to fool the opps.

[foobar]

2♠ / 2N is fine -- 3♥ is is a standout unless pard was trying to avenge a slight on a previous board or something like that :rolleyes:...

[gwnn]

you bid well, but I like 2♠ better (by a smallish margin). his 1N is good, his 3N is very bad.

[Fluffy]

I'd also been wondering what to do with a 17 1-5-3-4. I think I'd rebid 2C and then "reverse" into 3D because I know partner has tolerance for hearts, I get to show my pattern, and we might pick up a superior diamond fit (less likely to have a great club fit after partner's correction).

 

So the way I bid it, I probably have 2-5-2-4 but might have 3-5-1-4 if I have a stiff diamond honor.

 

Sound right?

Even if you routinelly open 1NT with 5 card major (I don't), there are some balancd hands where you will find an excuse to open 1M, they are also a posibility.

 

Between 2NT and 3♦, its up to you, 3♦ puts 5♦ and 5♣ into the picture, but sometimes you can make 2NT even when the opponents have 5 spades to cash. So with weak 3 diamonds (Qxx or less) I'd rather bid 2NT than 3♦ still.

[kenrexford]

So, you aren't strong enough to reverse, but you're strong enough to force to the three-level when partner hasn't shown anything extra?

 

Well, this is a good question, which is why the discussion started up. However, the extend the thoughts...

 

If you can get past the first round, then you are better off by this maneuver. If 1♥...2minor...2♠ allows you to show a 4513 or 4531 hand (or 4540/4504), Responder is better placed, cheaper, as to which strain to pursue.

 

My personal opinion on this is that there is a lot to be said for this general approach, but I would be less militant about the spade length and would merely have these auctions be bids around the shortness. In other words, I like the idea of tending away from a 1♥...2♠ sequence unless (1.) 6-4, (2.) 6-5, (3.) 4522, or (4.) too strong (GF strength). With "light reverses," with unbalanced 5431/5440, bidding the minor first seems to make the most sense.

 

If you assume that, then there is something to be said for an unwind over 2♠, such as a three-bid in the short minor being a heart correction with four spades. Thus:

 

1♥-P-1NT!-P-

2♣-P-2♥-P-

2♠-P-3♦(four spades, three hearts)

 

Not sure what all of this would mean for Opener's calls, but it would suggest in this posted situation a 3♦ call from Responder to show a three-piece heart suit (and hence weak) with four spades. It also suggests straining toward 2NT when in doubt and holding a stiff honor, as this better describes the "feel" of the hand, perhaps.

 

My friend was more militant about the spade suit being 4-piece, which is why I mentioned it, but I think that "could be 4" makes a lot of sense.

[andy_h]

I strongly prefer 2NT than 2S. But otherwise, 3C over 1NT is a huge overbid and definitely prefer 3H over 2NT.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, in case anyone is liking this idea of a delayed canape or delayed "tendency canape," the origin for this idea in the discussion was a more pure example, perhaps.

 

The problem. You start with a 16-count with 1-4-5-3 shape. You open 1♦ and partner responds 1♠. If you are of the school that never rebids 1NT with a stiff spade (or if you are flexible in this regard and 2♣ seems right this time), then your auction may well be this:

 

1♦-P-1♠-P-

2♣-P-2♦-P-

2♥

 

In that sequence, it seemed to make sense for 2♥ to show four of them and this pattern. However, the question then arises as to whether this also could be a strong 1354 sequence. The "solution" is to either play a strict "delayed canape" approach, where 2♥ guarantees 4, or a "delayed canape tendency" where this sequence shows 1354 or 1453 (or 5440 parallels). To unwind this, Responder can bid the short suit (2♠) to offer back the heart suit.

 

1♦-P-1♠-P-

2♣-P-2♦-P-

2♥(3-4 hearts)-P-2♠(four hearts)...

[mikestar13]

Partner is closer to a pass of 1♥ than to 3NT over 2NT; he gambled on you not having this good a hand and he lost, so he must make his weakest possible bid now: 3♥. Did you call the men in the rubber truck for him after the hand? You should.

[the hog]

Agree with the above. I disagree with bidding 1NT on the hand as well rather than 1S. You risk a 1NT contract with a 4-4 S fit if opener holds a 4522 hand and decides to pass 1NT; playing a fnt you risk playing a 5-3 H fit and losing a 4-4 S fit.

[rhm]

The part I find most humorous is the 3NT call in the context of complaining that Opener did not jump shift for a GF. Does Responder fret not making a slam move?

 

I think the entire sequence by Opener is good.

 

As to the 2♠ rebid idea, I have a little concern there. After having discussed this very sequence, I am liking a theory of a friend of mine. Suppose that you have Opener with 4513 pattern and extras but not good enough to reverse. There is something to be said for opening 1♥, rebidding 2♣, and then rebidding 2♠ if partner courtesy corrects to 2♥.

 

This deal actually supports that idea. Responder might well opt a nice 3♠ invite in this sequence:

 

1♥-P-1NT!-P-

2♣-P-2♥-P-

2♠-P-3♠...

 

Whether this seems right or not is unclear, but I kind of like the theory.

 

2♥ is the weakest response responder can make apart from pass.

I can not see how opener can now continue with 2♠ missing the strength for a reverse.

Of course some seem to require for a reverse almost as much as for a 2♣ opener, but this is a silly concept in the first place.

 

Anyway this sequence

 

1♥-P-1NT!-P-

2♣-P-2♥-P-

2♠-P-3♠...

 

makes no sense to me. Without 3 cards in ♥ responder would almost always prefer 1♠ to 1NT. So if he can now raise ♠ he must hold 3 cards in ♥ and must have a hand not strong enough for an immediate ♥ raise. According to your logic opener is too weak for reverse.

Seems to me the partnership is already overboard after the ♠ raise.

The sensible way of playing 2♠ is in deed a good distributional hand with shortage in ♦, but at most 3 cards in ♠.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[bulovapsb]

Agree with the above. I disagree with bidding 1NT on the hand as well rather than 1S. You risk a 1NT contract with a 4-4 S fit if opener holds a 4522 hand and decides to pass 1NT; playing a fnt you risk playing a 5-3 H fit and losing a 4-4 S fit.

I'm the partner.

 

To reply directly to the above: With my sub-minimal values, a 1♠ response MIGHT find 4-4, but on the more-likely occurrence of a 1N rebid by partner, my "forced" correction to 2♥ would imply more values than I actually had. With essentially a one-call hand (that call being a weak-♥-raise, going through 1N to slow down the auction) I don't want to over bid before having limited my hand.

 

A lot has been said that boils down to "send me to the rubber room" but with my balanced 5HCP including an A, any advance by partner after my 2♥ must show extras, and I have about the top of my weak-raise, 1N-2♥ range, so another call BY ME has to be appropriate. 3♥ is still just a simple, weak preference, and can be done with a LOT less than an A (I'm likely to compete with the same sequence with J-4th and K-3rd...nature of my game is to slow down by starting with a forcing 1N and taking the preference...then competing to 3♥ if the opponents come in).

 

If the continuation over 2♥ had been 2♠, NO WAY would I consider a raise! I know, as responder, that partner has extras, AND I know that we have a fit in ♥. If he really has extra values AND a 4-cd ♠ suit, he could have reversed at his first rebid (which is NOT necessarily game-forcing, as people seem to think a JS to 3♣ would be...). So, now I can decide if my hand WITH 3-cd ♥ support is worth a game (which I think it is) or just a wimpy return to 3♥ (and if I'm not bidding 3♥/2N then I'm not bidding 3-only-♥/2♠ either). AND 2N is an option for me (which partner should correct to 3♥ on his KQJ-6-baggger with a stiff ♦, and he's THEN conveyed his ENTIRE hand).

 

BUT: MY partner's 2N advance implies a balanced hand with extras. And now I think, maybe 9 tricks is easier than 10. Partner never conveyed his ♦ weakness/shortness. And even if I have Jxxx there, without SOLID ♥ what's the point? If he's not passing 2♥, then I have to find the right game with my A+J. 2N just lead me to the wrong guess.

 

So call the rubber room on me...I STILL think that when Opener advances showing a balanced hand opposite no more than a weak preference, responder should be bidding game at IMPs. And with a 4x3, that game seems more likely to be in NT.

 

 

As may be clear from the above, I also agree with what Mr. Herrmann said.

[mikeh]

I'm the partner.

 

To reply directly to the above: With my sub-minimal values, a 1♠ response MIGHT find 4-4, but on the more-likely occurrence of a 1N rebid by partner, my "forced" correction to 2♥ would imply more values than I actually had. With essentially a one-call hand (that call being a weak-♥-raise, going through 1N to slow down the auction) I don't want to over bid before having limited my hand.

 

A lot has been said that boils down to "send me to the rubber room" but with my balanced 5HCP including an A, any advance by partner after my 2♥ must show extras, and I have about the top of my weak-raise, 1N-2♥ range, so another call BY ME has to be appropriate. 3♥ is still just a simple, weak preference, and can be done with a LOT less than an A (I'm likely to compete with the same sequence with J-4th and K-3rd...nature of my game is to slow down by starting with a forcing 1N and taking the preference...then competing to 3♥ if the opponents come in).

 

If the continuation over 2♥ had been 2♠, NO WAY would I consider a raise! I know, as responder, that partner has extras, AND I know that we have a fit in ♥. If he really has extra values AND a 4-cd ♠ suit, he could have reversed at his first rebid (which is NOT necessarily game-forcing, as people seem to think a JS to 3♣ would be...). So, now I can decide if my hand WITH 3-cd ♥ support is worth a game (which I think it is) or just a wimpy return to 3♥ (and if I'm not bidding 3♥/2N then I'm not bidding 3-only-♥/2♠ either). AND 2N is an option for me (which partner should correct to 3♥ on his KQJ-6-baggger with a stiff ♦, and he's THEN conveyed his ENTIRE hand).

 

BUT: MY partner's 2N advance implies a balanced hand with extras. And now I think, maybe 9 tricks is easier than 10. Partner never conveyed his ♦ weakness/shortness. And even if I have Jxxx there, without SOLID ♥ what's the point? If he's not passing 2♥, then I have to find the right game with my A+J. 2N just lead me to the wrong guess.

 

So call the rubber room on me...I STILL think that when Opener advances showing a balanced hand opposite no more than a weak preference, responder should be bidding game at IMPs. And with a 4x3, that game seems more likely to be in NT.

 

 

As may be clear from the above, I also agree with what Mr. Herrmann said.

Sorry, but I reamin unconvinced.

 

The central flaw in your reasoning is the (frankly absurd) notion that your 5 count represented a near maximum for your sequence to 2♥.

 

As it is, you started your post on the right foot when you described your initial response as being based on sub-minimal values.

 

I think your problem is that you seem to think that 2♥ showed 3 card support, and that therefore, having bid 1N, you had 'top of your range'.

 

But that is nonsensical. You would and should bid as you did with, say, KQx xx KJxx xxx: that is a hand that should respond 1N and then take a preference back to 2♥ and then happily raise 2N to 3N.

 

indeed, it is precisely because you may have this hand-type that your partner was correct to rebid 2N. 2N didn't ask whether you had 4-5 hcp...it asked whether you held 8-10!

 

At the risk of being repetitive: your sequence to 2♥ did not promise a heart raise. It didn't deny a horrible, horrible raise (in which case partner would play in 3♥, perhaps too high) but neither did it deny a useful hand with 2 hearts and an inability to do more than take a preference.

 

Sorry, but if you don't 'get it' after this post, I would indeed vote you off to the rubber room.

[the hog]

I'm the partner.

 

To reply directly to the above: With my sub-minimal values, a 1♠ response MIGHT find 4-4, but on the more-likely occurrence of a 1N rebid by partner, my "forced" correction to 2♥ would imply more values than I actually had. With essentially a one-call hand (that call being a weak-♥-raise, going through 1N to slow down the auction) I don't want to over bid before having limited my hand.

 

A lot has been said that boils down to "send me to the rubber room" but with my balanced 5HCP including an A, any advance by partner after my 2♥ must show extras, and I have about the top of my weak-raise, 1N-2♥ range, so another call BY ME has to be appropriate. 3♥ is still just a simple, weak preference, and can be done with a LOT less than an A (I'm likely to compete with the same sequence with J-4th and K-3rd...nature of my game is to slow down by starting with a forcing 1N and taking the preference...then competing to 3♥ if the opponents come in).

 

If the continuation over 2♥ had been 2♠, NO WAY would I consider a raise! I know, as responder, that partner has extras, AND I know that we have a fit in ♥. If he really has extra values AND a 4-cd ♠ suit, he could have reversed at his first rebid (which is NOT necessarily game-forcing, as people seem to think a JS to 3♣ would be...). So, now I can decide if my hand WITH 3-cd ♥ support is worth a game (which I think it is) or just a wimpy return to 3♥ (and if I'm not bidding 3♥/2N then I'm not bidding 3-only-♥/2♠ either). AND 2N is an option for me (which partner should correct to 3♥ on his KQJ-6-baggger with a stiff ♦, and he's THEN conveyed his ENTIRE hand).

 

BUT: MY partner's 2N advance implies a balanced hand with extras. And now I think, maybe 9 tricks is easier than 10. Partner never conveyed his ♦ weakness/shortness. And even if I have Jxxx there, without SOLID ♥ what's the point? If he's not passing 2♥, then I have to find the right game with my A+J. 2N just lead me to the wrong guess.

 

So call the rubber room on me...I STILL think that when Opener advances showing a balanced hand opposite no more than a weak preference, responder should be bidding game at IMPs. And with a 4x3, that game seems more likely to be in NT.

 

 

As may be clear from the above, I also agree with what Mr. Herrmann said.

 

I disagree totally with the above. Using your logic xxxxx xx Ax Jx should respond 1NTY to 1H. This is clearly absurd. I disagree that a 1S bid followed by a preference to 2H shows any extra values at all and I wonder from where you are getting this idea.