mentor/mentee disagreement #3

[gszes]

2d rebid promises an unbalanced hand (we strain to rebid NT if reasonable)

So how do we proceed and why????? Does your partnership have a firm

agreement on this bidding???

[hrothgar]

2d rebid promises an unbalanced hand (we strain to rebid NT if reasonable)

So how do we proceed and why????? Does your partnership have a firm

agreement on this bidding???

 

I prefer a style in which a 2NT rebid is a probe for 3N based on the quality of the long minor

If I have such a tool available I'll bid, otherwise I'll pass

[billw55]

I have invitational strength with good controls, so I give partner a 3♦ raise and an option to continue to 3NT. This also discourages balancing.

[wank]

obviously you hope to get to 3nt by partner's hand. the way to get there is to bid 3d. not making a game try would be beyond pathetic - it's not hard to count 6 diamonds, 2 bangers and 1 trick from partner to give him enough to open the bidding. i would much rather jump to 3nt than pass 2d.

[chasetb]

Obviously you hope to get to 3NT by partner's hand. The way to get there is to bid 3♦. Not making a game try would be beyond pathetic - it's not hard to count 6 diamonds, 2 bangers and 1 trick from partner to give him enough to open the bidding. I would much rather jump to 3NT than pass 2♦.

My thoughts exactly. + quite a few.

[aguahombre]

obviously you hope to get to 3nt by partner's hand. the way to get there is to bid 3d. not making a game try would be beyond pathetic - it's not hard to count 6 diamonds, 2 bangers and 1 trick from partner to give him enough to open the bidding. i would much rather jump to 3nt than pass 2d.

My thoughts exactly. + quite a few.

I don't think 3D should even be invitational (just a nuisance raise) and chose the 3NT blast.

[P_Marlowe]

2D showes a six card suit in the given seq., hence we have a fit.

I have a hand worth an inv. raise, I make the inv. raise.

 

 

This would be more of a problem hand, if I had responded with 1S

instead of 1H, swap hearts with club.

 

I think the hand is still worth another bid, which would be 2NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gszes]

I am quite surprised to see the varying opinion here but even more interesting to me

was the fact no one chose a 2s bid. Majors/NT/minors. The 2s bid here would seem

to be merely a way of showing extra values and exploring NT. I see no reason why

this hand should arbitrarily bid 3n when there is no club stop and it is very easy to

show this type of hand by bidding 2s.

 

Opener has shown an unbalanced hand is it possible that clubs is opener's short suit?

I say this because while 3n might be the right contract if opener is short in clubs 5d or

even 6d might be possible and a jump to 3n makes it impossible to find.

 

Axxx Axxx Qx xxx opposite Kxx Kxx AKJxxx x gives us a very good chance of making

5d while 3n may make or wither away at down 1 or 2 before we have a chance. If

opener has a little more or a club void 6d becomes reasonable. Bidding 2s showing

a problem with NT and the only problem left is clubs.

 

Rather than open a new dialog on this what is the meaning of a 2s bid here??? I am

curious. Please don't recite a mantra similar to I am balanced therefore I bid like I

am balanced. Opener is unbalanced but we have no idea where and therefore we

should be concerned about NT as a final contract. This is a good topic for discussion.

[Winstonm]

This hand is so much better than it started I could not conceive of passing. First, Aces are undervalued in the point-count system and I have 2 of them. Second, my Qx of diamonds at first was of dubious value but now has taken on a much improved role, from quite useful up to and including gigantic card. My hand evaluates to 13-14, but it is not a game forcing hand.

 

I think it is somewhat simplistic to think only 3NT is in play as a possible game. Kxx, Qx, AKxxxxx, x gives us a reasonable 5D contract.

 

My bid would be 3D and I hope partner can keep the bidding alive.

[the hog]

3D for me. You have to make a try with 2 Aces and th DQ

[aguahombre]

I don't believe partner will accept with the right eleven or twelve count. Hence, I stick with the 3NT blast.

 

How about the right ten-count with four baby clubs, or only three and the hope they break 4-3?

[EricK]

It looked like an obvious 3♦ to me. I have read the countervailing opinions and they are only slightly persuasive. So my bid is still 3♦. I believe partner will bid 3NT with the right minimum - as this would have to include ♦AK, and he will assume they are running.

[PhilKing]

2NT.

 

In auctions where opener's rebid promises six, it makes sense to play 2NT as forcing, since if partner does not want to raise to 3NT, 3♦ will usually be an equal or better partscore. 2♠ is more descriptive, but it is game-forcing for me.

 

My first thought was to bash 3NT, but partner just does not hold the nut minimum (Kx xx AKJxxx xxx) often enough.

[gszes]

2NT.

 

In auctions where opener's rebid promises six, it makes sense to play 2NT as forcing, since if partner does not want to raise to 3NT, 3♦ will usually be an equal or better partscore. 2♠ is more descriptive, but it is game-forcing for me.

 

My first thought was to bash 3NT, but partner just does not hold the nut minimum (Kx xx AKJxxx xxx) often enough.

 

I am curious if the bidding had gone p p 1d 1h 2d p would 2s then be a viable bid since you were

already limited as a passed hand??? If that is so, why would you limit your ability to search for nt

by making the 2s bid game forcing instead of invitational or greater?? I ask this of you because you

were the only one to address my question about 2s.:)

[PhilKing]

I am curious if the bidding had gone p p 1d 1h 2d p would 2s then be a viable bid since you were

already limited as a passed hand??? If that is so, why would you limit your ability to search for nt

by making the 2s bid game forcing instead of invitational or greater?? I ask this of you because you

were the only one to address my question about 2s.:)

 

I actually do something off the wall here:

 

2♠ = relay, opener bids 2NT as a default, unless extreme

2NT = nat GF

3♦ = nat GF

 

after 2♠-2NT:

 

3♣ = 4♥, 6♣, inv

3♦ = inv

3♥ = inv (direct 3♥ GF)

3♠ = ♥+♠values (can bid 2NT GF with club honour)

 

I hope this helps. :ph34r:

 

Playing standard, I prefer 2♠ to be game forcing by an unpassed hand. Subsequent auctions gain more clarity when we are strong, at the cost of some loss of accuracy on one specific invitational hand.

 

Has your mentee seen the poll results? :rolleyes:

[inquiry]

Playing mentor-mentee this is an easy 3♦ rebid.

 

There has been a discussion of a 2♠ rebid (merits, etc) with PhllKing suggesting if he was a passed hand, he would bid 2♠ (transfer to 2NT unless extreme) and 2NT (instead of 2♠ being gameforce). Well, as a passed hand, you are unlikely to have a game force hand, so I wonder if he meant that if this ten hcp was not a passed hand.

 

The method he describes is almost exactly the method proposed by Krzysztof Martens in one of his books. Specifically for him1♦ - 1♥

2♦ - ?

 

He plays

 

• 2♠ = concentration of values, looking for NT if partner can stop the other suit (and difference between 2NT and 3NT rebid by opener is max or min for 2♦ rebid).
• 2NT = game force, likely notrump contract, opener describes his hand by raising hearts with three, bidding a singleton if he has one (3♦ is singleton heart), or bidding 3NT otherwise.
• 3♣ = similar to 2♠ but now, looing for spade stoppers
• 3♦ = natural, invitational
• 3NT = might be thin game no fit, but will have black suit stopped (other option is pass with such hands if "thin")

So if you happened to have read Martens' waiting bid theories. Instead of blasting 3NT, you could try 2♠ and get to notrump from the correct side if you have six diamond, three major sit winners and a positional stopper in clubs (like say Kx) opposite.. for instance Kxx xx AKTxxx Kx where you hope to scramble home with 9 tricks. IF partner held KQx xxx AKJxxx x you get to a lame 3♦ but you are not off the first five club tricks.

 

I am not suggesting anyone play this. IT is just philking's posting brought back the memories of reading that in a book of Krzysztof's at last years Summer Nationals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PhilKing]

Playing mentor-mentee this is an easy 3♦ rebid.

 

There has been a discussion of a 2♠ rebid (merits, etc) with PhllKing suggesting if he was a passed hand, he would bid 2♠ (transfer to 2NT unless extreme) and 2NT (instead of 2♠ being gameforce). Well, as a passed hand, you are unlikely to have a game force hand, so I wonder if he meant that if this ten hcp was not a passed hand.

 

The method he describes is almost exactly the method proposed by Krzysztof Martens in one of his books. Specifically for him1♦ - 1♥

2♦ - ?

 

He plays

 

• 2♠ = concentration of values, looking for NT if partner can stop the other suit (and difference between 2NT and 3NT rebid by opener is max or min for 2♦ rebid).
• 2NT = game force, likely notrump contract, opener describes his hand by raising hearts with three, bidding a singleton if he has one (3♦ is singleton heart), or bidding 3NT otherwise.
• 3♣ = similar to 2♠ but now, looing for spade stoppers
• 3♦ = natural, invitational
• 3NT = might be thin game no fit, but will have black suit stopped (other option is pass with such hands if "thin")

So if you happened to have read Martens' waiting bid theories. Instead of blasting 3NT, you could try 2♠ and get to notrump from the correct side if you have six diamond, three major sit winners and a positional stopper in clubs (like say Kx) opposite.. for instance Kxx xx AKTxxx Kx where you hope to scramble home with 9 tricks. IF partner held KQx xxx AKJxxx x you get to a lame 3♦ but you are not off the first five club tricks.

 

I am not suggesting anyone play this. IT is just philking's posting brought back the memories of reading that in a book of Krzysztof's at last years Summer Nationals.

 

FWIW you have the wrong end of the stick as to what I was suggesting - 2♠ is obviously not a relay as a passed hand. Nor do I play 2NT and 3♦ as game forcing having passed.

 

I know technically it reads as though I did say that, but it ain't so. I was describing my methods in general, but everything is nat by a passed hand.