What would you have done?

[humilities]

Playing 2/1 as South... the only good slam is the one suit we did not bid.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk987htdakq5cak32&n=sajhaq6543dj987cj&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hp1sp2hp3cp3np4nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

It's a given on this acution that North's Diamonds are at least Jxxx, right?

 

If South had bid 4♦ over 3NT would your partnership be 100% that this was natural and slamming in Diamonds? Will partner look at Jxxx and know that's what I am meaning - in his mind he could just as easily have QJx?

 

I didn't feel 4D was clear... we do play kickback though we have not discussed 4♦ on this particular auction - it doesn't make sense as kickback. 4D would have surely been RKC over any 4C bid...

 

How would you get there?

[mike777]

Is north allowed to rebid 2d over 1s? I don't view that north hand as a dead minimum opening bid...in fact I would say it is a decent opener. 2d would tell partner 9 of my cards..2h told partner about 6 of them.

 

Is north allowed to rebid 3d over 3c?

[kuhchung]

I'd rebid 2D at my first opportunity with N.

 

I'd bid 2C at my first opportunity with S.

 

I have to say I still don't know how my auction would go, but that's how it'd start.

[ggwhiz]

I don't mind north bidding 2♥ over 1♠ but 3nt instead of 3♦ is a serious error with a hand that could well belong in spades or hearts, crappy diamonds and a suit oriented hand. Let alone the diamond slam.

 

4♦ is forcing as I don't know anyone who pulls 3nt to play a partscore but north can't have that hand.

[awm]

The auction should start:

 

1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦

 

after which getting to slam is easy. Bidding 2♣ with the south hand is a lot better because it sets up the immediate game force. Even if north rebids 2♦ over 1♠ (which I would), forcing to game now will be awkward (basically you have to bid 3♣, which doesn't even set the suit). This also avoids a possibly-awkward 2♠ raise on three-card support from north (which is often good but we don't really want to hear on this hand).

[1eyedjack]

1♠ response does not deny a game force in my book. To those who advocate 2♣, I ask, with GF values and 4+♠ and a second suit, what rules determine whether (if ever) you respond 1♠?

[awm]

1♠ response does not deny a game force in my book. To those who advocate 2♣, I ask, with GF values and 4+♠ and a second suit, what rules determine whether (if ever) you respond 1♠?

 

With five spades I respond 1♠ (exception for 5♠-6m). With four spades and a game-force I tend to respond 2m, although there are exceptions if the spades are really strong and the minor really weak, or if I don't have a four-card minor.

[Endymion77]

I agree with the initial 2♥ rebid but over 3♣ North should rebid 3♦ to show his shapely hand and then it's easy.

[aguahombre]

H-H-D, IMO, is fine for North. H-D-H is ok without more strength, but I wouldn't do it with a JXXX suit. The problem was North's 3NT bid; he doesn't know where South wants to go, but he shouldn't be showing 1-6-3-3 with a Diamond stopper when he has 2-6-4-1 without a Diamond stopper.

 

South's sequence thru 3C allowed for 4-4 fits in either minor, avoided a 4-3 fit, and was correct, IMO.

[mike777]

Interesting that on this very common, basic deal you get players that prefer to rebid 2h..some prefer to rebid 2d and some prefer to respond with 2c rather than 1s. All assuming we play some common version of 2/1. :)

[MrAce]

1♠ response does not deny a game force in my book. To those who advocate 2♣, I ask, with GF values and 4+♠ and a second suit, what rules determine whether (if ever) you respond 1♠?

 

 

Experienced players learnt this over the years that when responder has 4 ♠ and a strong hand, especially very strong hand like in this case, starting 1♠ creates a huge problem.

 

1♥--1♠

2♦

2♥

 

rebids by opener will screw up ***** loads of space for responder. Because now responder can not raise diamonds simply, it would be NF. Regardless of responder found a ♦ fit or not, he will now have to make a 3 level forcing call, it doesn't even have to be natural. He will end up A-not being able to show dia fit and settle in 3 NT B-He will try to show and leave the 3NT heaven behind. Opener will often focus on spade suit, thinking that pd may hold 5 or more spades. It will be very hard to effectively manage the auction.

 

With that type of hands if you start 2/1 response, you do not need any of these, having already made a GF bid, you will be able to just bid w/o worrying about forcing non-forcing bids, without having to go to 3 level and make artificial bids. So in theory you are right that 1♠ response looks perfectly fine, but in practice it usually creates huge problems. OP is just one of those examples that happens everyday.

 

Having said that, in the OP auction, N should have bid 3♦. It is still the N, who was in fault, regardless of his pd could have made it easy for him or not.

[the hog]

The auction should start 1H 1S 2D. I am always amused at those who think a 1H 1S start makes the auction difficult. Perhaps it does if you cannot bid properly. I don't mind bidding 2C on a balanced hand, and frequently do, but it does deny 4S for me.

[aguahombre]

The auction should start 1H 1S 2D. I am always amused at those who think a 1H 1S start makes the auction difficult. Perhaps it does if you cannot bid properly. I don't mind bidding 2C on a balanced hand, and frequently do, but it does deny 4S for me.

That is a bit harsh, even though I agree with the concept. Would have worded it differently, however...that 1H-1S is sometimes a problem start, which proper continuation agreements can easily overcome without resorting (distorting?) to a 2/1 with 4-4 in the minor and spades.

[mike777]

I will go out on a limb and say both 1s or 2c may lead to problems......just which one will work out more often. We cannot even agree to rebid 2h or 2d?

 

It comes back to north will north bid 2d or 2h ...or 3d over 3c or 3nt? How about over 2nt by responder? Will north still just rebid 3nt?

 

1h=2c

2h=2nt?

3nt?

 

who knows?

 

for that reason I still prefer north rebid 2d...with what I call a "decent" opener

[Antrax]

I don't understand the 3NT rebid after 3♣. Given that things didn't go differently earlier, what's wrong with denying three spades, while showing the 6-4 in the reds? Is Jxxx such a hot stopper anyway?

[the hog]

That is a bit harsh, even though I agree with the concept. Would have worded it differently, however...that 1H-1S is sometimes a problem start, which proper continuation agreements can easily overcome without resorting (distorting?) to a 2/1 with 4-4 in the minor and spades.

 

Perhaps it was a bit harsh, but I get cross when I read comments like "Experienced players learnt this over the years...." An insulting and erroneous comment to say the least.

 

Lets analyse this a bit. Lets say the bidding goes

1H 2C

Now for many of us a 2S bid would show extra values, so you are forced to rebid 2H with a 45xx. (Ok some would bid 2S, but as you know this leads to other problems of showing values. Also responer has not shown a genuine C suit so opener will have some difficulties evaluation lower C hons)

1H 2C

2H

Now responder with the bal hand is forced to bid 2NT. Don't tll me the responder can bid 2S, Ifyou claim that a 2S bid is possible, you are suggesting you would bid the same way with long Cs and 4S.

So, worst case, how do you you distinguish between 4xx6 or 4xx5 or 4225? Are you, (not you AGH), suggestion that it is good bidding to treat these hands the same way?

 

A few weeks ago I posed this conundrum on Bride Winners. Nearly all respondents claimed that with the balanced hand, resp was forced to bid 2NT to show the balanced hand type. So now you have this sequence:

1H 2C

2H 2N

3S.

This is the first time that this pair will find a S fit with 45xx opposite 4xx4.

Contrast his with

1H 1S

2S

granted, at this stage you do not know if it is a 4-4 fit but you bid 2N to get clarification and shape showing. What's the problem?

 

I said before that a 2C bid on a bal hand without 4S is almost certainly the best start, but to say that the 1H 1S sequence is a problem one is silly to say the least

[MrAce]

The auction should start 1H 1S 2D. I am always amused at those who think a 1H 1S start makes the auction difficult. Perhaps it does if you cannot bid properly. I don't mind bidding 2C on a balanced hand, and frequently do, but it does deny 4S for me.

 

LOL

 

Perhaps it was a bit harsh, but I get cross when I read comments like "Experienced players learnt this over the years...." An insulting and erroneous comment to say the least.

 

Lets analyse this a bit. Lets say the bidding goes

1H 2C

Now for many of us a 2S bid would show extra values, so you are forced to rebid 2H with a 45xx. (Ok some would bid 2S, but as you know this leads to other problems of showing values. Also responer has not shown a genuine C suit so opener will have some difficulties evaluation lower C hons)

1H 2C

2H

Now responder with the bal hand is forced to bid 2NT. Don't tll me the responder can bid 2S, Ifyou claim that a 2S bid is possible, you are suggesting you would bid the same way with long Cs and 4S.

So, worst case, how do you you distinguish between 4xx6 or 4xx5 or 4225? Are you, (not you AGH), suggestion that it is good bidding to treat these hands the same way?

 

Afew weeks ago I posed thus conundrum on Bride Winners. Near;y all respondents claimed that with the balanced hand, resp was forced to bid 2NT. So now you have this sequence:

1H 2C

2H 2N

3S.

This is the first time that this pair will find a S fit with 45xx opposite 4xx4.

Contrast his with

1H 1S

2S

granted, at this stage you do not know if it is a 4-4 fit but you bid 2N to get clarification and shape showing. What's the problem?

 

I said before that a 2C bid on a bal hand without 4S is almost certainly the best start, but to say that the 1H 1S sequence is a problem one is silly to say the least

 

I see you screwed yourself up in the *** with the methods you have chosen. Yes, you obviously disabled yourself from playing this very easy solution i suggested. But why do i even argue with someone who says 1♥ --2♣ denies 4 card spades, i am still laughing http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

 

 

[the hog]

LOL

 

 

 

I see you screwed yourself up in the *** with the methods you have chosen. Yes, you obviously disabled yourself from playing this very easy solution i suggested. But why do i even argue with someone who says 1♥ --2♣ denies 4 card spades, i am still laughing http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

 

 

 

Well I lol at your typically arrogant and ignorant response. By the way, how have I "screwed yourself up in the ***" What errant nonsense and pusillanimous rubbish.

[cherdano]

Perhaps it was a bit harsh, but I get cross when I read comments like "Experienced players learnt this over the years...." An insulting and erroneous comment to say the least.

You get cross when someone makes a post implying that their way of bidding is clearly the best one, and that other approaches are inferior?

[MrAce]

You get cross when someone makes a post implying that their way of bidding is clearly the best one, and that other approaches are inferior?

Good one ! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

 

 

[PhilKing]

When North bid 3NT, it should have been obvious to South that he had J9xx or JTxx. South could just bid 6♦ there and then.

 

Quite a lot of the answers focus on how North or South could have bid differently on the early rounds, but the auction up until 3NT worked pretty well. Personally, I play that in ABACD auctions, D shows shows an anti-positional holding such as Axx, so I agree with 3NT, but that is neither here nor there. Nor does it matter that I disagree with 1♠ and agree with 2♥. All the actions thus far were reasonably descriptive - South simply dropped the ball over 3NT.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

H-H-D, IMO, is fine for North. H-D-H is ok without more strength, but I wouldn't do it with a JXXX suit.

H-H-D ( 6-6-4 ) shows a weaker hand than H-D-H ( 6-4-6 ).

 

1H - 2C! ( 2/1 GF )

2H - 3D

4D! - ?? [ But will North really bid 4D instead of 3NT ? or 3S asking for ( another ) stop ]

....... 4H ( 1st step = negative slam aspirations ; Zelandakh treatment )

....... 4S ( 2nd step = 0/3 )

....... 4NT ( = 1/4 )

....... 5C ( = 2 - ♦Q )

....... 5D ( = 2 + ♦Q )

After:

....... 4S

4NT ( next step = ♦Q-ask )

....... 5C ( ♦Q + ♣K )

6D

[aguahombre]

H-H-D ( 6-6-4 ) shows a weaker hand than H-D-H ( 6-4-6 ).

Another discussion we have had on these fora previously, and another case of differing style, not of "what is".

 

We believed for a very long time as you do about H-H-D vs H-D-H...that using the second case to show more strength was the best approach. We have been de-convinced by BBFr's to a compromise position where we use 6-4-6 unless (as in this case) the lower suit is very weak.

 

The auction you provided in the above post would get it done for you if (and only if) Opener believes Responder's 2nd-round 3D bid is real rather than a probe, and if with some other opening bid Pard is not fooled into thinking you have longer Clubs with extreme spade shortness.

 

When (on some other opening hand) rot sets in and Partner asks, "Where is the hand you held during the auction?" You might consider that initial 1S response might have been better.

 

We still believe the real problem was North's failure to ever introduce the Diamond suit, not the choice of black suit response initially. We also believe that the Flannery adherents and the "2C G.F. balanced or natural" folks will weigh in heavily for 2C instead of 1S, skewing the alleged consensus about the choice of initial response.

[Endymion77]

Another discussion we have had on these fora previously, and another case of differing style, not of "what is".

 

It's not a matter of style. H-H-D lets responder take preference without raising the level, which he can't do after H-D-H. So it makes sense to bid H-H-D with the weaker hands and H-D-H with the stronger hands, just like reverses show extra strength.

[aguahombre]

It's not a matter of style. H-H-D lets responder take preference without raising the level, which he can't do after H-D-H. So it makes sense to bid H-H-D with the weaker hands and H-D-H with the stronger hands, just like reverses show extra strength.

Yep, that was our previous take on it. Now, we pretty much have listened to the idea about showing 9+ cards of our hand rather than just 6. I hope that doesn't mean we don't have style :rolleyes: I consider it flexibility in our old age.