Bidding disagreement

[ArtDa]

My Hand

S - A-K-J-x-x-x

H K

D K-Q-7-x-x

C x

 

Partner's Hand

S Q-x

H J-x-x

D 9-x-x

C A-10-9-8-x

 

The Bidding - (opponents silent)

 

Me Pard

1 S 1 NT

2 D 2 NT

3 S Pass

 

Partner says that if I bid my spades again at my second turn, he will know I have 6 and will raise me.

I say that doing so will define a weak hand with 6 S. Bidding diamonds and then rebidding Spades

shows 6 S and a better hand than his version. What say thou?

[Endymion77]

Your partner: he should correct 2♦ to 2♠. 2NT is unbelievable.

 

You: 2♦ is an underbid but is surely better than a 2♠ rebid (I would rate 2♦ 4/10 and 2♠ 1/10 for opener's rebid).

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

in the given seq. you showed 6 spades, you did repeat them, did you not?

 

So, what ever the merrits of direct bidding 2S, vs. deleayed bidding 2S

are, he should have known, that you have a 6 carder.

 

End of discussion.

 

Of course 2NT is ..., this shows a max. 1 NT response 10/11(12), which I

am not able to find given your partners hand, and also a bal. / semi bal.

hand.

 

Instead of 3S, you could bid 3D, showing 55, or 4D, which would be 65 and

GF, or 4S, as long as you trust p, that 2NT showes a max.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[diana_eva]

I don't think 2D was an underbid. I agree with your bidding, even though you'll get mixed opinions on what is best with this shape. Partner's bidding was flat out wrong as pointed out in previous posts.

[kenberg]

After 1♠-1NT-2♦-2NT(not right, see below)-3♠, I cannot imagine myself or really anyone not raising to 4♠ when I hold Qx. As responder I would reason: I have twice chosen NT instead of showing my spade support, partner has now bid 3♠, he cannot possibly be hoping for better support than Qx in my hand, I also have the ♣A, so 4♠.

 

But, as noted by others, the normal bid over 2♦ is 2♠. I don't have the values for 2NT. For all responder knows, after 1♠-1NT-2♦, opener has a minimum hand. The most likely place to take 8 tricks is in spades. 2♠ shows a hand with nothing to get excited about and either 2 or, perhaps with a bad hand, 3 spades. That's what I have.

 

As to your 2♦, I'm fine with it. There is, I suppose, some risk of being passed out when game is on but really not much.

 

 

You did not say if 1NT is forcing or not. It does not really matter, at least not much, but in a forcing NT the 2NT rebid could be as much as 11 or even 12 while with a non-forcing nt it has to be at the top end of the 6-10 range. I would say a ten count but maybe a fine 9 count. Anyway certainly not a 7 count. This is not a matter of convention, it is simply that 8 tricks in NT are not likely to be available if responder has a 7 count and opener has a minimum. 2♠ would be more likely to have a play.

[ggwhiz]

Your partners 2nt bid was SOOOO bad, they couldn't recover.... unless you are enough of a sucker to take the blame.

 

After perpetrating such a nonsensical bid, questioning partners reasonable actions gives me terminal heartburn.

[neilkaz]

Your PD's bidding here is so bad that if he's turned this into an ATB, I'd be looking for a new PD.

[nige1]

IMO you should rebid ♦ twice, to show 6-5.

In the light of your bidding, partner might upgrade his 7 count because ♠Q and ♣A are good cards. Perhaps ...

YOU ♠ A K J x x x ♥ K ♦ K Q 7 x x ♣ x: 1♠ 2♦ 3♦ 4♠

OXO ♠ Q x ♥ J x x ♦ 9 x x ♣ A T 9 8 x: 1N 2♠ 4♣

[steve2005]

Its called false preference when you show 2 card support for opener's 1st suit ♠ as opposed to passing opener's 2nd suit ♦

 

its a very important bidding concept in standard American as opener can have 15-16 pts and couldn't make a forcing bid and now can make an INV bid

 

 

 

[kenberg]

Let me push this a little farther into an area where I feel less certain.

 

1[♠ -1NT

2♦-2NT

?

 

Let us suppose that the 2NT really shows invitational values, as I think everyone except OP's partner believes it does.

 

Question: is 3♠ passable?

 

It seems to me that 3♦ would be passable, opener may be 5-5 and modest values. The message would be "I really don't think you want to play this in NT pard, please choose between diamonds and spades". Pass would be an allowed choice.

But I think the message with 3♠ should be different, something like "I accept your kind invitation, but I am not so sure about NT. Please choose between 4♠ and 3NT". The logic would be that the details of the spade fit are unknown and with a bad one we would not want to be in 3♠. Since partner will have to bid over 3♠ with a bad fit, it seems that he should be able to raise to 4 with a good fit such as Qx.

 

Does this seem right to others?

[helene_t]

Yes 3sp is forcing.

[PhilKing]

 

Does this seem right to others?

 

Yep. The "standard" theory is that a weak 6-4 rebids 2♠, so 3♠ here is forcing. But you can play a 3♣ puppet over 2NT here and that way you get to show forcing and weak 6-4's.

[PhilKing]

 

Does this seem right to others?

 

Yep. The "standard" theory is that a weak 6-4 rebids 2♠, so 3♠ here is forcing. But you can play a 3♣ puppet over 2NT here and that way you get to show forcing and weak 6-4's.

[PhilKing]

 

Does this seem right to others?

 

Yep. The "standard" theory is that a weak 6-4 rebids 2♠, so 3♠ here is forcing. But you can play a 3♣ puppet over 2NT here and that way you get to show forcing and weak 6-4's.

[kenberg]

And, sticking with standard, over 2NT a bid of 3♦ can be passed? The auction 1♠-1NT-2♦--2NT-3♦ seems to me to be consistent with an invitational hand for responder and a bare minimum hand for opener. Quite possibly 3♦ is the last makeable, or is that makable, contract.

 

I can see where 3♣ could be a useful relay to sort out some things here, I just have never discussed it with anyone.

[PhilKing]

 

Does this seem right to others?

 

Yep. The "standard" theory is that a weak 6-4 rebids 2♠, so 3♠ here is forcing. But you can play a 3♣ puppet over 2NT here and that way you get to show forcing and weak 6-4's.

[neilkaz]

Yes 3sp is forcing.

Yes..this.. since 2NT shows a max for 1NT and a weak opening hand with 6 ♠ would rebid 2♠. I'll again mention that the OP might want to consider playing with someone else next time.

[kenberg]

I am not so severe with the OP's partner, this is the I/A forum. Another thread asks what agreements a new partnership, between partners who have jobs, a family, and an outside life, should have. One response was that they have to sort out what is forcing, what is invitational, what is discouraging. Once we decide that 2NT is invitational, the rest sort of follows logically. Maybe not unequivocally, but close. 1♠-1NT-2♦-2NT, invit, and now, suddenly, opener wants to bid 3♠ to play? No. Or at least not likely, discussed or not. . But clearly OP's pard was thinking of 2NT as "well, I don't seem to fit anything" rather than as an invitational bid. Even then, the pass of 3♠ is a bit weird, but we all start somewhere. As I say, it's I/A and that can include some fairly basic issues. I mean no disrespect in calling this basic. I am no expert myself.

[neilkaz]

Ken, the reason I am severe with the OP's PD is that it seems PD was blaming the OP here for this missed game. One should most certainly expect players at the I/A level to know how to take basic preference back to the promised 5 card(+) suit with two card support and a min for their 1NT. This is basic stuff...OK it's not raw beginner stuff, but it is certainly basic. PD also wanted opener to rebid 2♠ which certainly doesn't show a good 6-5 hand and which should be passed out by responder's min hand. PD also was unaware that 2NT was an invite.

 

I'd be less severe with the OP's PD here had he not turned this into a vigorous discussion and started blaming the OP (who bid perfectly playing S/A). PD here needs to consult a couple of basic bidding books and then apologize.

 

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[kenberg]

Right, I understand. But I had the following experience the other day. I was subbing for the last three or four hands for a tournament. Partner opened 1♦, I responded 1♠, partner raised to 4♠. I looked at my five card spade suit and my 14 count, decided that I had no idea what a response to 4NT would show, so I bid 6♠. Dummy came down with a 13 count. Her call was of course correct, I could take ten tricks.

 

I agree that 1♠-1NT-2♦-2♠ is pretty basic but ....

 

Anyway, I wish them well. It might well be that this partnership will not last.

 

I am comfortable with agreeing that this might well depend on how partner takes the pretty universal criticism of his bidding that has been here.