am I being unreasonable?

[Cyberyeti]

Would definitely have bid 3♦ not 2♦.

[ArtK78]

Several posters are suggesting that North should have rebid 3♦, not 2♦. I don't think that the North hand is good enough to bid 3♦, but I can understand the bid. The North hand has a lot of playing stregth ASSUMING THAT THE HAND IS PLAYED IN DIAMONDS. In any other contract, the playing strength of the North hand is not as clear.

[aguahombre]

It has the potential to provide eight tricks in NoTrump, also; which is more than I can say for all my 2NT opening bids.

[jillybean]

Whether we like South's jump to 3NT or not is moot. The key meta-rule is:

 

When you have made a description of your hand, and partner places the contract in 3NT, IT IS TIME TO STOP THINKING and get ready to put down your hand as dummy.

 

If you think you haven't adequately described your hand, that ship has sailed. The time to think about that was when you rebid 2D.

 

I have never disagreed with a post as vehmently as I disagree with this response. After I make a minimum rebid,(11-15) albeit wide ranging one, and partner jumps to 3NT I will always continue to think and reevaluate my hand. fwiw, I think the hand is closer to a 2♦ rebid than 3♦.

 

edited to include range of my typical minimum rebid in this auction.

[aguahombre]

I have never disagreed with a post as vehmently as I disagree with this response. After I make a minimum rebid, albeit wide ranging one, and partner jumps to 3NT I will always continue to think and reevaluate my hand. fwiw, I think the hand is closer to a 2♦ rebid than 3♦.

I have no doubt those are things you believe. A minimum rebid is not wide ranging; it is a limited bid. 1H-1S--2D is wide ranging...11-18. 1D-1M-2d should not be wide ranging. What you believe doesn't change that.

[Cyberyeti]

I have never disagreed with a post as vehmently as I disagree with this response. After I make a minimum rebid,(11-15) albeit wide ranging one, and partner jumps to 3NT I will always continue to think and reevaluate my hand. fwiw, I think the hand is closer to a 2♦ rebid than 3♦.

 

edited to include range of my typical minimum rebid in this auction.

 

The point is that if your 2♦ rebid is more tightly defined, you don't need to think over 3N. This hand is 7 playing tricks, exactly what a classical 3♦ bid shows. Counting points is the wrong approach here, count tricks.

 

If you're going to play them as wide ranging as this, I suggest using a Bourke relay or similar (I believe that would be 2♠ in classical Bourke, but we use 2♥).

[GrahamJson]

Playing on BBO with an unknown partner I think it best to keep it simple and bid 3 nt. With a regular partner use your favourite methods.

 

Incidentally, it is usually best for the lead to come up to Ax, not through it. E.g opposite QJ or J10x.

[lamford]

Would definitely have bid 3♦ not 2♦.

If anything it is slightly too good for 3♦ which partner will pass with xxx xxxx xxx Axx for sure. I did not comment on this thread until now because of the ludicrous 2♦ bid. However, I think that the hand should now bid 4♦, a diamond slam try, which basically says, "I should have bid 3♦ last time." I will then respect the sign-off in 4NT, which I hope partner will not make on the hand he had. I would not confuse partner with 4♣ which must be a self-splinter for diamonds, although I think that is the better bid.

[jmcilkley]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8hkq985dqt9cq98&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1dp1hp2dp]133|200[/hv]

 

your bid? "Standard methods" , the only forcing bid here is 2♠,3♣

Absolutely NOT 2s - we don#t tell lies about major suits. 3c is a possibility but where are we going? What if p replies 3d? There must be a chance for 3nt so I will bid it, especially at imp scoring or teams.

[aguahombre]

Absolutely NOT 2s - we don#t tell lies about major suits. 3c is a possibility but where are we going? What if p replies 3d? There must be a chance for 3nt so I will bid it, especially at imp scoring or teams.

This is theory only, since you should not have to make that choice on the given board. However, "we don't tell lies about major suits" --while a generally good idea -- does not apply here.

 

1D-1H

2D-? 2S is a bid in a suit which partner cannot hold; so there is no danger of ending in a silly spade contract. It is also the cheapest bid which establishes a game-force; it can't be all that bad.

[m1cha]

So this has finally become a controversial thread, and funny too. (Considering, for instance, that initially the 3NT bid was rated too strong by some and later too weak by others :) .)

 

I think 3NT shows just the right strength for a hand with values for an opening bid opposite a weak opening hand. And yes, bidding game shows values for game and not much more, so partner is expected to pass with any previously limited hand! This can be different after a sequence such as 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 3NT when opener is, well, theoretically limited but in a very wide range and may still have 19 HCP rather than the promised 12 HCP and then may start a slam try.

 

Anyway, once one is reasonably sure what the final contract should be, one should bid it. The question here is: Should we go for 3NT or 5♦? I believe that, while 3NT will sometimes fall and 5♦ will make or not, 3NT should be the winning alternative with this hand in the long run. So I would bid 3NT with a hand like this if ... I had 4 cards in ♥. But having 5 cards in ♥, 4♥ is an attractive alternative and we should give partner the opportunity of showing 3-card ♥ support. For this reason, mainly, we should force on with 2♠ or 3♣ here rather than bid 3NT. Which of them is better? Usually I don't like bidding artificial major suits. With minors it is less likely that things will go wrong. On the other hand, the problem with 3♣ here is that opener may still have a 4-card ♣ suit and raise to 4♣, and then the attractive 3NT contract is lost. For this reason I would prefer 2♠ here unless I see a significant probability that opener still has a 4-card ♠ suit which I think should not be the case. With 6-4 in ♦ and ♠ they would rebid 1♠ rather than 2♦, or perhaps not? Anyway, a bid of 3♠ can be corrected to 3NT, and in the unlikely case of 4♠ it can be corrected to 5♦.

 

This brings us to the North hand. I can understand that some prefer to bid 2♦ with just 12 HCP, and indeed if partner does not support ♦ and opps' ♦s split badly, and if the entry to the North hand is lost and we cannot establish the ♦ suit, then 3NT, 4♥ or higher may end up in a terrible desaster. But that is a lot of 'if's. I think one should be less pessimistic here and reasonably hope that the ♦ cards turn out useful, and then this hand has 7.5 playing tricks certainly worth a jump to 3♦ which should bring us close enough to a slam.

 

This sequence, 1♦ - 1♥ / 2♦ - 3NT / 4♦, by the way, I am not sure what I would think of it. Does it really mean "I should have bid 3♦ earlier, and I hope to play a slam now" or does it mean "I should have opened 3♦ and 3NT has no chance"? It is usually a bad idea to correct one's former bid even if you realize it was bad; because if you try to correct it, partner will often draw the wrong conclusions from your activity and not react as expected. While if you stick with your decision it will likely not make a difference; and if it does, it will sometimes even be good; and if it is not, you apologize and move on. We all should be allowed to make mistakes.

[fourdad]

Seems to me that if the hand was good enough for N to think of slam, it was good enough for N to completely describe the strength of the hand by bidding 3D, 2D shows a minimum and 3NT would be a shut out. If N bids the 16-18 point jump raise, then S should be excited for slam and ask aces.

[dave_beer]

Conditions are that the only forcing bids are 2♠ & 3♣.

 

I think that 2♠ is only forcing to 2NT or 3♦, while 3♣ is forcing to 3NT or 4♦. If I am going to force to game, as I am here, then I make the bid that shows where my features are and I would bid 3♣ on the given hand.

 

If I have a game-forcing hand with nothing in either black suit, then I have a problem. My preferred version of inverted minor raises allows me to raise with a 4-card major and longer ♦ but you can do this only if you either play weak NT or do it with game-forcing hands. With other hands that don't have a singleton, I might have made a strong jump shift (if playing them) or I might rebid 4♦ here.

 

I am aware of two approaches that probably do better: "The Bourke Relay" by David Bird & Tim Bourke (Bridge World July 1996) or "TSAR" by Jeff Rubens (Bridge World web-site under Esoterica). They both use the cheapest new suit bid as a relay.

[steve2005]

blasting out a slam when you were willing to play in 2♦ if partner has ill fitting 10. Now partner could have an ill-fitting 13 and you want to be in slam? I vote unreasonable.

[PhantomSac]

Imo 2s should be the artificial force. It is cheaper, and we are less likely to have a spade fit

 

If you want an even simpler solution, you can play that in any sequence where opener has promised a six card or longer suit, 2NT is forcing.

 

If partscore is the limit, it is very unlikely that 2NT is your best spot.

 

JB needs more gadgets imo. B-)

 

Combining these two together, 2S art forcing showing 5 hearts, 2N F1 showing 4 hearts. So over 2N you don't need to worry about showing 3 hearts, you can play 3D min, 3suit shortness (including 3H), 3N max no shortness. I play this in some partnerships and quite like it (though in precision I play 3C as natural since 6-4 always rebids 2D, in standard I think you can play 3C shortness since 6-4 will typically bid 2C unless the diamonds are very good).

 

Anyways, sorry for the system derail, definitely agree that AKJxxxx and an ace should rebid 3D. The hand has too much trick taking potential not for diamonds but for NOTRUMP.

[mycroft]

1m-1M; 2m is really ugly in standard. 11-15? A random 3163 16-count is going to bid 3♦? A random 1354 16-count has to bid 3♦? I believe that you have to strain to bid after this auction, in case partner has top of her range; which may lead to some horrible 3♦ contracts when partner has a misfitting minimum, but avoids the "so, I know 3♦ is NF, but can I afford to pass this, or is this the last undoubled spot?"

 

I agree 1♥-1♠; 2m is even worse.

 

With the original hand I would have bid 2♠ and then 3NT, like many above - I'm looking for 5-3 hearts. Now I'm making a stronger action, I know, than 3NT directly, and if North is looking for slam in that auction, with all those losers partner's random 13 needs to cover, then I may be in 7 when she knows I can cover the spades and the hearts.

 

North's hand is one of those "points are irrelevant, pd, I need controls" hands that are very hard to captain on; also hard to do something other than 1♦, 2♦, 3♦ on as well. Hopefully, 2NT is "forcing, and possibly artificial" after 2♠ so that some way to say "my diamonds are REAL, not just long" is possible. [Edit: as usual, Phantom above shows me why I should stay a TD first, player second. His logic just READS.]

 

P.S. slam bidding is definitely a weak part of my game.

[MrAce]

1m-1M; 2m is really ugly in standard. 11-15? A random 3163 16-count is going to bid 3♦? A random 1354 16-count has to bid 3♦?

 

Opening 1m and then jumping to 3m is mostly about suit quality and length and quality of values, rather than quantity of hcps to me. For example AKQxxx A 13 hcp is good enough for 3m while a AJxxxx suit and 15 hcp is not, at least not for me.

[overruff42]

If you are really thinking about slam here, your rebid should have been 3D, not two. The seventh diamond is key, it allows you to play opposite a singleton, and it makes your hand worth almost eight tricks on its own. 2D is a significant underbid. Over 3D, partner will see the slam possibility, and should bid 3S or 4D. The bypass of 3NT indicates a tolerance for slam exploration, and a cue bidding sequence should get there

[jdgalt]

Partner is bidding like he holds only a minimum opener. (With 16+ he should have jumped or reversed at turn two.) And if I bid either red suit, I promise length I haven't got. Therefore: 3NT at IMPs, 2NT at matchpoints. If he wants to go on, it's on him.

[uday]

I like this hand a lot. It highlights the underlying awkwardness - responder can't make a forcing raise in Diamonds, where there is a known 9-card fit.

 

Sure, 2S might work if opener bids 2N or 3C, allowing responder to bid 3D. But 3C, tho more normal, leaves responder awkwardly placed if opener rebids 3D. 3S then, to suggest club weakness? Imperfect, bec. opener might have a partial club stopper.

 

I think in std. you have to take your chances with 3C...

 

Of course opener "shouldn't" move over 3N but you can see why she's tempted to, esp. if pard might have Qxx in clubs :)

 

This is an awkward sequence, and I think you can't expect much in the way of accuracy

[akwoo]

What about opener rebidding 3N? Or should you really have AKQxxxx in diamonds for that?

[the hog]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8hkq985dqt9cq98&n=s973ha6dakj6432c6&d=w&v=0&b=14&a=p1dp1hp2dp3n]266|200[/hv]

 

 

I'm North here and I'm thinking slam, not game. After I heard 3N, I pushed to slam, UNfortunately the wrong slam which was entirely my fault.

 

Partner and I had a good discussion about this hand afterwards, I thought the 3N bid makes it very difficult for me and if he is going to

game, why not temporize with 3♣ and hear what more I have to say.

 

Your hand is a clear pass of 3NT. I already said I do not like the 3NT bid as it might wrongside the contract. However how many times do you intend to bid your hand?

[jillybean]

delete

[whereagles]

Although this is not the main reason for problems, I agree N hand is a 3♦ rebid (albeit a min one). It could go

 

1♦ 1♥

3♦ ??

 

Now it depends on South. If she bids 3NT, stick to it. Else it might proceed

 

.... 3♥ (forcing.. you can't bid properly otherwise)

4♦ 4♠ (cue.. can't be anything else)

4N 5♦

6♦

[Jinksy]

A random 1354 16-count has to bid 3♦?

 

Well no... that hand rebids 2♣.