Very Unusual versus Unusual

[mgoetze]

Vulnerable against not, partner opens 1♣, 2+ clubs, most often 11-13 balanced. RHO bids 2NT showing the red suits.

 

♠ JT9842

♥ -

♦ J2

♣ AJ973

 

Your call? (Agreement is UvU, double shows penalty interest.)

[dicklont]

3♠

[nige1]

Vulnerable against not, partner opens 1♣, 2+ clubs, most often 11-13 balanced. RHO bids 2NT showing the red suits.

♠ J T 9 8 4 2 ♥ - ♦ J 2 ♣ A J 9 7 3

Your call? (Agreement is UvU, double shows penalty interest.)

IMO 3♣ = 10, 3♠ = 9, Pass = 8. Although 3♣ is non-forcing, there is likely to be further bidding. When you later bid ♠, partner may expect your ♣s to be longer than your ♠s but, at least, he'll realize that you're just competing with shape. Given that 3♥ would be forcing with ♠, perhaps 4♠ could mean a hand like this (by agreement). These actions are all a bit fraught, especially at the vulnerability -- although opener will quite often have 4+♣s.

[WesleyC]

This situation feels tactical rather than technical.

 

My instinct is to just bid 4S and hope that jams their auction.

[ggwhiz]

Whatever you play bidding 3 of a red suit shows (forcing with spades or clubs etc.) It makes sense that 3♠ should be fit showing.

 

Mind you that agreement is hindsight for me never having found the need to discuss it with partner before.

[ArtK78]

This is a real problem hand. Playing U/U, a 3♣ bid is nonforcing. Typically, 3♦ would show a strong club raise and 3♥ would show a strong hand with a spade suit. 3♠ would be natural and nonforcing (but encouraging). Others may have variations of this agreement, but I believe that this is the most common agreement for U/U on this auction.

 

Unfortunately, this hand doesn't fall in neatly with any of these categories. I might try 3♠ and, if it is doubled and passed back to me, bid 4♣. 4♠ directly on JT98xx could be suicidal. Imagine what would happen if partner has the death hand - 2-4-4-3 with 2 small spades and the suits are arranged around the table as you might expect them to be - black suits on your left, red suits on your right. Still, you have 6 spades and you really should show them.

 

Also, if you bid 4♠ partner will not be in a position to overrule you, even if he holds something like -- KJxx AQx Kxxxxx. 4♠ is not a cooperative call. Doubled or not, you will be on your own.

 

Your spots in the spade suit should protect you from going for a large number if you choose to bid 4♠. But you could very easily be in the wrong contract.

[Lord Molyb]

3♦ and 3♥ show a better hand than this. 4♠ is a better suit. 4♣ leaves a 6/3 or 6/4 fit out of the picture.

 

That leaves 3♠. I make that call, and then bid clubs on my next round unless something weird happens.

[helene_t]

What would 4h show? There must be a way to show black suits but I don't think it is clear that 4s shows that unless I am a passed hand

 

3s looks obvious but I have no plan what to do over their 4h.

[mgoetze]

Whatever you play bidding 3 of a red suit shows (forcing with spades or clubs etc.) It makes sense that 3♠ should be fit showing.

 

Mind you that agreement is hindsight for me never having found the need to discuss it with partner before.

Fit for what? Are you saying 3♠ should show 6 clubs?

[helene_t]

Would p have opened 1d with a balanced hanf with four diamonds? If so, we know we have a good fit somewhere.

[ArtK78]

Sorry - I don't know what I was thinking when I said in my prior post that partner might be 2443 and open 1♣. That is obviously wrong.

 

He could be 2434, which is not much better.

[mgoetze]

Would p have opened 1d with a balanced hanf with four diamonds? If so, we know we have a good fit somewhere.

No, we open 1♣ even on 3352.

[cherdano]

3s looks obvious but I have no plan what to do over their 4h.

Maybe bidding 4S in that sequence over 4H should imply a hand like this?

If we could just bid to 4S on our own, we wouldn't make a non-forcing 3S bid.

 

(Obviously, it would be better to agree to some fit-showing bid directly, but who did?)

[ArtK78]

No, we open 1♣ even on 3352.

In that case, I withdraw my correction.

[ggwhiz]

Fit for what? Are you saying 3♠ should show 6 clubs?

 

You're kidding right? Fit jumps typically promise 9 cards when the anchor suit is a major but maybe it should show ten when the opening is an ambiguous club.

[mgoetze]

You're kidding right? Fit jumps typically promise 9 cards when the anchor suit is a major but maybe it should show ten when the opening is an ambiguous club.

OK, so you're saying 3♠ should show 7 or 8 clubs? Well, you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree to the point where I'm not even going to bother discussing it.

[mikeh]

3♠

 

Bidding clubs first then spades is laying a trap for partner. 4♠ overstates the spade suit by length and strength while 3♠ is honest on one of those...the most important.

 

The one drawback to spades now is that we'll have to bid 5♣ over 4♥. However, that pales in comparison to the misleading effect of clubs now and spades later. In highly competitive auctions, where it is impossible to say who can make what, get your shape across if you want partner to ever be able to bid intelligently. Showing a constructive, nf hand with (usually) 6 spades and then showing real club length is a pretty fair description so why choose any other course?

[helene_t]

OK, so you're saying 3♠ should show 7 or 8 clubs? Well, you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree to the point where I'm not even going to bother discussing it.

I think you misunderstood, ggwhiz obviously didn't mean (10-2)=8 clubs, but rather ten black cards in responder's hand.

[cherdano]

3♠

 

Bidding clubs first then spades is laying a trap for partner. 4♠ overstates the spade suit by length and strength while 3♠ is honest on one of those...the most important.

 

The one drawback to spades now is that we'll have to bid 5♣ over 4♥.

First off, I agree with you that bidding clubs first, then spades, doesn't work. We might do the same with 4-6 the other way in the black suits.

 

But I still wonder what to do over 4♥ after 3♠ (which I would do also). The most likely hand for partner at this point is a balanced hand with exactly 2 spades (weak and balanced is already the most likely hand to start with; it gets even more likely given that RHO has the red suits and I have the black suits). He could be 2=4=4=3 or 2=3=5=3 or 2=3=3=5 or 2=3=4=4, etc. Obviously, if we knew partner had the balanced hand, we would bid 4♠ not 5♣.

 

Is "most likely balanced" strong enough indication to make us bid 4♠ opposite his ambiguous opening, too?

[mgoetze]

I think you misunderstood, ggwhiz obviously didn't mean (10-2)=8 clubs, but rather ten black cards in responder's hand.

Oh... so he wants to play 4♣ in potentially a 4-2 fit? I guess that's ... equally ridiculous.

[helene_t]

Oh... so he wants to play 4♣ in potentially a 4-2 fit? I guess that's ... equally ridiculous.

If opener is short in spades he will have 5+ clubs so it's more like a 5-4 fit, isn't it?

[Fluffy]

I would bid 3♠ just because it shows more spades than 3♥ so partner might raise with 2, but I wouldn't like it if it is passed out.

[mikeh]

First off, I agree with you that bidding clubs first, then spades, doesn't work. We might do the same with 4-6 the other way in the black suits.

 

But I still wonder what to do over 4♥ after 3♠ (which I would do also). The most likely hand for partner at this point is a balanced hand with exactly 2 spades (weak and balanced is already the most likely hand to start with; it gets even more likely given that RHO has the red suits and I have the black suits). He could be 2=4=4=3 or 2=3=5=3 or 2=3=3=5 or 2=3=4=4, etc. Obviously, if we knew partner had the balanced hand, we would bid 4♠ not 5♣.

 

Is "most likely balanced" strong enough indication to make us bid 4♠ opposite his ambiguous opening, too?

The problem is primarily our methods which, to me, suck big time. I can't see how the OP method generates gains that offset the obvious problems that arise when one can and should (???) open 1♣ on 3=3=5=2 hands. I suspect the idea is to split the 1N rebid, but a far easier fix is to play 14-16 1N, so that the 1N rebid is 11-13. 14-16 has significant theoretical advantages over the traditional 15-17 anyway (tho, in fairness, it has some downsides as well).

 

As it is, the OP method means that we cannot know if we have any fit whatsoever, which tells us all we need to know about how effective this method is in competitive auctions.

 

However, we can't do anything about the method mid-hand (tho I'd be having a serious discussion with partner after this hand, whether I guessed 'right' or not).

 

3♠ seems ok to me, if only because on many hands, partner will be able to raise to game, especially in competition.

 

As you note, the real issue is when LHO bids 4♥ and the auction is passed back to us...and we can all see that a BIT by partner creates a real mess should that happen.

 

We are in a guessing situation. I suppose one could try 4♠ hoping that it works, and planning to pull to 5♣ if doubled, which might teach LHO a lesson if partner held something like x xxxx AQx KQxxx :P

 

Tbh, I don't know what I would do at the table, and I suspect it would depend upon my mood at the time, my sense of the action and so on. Most importantly, in terms of being able to predict my action, I can truly say that I would never be in this position: the closest I would be would be if partner were 3=4=3=3, and then he may have been able to bid 4♠, altho in fairness that shape hardly shouts to bid on.

[mgoetze]

The problem is primarily our methods which, to me, suck big time. I can't see how the OP method generates gains that offset the obvious problems that arise when one can and should (???) open 1♣ on 3=3=5=2 hands. I suspect the idea is to split the 1N rebid, but a far easier fix is to play 14-16 1N, so that the 1N rebid is 11-13. 14-16 has significant theoretical advantages over the traditional 15-17 anyway (tho, in fairness, it has some downsides as well).

Uhm... note that in the OP I also said

 

partner opens 1♣, 2+ clubs, most often 11-13 balanced

and I assure you that I do not open 1♦ when I have 14 balanced. In fact with 11-13 I open 1♣ and complete the transfer, with 14-16 I open 1NT and with 17-19 I open 1♣ and rebid 1NT - allowing me to play 14-16 without lowering the range of my 2NT opener, playing Mexican 2♦ or guessing blindly on 2NT rebids. Now our British friends here on the forum will suggest that it is even better to open one minor with 11-13 and the other minor with 17-19, but they are going to have the exact same problem in competition.

 

And while you are wondering about the gains, don't overlook that we will never have to worry about partner having only 3 diamonds when he opens 1♦ ... he almost always has 5.

 

Anyway, worrying about 3=3=5=2 shape all day long is, IMHO, misguided. Large parts of the world will routinely open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 shape, and we'll have that more often than we will have 3=3=5=2, so this is hardly exotic. Nor are we in a significantly worse situation than if we opened a weak 1NT and, hypothetically, opps played 2NT over that as showing 5-5 in the red suits. I'm not going to be switching to ACOL just so my 1♣ opening can promise 4 cards in the suit.

[whereagles]

This situation feels tactical rather than technical.

 

My instinct is to just bid 4S and hope that jams their auction.

 

There's not much to be jammed after a precise two-suited overcall :)

 

 

I think I'll just pass for the moment.