Rebid?

[Jinksy]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat4hat954daj65c5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp1sp]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPs. Playing with a competent partner, but someone with whom you have very little system agreement other than '2/1 UDCA', what do you rebid here?

[phoenix214]

I like 2D - with the idea that im going to bid 2♠ over partners rebid of 2♥. The point being, i think my hand has enough extras to justify bidding so. Although possible that direct 2 spades is fine as well.

[wank]

2s unless you're french

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat4hat954daj65c5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp1sp]133|200|

IMPs. Playing with a competent partner, but someone with whom you have very little system agreement other than '2/1 UDCA', what do you rebid here?[/hv]

Like Phoenix214, I rank

2♦ = NAT. 3 bullets and 3541-shape justify patterning out.

2♠ = NAT.

[rmnka447]

The issue is "What does 1 ♠ promise?"

 

If you don't have a clue, then you're better rebidding 2 ♦ planning to raise ♠ if partner rebids a major.

 

BTW, with 3 As and accompanying useful cards, this is a "really good" 13 HCP -- I'd be more apt to treat it more like a 14 HCP hand -- before figuring how much I'd add for the stiff.

[PhilG007]

2♦ asking for simple preference. I frown on the 2♠ rebid which was the second choice

in the vote. The hand has neither the HCP or the shape necessary for a 'reverse'

[masse24]

2♦ asking for simple preference. I frown on the 2♠ rebid which was the second choice

in the vote. The hand has neither the HCP or the shape necessary for a 'reverse'

Reverse?

There is no reverse possible. :huh:

[PhilG007]

Reverse?

There is no reverse possible. :huh:

Sorry u right. Need to see an optometrist :(

[mike777]

PRefer 2s, would rebid 2d if I was stronger.

say:

 

Axx..Axxxx...AKJx...x

[lycier]

In fact, this is only one old and simple problem on partnership agreement - whether would you play 3344 convention.

 

- If not, you would better rebid 2♦.

- If yes, of course, you could raise 2♠, then if partner intends to have a game try, it would bid 2nt to ask .

[mike777]

In fact, this is only one old and simple problem on partnership agreement - whether would you play 3344 convention.

 

- If not, you would better rebid 2♦.

- If yes, of course, you could raise 2♠, then if partner intends to have a game try, it would bid 2nt to ask .

 

 

I have no idea what the 3344 convention is.

 

 

but if pard makes a game try I have an easy 3d bid now after 2s has limited my hand.

 

If pard does not make a game try.....2s is high enough.

[fromageGB]

2s unless you're french

Or english.

 

2♦ with no agreements.

[Cyberyeti]

2♦ for me, we very rarely pass this and I can bid spades over anything partner does except 3N which is vaguely awkward.

[Tramticket]

This is an easy 2♦ at IMPS. If we belong in a part-score, then bidding 2♦ gives us the best chance of finding a fitting part-score. If we belong in game, then partner will bid again and we will be able to show the three-card spade support if appropriate.

 

More of a problem at match points I think. 2♠ might be our best match point score.

[lycier]

I have no idea what the 3344 convention is.

 

but if pard makes a game try I have an easy 3d bid now after 2s has limited my hand.

 

If pard does not make a game try.....2s is high enough.

 

Ha-ha.

 

It is a common convention usually used by North-American textbook :

 

 

3344 Convention

When opening a minor and partner responds a major, Eric Rodwell developed a sophisticated game try convention called the Rodwell Game Try Convention. I will not try to go into the complexities here (it is for experts), but I will use a subset of the Rodwell Convention called the 3344 Convention; the name was suggested by Joe Sacco of The Villages Duplicate Bridge Club.

After hearing support for the major at the two-level (2♥/2♠), responder needs to know whether major support is three or four cards and whether the opening points are a minimum (12-15) or a maximum (16-21). To investigate, responder bids 2NT*. The responses by the opening bidder are:

3♣* shows three-card (3) support and a minimum opening hand

3♦* shows three-card (3) support and a maximum opening hand

3♥* shows four-card (4) support and a minimum opening hand

3♠* shows four-card (4) support and a maximum opening hand

Val Covalciuc recommends in her September 2007 issues of the ACBL “"Bridge Bulletin”" (page 39) article that there are two requirements for the opener when raising partner’'s major: opener should have some decent values in his three-card major suit and he should have ruffing values in his hand.

Excerpted from 2/1 Game Force A Modern Approach (4th version).

[Vampyr]

Ha-ha.

 

It is a common convention usually used by North-American textbook :

 

 

I am not sure how common it is but it seems intriguing.

[ggwhiz]

Starting with 2♦ and then bidding 2♠ after a 2♥ preference is the most favorable scenario in that partner will evaluate game contracts knowing about my stiff club and will also know that should they bid 3♣, (fsf to game) after which I bid 3♠.

 

2nt by them followed by 3♠ sets them up to make a good decision too.

 

If they rebid 2♠ instead I'll raise which doesn't guarantee the stiff club but highly suggests it.

 

If I bid 2♠ instead we may already be in the wrong spot or they will have much less to go on as to how good their minor suit holdings are.

[kenberg]

I also had never heard of the 3-3-4-4 convention, my first thought was that there seemed to be one card too many. I recall the 14-12 defense at rubber bridge. When dealt a bad hand you announce you have 14 cards. Partner announces he has 12. The two of you quickly throw the cards in a heap in the center of the table.

 

A sometime partner recently referred to what he called the spiral convention which involved bidding 2NT over 1m-1M-2M to check on whether the raise was on three. My thought, as it often is in such cases, is that no convention is needed. In the case at hand, I was one of the 2♠ bidders. Often 2♠ will be a fine contract. If partner jumps to 4♠ that will probably also be fine. If he bids 2NT, natural, I will bid 3♦, natural, and he can do as he thinks best.

 

I don't have strong feelings about 2♠ instead of 2♦, but I cast my vote for 2♠.

[Winstonm]

I have never cared for the 3-card raise as it muddies the waters in slam bidding. 2D for me but I think 2S is fine at mps.

[lycier]

For example, Teacher mcphee and barmar, they are sure to know it, I remembered Mcphee had a lecture on this convention at bbo many years ago.

[johnu]

I am only familiar with the name Spiral Raises for using 2NT (2♠ after a raise in hearts) to check on trump length, hand strength, and distribution depending on the version you are using.

[fromageGB]

I am not sure how common it is but it seems intriguing.

Place four North-American textbooks round a table and observe carefully. More common than you think.

 

I play the 5656 2NT convention in response to a weak 2M open : weak 5, weak 6, strong 5, strong 6.

[kenberg]

I am only familiar with the name Spiral Raises for using 2NT (2♠ after a raise in hearts) to check on trump length, hand strength, and distribution depending on the version you are using.

 

You are ahead of me. Gavin Wolpert has something on spiral for 1m-1M-2M, where 2M is possibly on 3, on BW

http://bridgewinners.../spiral-raises/

 

He remarks that it can apply after 1♥-1♠-2♠ as well, such as here. I am willing to believe it has merit (or at least I am not up for debating the issue with Wolpert). I like his observation that it has been useful for getting out in 3NT on a 4-4 fit when both players have weak trumps. It is true that in the natural approach I use we seldom, I won't say never, end in 4M on a 4-3 fit unless we want to, but we have no real way of finding 3NT in the weak 4-4 case.

[Zelandakh]

Variations on the 3344 convention have come up many times on BBF, for example here, here, and here. I am fairly sure all of the BBF regulars have seen the convention at some point!

[lycier]

So this question is simple, its convention is simplehttp://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

Doesn't need more discussionshttp://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif