3217 progressive

[mikeh]

Going for the jugular?

 

This hand hits a seam in my methods, because we have never discussed reverses on shorter suits. So 1♣-1♠; 2♥(*)-3♥; 3♠ would, without any discussion, unfortunately be a spade control for a heart slam (by meta-agreements). I agree that this is a poor treatment and reversing on this hand is a lot better if you can show delayed spade preference. Unfortunately I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I wanted to add 3NT to the list of awkward options.

 

At the table I have no idea what I'd bid. I open 1♣, and might try either 3NT, 3♦ (splinter) or 4♣ (strong 6+ suit with 4-card spade support) over 1♠. Or maybe smile and rebid 1♣, hoping the director will save me.

If all you meant was that you’d consider bidding 3N while knowing that this was a serious distortion and that partner would expect stoppers in the reds as well as running clubs, then I understand, but don’t agree with, the idea. If, however, you meant to say that 3N was a good way to show this hand, with A109 in spades and an x in diamonds, then I think you’re the only one likely to be hearing the beating of that drum. I think JB (mistakenly) thought that you were suggesting 3N as a conventional way of showing a ‘forcing’ club rebid, without even suggesting side stoppers. I read your current post as suggesting the intentional distortion idea which, as I say, I understand without remotely liking it😝

 

I suggest that you adopt fake reverses as part of your style. They are very rare. I can’t remember the last time I reversed into short hearts, although I’ve reversed into shortish diamonds more frequently. After all, 1336 or 2236 (with xx in a red suit, hence no 2N, and too strong for 3C) isn’t so rare that it ‘never’ comes up.

 

Meanwhile, if you play up the line responses to 1C, then the odds strongly favour partner having 5 spades, especially since he’d need to be 4333 or some 44 in the blacks otherwise, and our extreme club length makes those shapes relatively unlikely. In that case, faking a strong spade raise, as you set out, must be far less risky than faking a diamond stopper. However, I still want clubs as trump ( or play notrump from partner’s side) unless partner can actually show a rebiddable spade suit.

[DavidKok]

I'm afraid I play the 'Full Dutch Doubleton' responses to 1♣, which couldn't be further from up the line. To the best of my knowledge has become almost standard at the national expert level to adopt a 2♦ conventional 'reverse', not promising diamonds, over 1♣-1M in this system. This would sort out this hand and more (the most common hand type is any 17-19 balanced). Unfortunately, my partner and I don't play this (yet). I think it is similar to reversing on shortness, except it deprives opener of the freedom of choosing where to reverse.

 

I do agree 3NT would be a serious distortion (although in my system it also does not promise stoppers in all unbid suits, but this hand does not qualify). Your treatment is superior, but I do not have it in my arsenal. The result: I'm left to improvise.

[nullve]

To the best of my knowledge has become almost standard at the national expert level to adopt a 2♦ conventional 'reverse', not promising diamonds, over 1♣-1M in this system. This would sort out this hand and more (the most common hand type is any 17-19 balanced).

Top Italians (Lauria et al., Bocchi et al.) have been playing multireverses in their 2/1-like systems for ages. They are also part of Garozzo's Ambra system.

 

A description can be found in this old thread, especially post #13.

[jillybean]

Ok, after my flight of fancy into Gambling+ 3nt let's take another look at this hand.

(I have to admit, I still think it would be great to have a method to show North's hand without a false reverse)

 

If we agree to open hands like this 2♣, how do you proceed?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk873ha5daj9ct932&w=sq64ht9876dq752c5&n=sat9hkqdtcakqj876&e=sj52hj432dk8643c4&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2cp?]399|300[/hv]

 

My tendency is to avoid making a positive bid over partner's 2♣ opening and let them describe their hand but this may be taking it to the extreme. (2♣ 2♦ 3♣ 4♣)

So a 2nt response would force 3♠ Minor Suit Stayman or 3♠ transfer (I have to check my agreements) and we are already at 5♣ before identifying our fit.

[mikeh]

If one opened 2C, responder has, imo, an automatic 2D, even if playing that 2D could be a bust.

 

Responder is certain of at least a small slam and has hopes for a grand, but needs to preserve as much space as possible. For example, opener’s most likely hand is a balanced 22-23, so allow 2N, over which we stayman. How matters go from there depends on what opener does

 

As it is, opener bids 3C over 2D. I don’t see any way for responder to ever find out whether grand is cold. I see little point bidding 4C, hoping to initiate control bidding. We can be virtually certain we have all the keycards but the problem is shape.make opener 2317, for example, and 7C is trivial. As it is, 7C has little chance. But, for me,opener has a minimum 2C opening bid, and it takes very little extra to make grand anywhere from cold to being on a squeeze or finesse. So I’d drive to the grand most times.

 

I’d expect company in 7C, however. Make opener AQx Kx x AKQJxxx, arguably a better hand than his actual hand, and grand is once more cold, this time in notrump as well as clubs.

 

Btw, I suggest you do NOT play transfers or minor suit stayman by opener over a 2N response. Of course, I also strongly suggest that responder never bid a natural 2N anyway.

 

Opener will have far more to show than responder, and you need to let him show it naturally.

[Winstonm]

If you play 2h as absolute negative then there is no reason to not bid 2d to save room. This is where agreements help - when partner bids a suit and you can place that hand as at least 9 winners. This is when responder can take the captaincy and bid whatever ace-ask you are using.