UNBELIEVABLE !

[smerriman]

Sure - why not? A jump shift doesn't promise 5 cards in the second suit (in fact can occasionally be even 3, like in your other thread, though that's only when one suited).

[jillybean]

So you are saying that 3♠ here could be trying to find a fit, even after South has shown preference to hearts?

 

1♠ 1nt 3♣ jump to a 3 card suit suggested in the other thread was an artificial bid.

[smerriman]

So you are saying that 3♠ here could be trying to find a fit, even after South has shown preference to hearts?

Yep. With restricted space, 3♥ is pretty wide ranging - game before slam.

 

1♠ 1nt 3♣ jump to a 3 card suit suggested in the other thread was an artificial bid.

No, it was natural - mikeh mentioned an artificial convention, but in 'standard' bidding without that or other special conventions, you sometimes need to "lie" by reversing / jump shifting into a 3 card minor, which is what all the other commenters were referring to.

[DavidKok]

So you are saying that 3♠ here could be trying to find a fit, even after South has shown preference to hearts?

 

1♠ 1nt 3♣ jump to a 3 card suit suggested in the other thread was an artificial bid.

No, the real message is even less helpful.

 

1♥ "I have hearts" - 1♠ "I have spades and usually not hearts"

3♦ "I have diamonds and extra values" - 3♥ "I am not sure where to go over that. I cannot rebid my spades since I don't hold six (or more) of them, I cannot bid 3NT because my clubs are weak and I don't want to go past 3NT"

3♠ "I do not have great clubs for you but also do not want to go past 3NT. Maybe you can upgrade your club values a little in light of the fact that I do not have a nice 5-5 (I would have bid 4♣ or 4♦) or 6-4 (I would have bid 4♥), so by implication I have some, but not a lot, of club values?"

[mikeh]

Still uncomfortable bidding a non forcing 4♥, today we came up with this auction;

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt985hkj9d9cj8&n=skhaq732dak753ca6&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1hp1sp3dp3hp3s(K)p4np5c(0/3)p5d(Q?)p6d(yes+DK)p7nt]266|200[/hv]

How would one bid with Kxx AQ109xx AKQ x?

 

After 1H 1S this hand is far too strong to bid a non-forcing 3H. Yet it can’t raise spades. The normal action is 3D.

 

Responder, with say AQxxx Kx xxx xxx has an easy 3H preference (3H is not ‘support’…it’s a preference. It doesn’t deny 3 hearts but it doesn’t promise it).

 

Now opener bids 3S.

 

I crafted that hand for opener because it doesn’t hold any cards responder held on the actual hand. Other examples could include say AQx AKxxx AQxx x

 

It’s very dangerous to make up the meaning of bids based on your actual hand. One should, instead, ignore one’s actual hand and ask ‘what would this mean?’.

 

1H 1S 3D 3H 3S….

 

 

3D is gf, ostensibly 4 but might be a fake.

 

3H is a default bid, saying ‘I cant pass, because we’re forced to game. I can’t bid notrump. I either can’t raise diamonds or I prefer to look for the ten trick heart game….say 4=2=4=3. I either have real heart support with or without rebiddable spades or my spades are not rebiddable’

 

3S by opener shows three card support.

 

I think responder has a very tough rebid over 3D.

 

On the one hand, he has unexpectedly great hearts, so 3H seems normal, otoh, he has a spade suit that plays for one loser opposite a void !

 

Bidding 3S might be best, hoping to be able to pull 3N to 4H. Now that 4H bid is true support…else we’d pass 3N, bid 4D or 4S

 

And because we went out of our way to show spades, and delayed our showing real hearts, we must have a long, strong spade suit and slam interest. Without slam interest, we bid 4H over 3D. Or we might bid 3H then pull 3N, especially if we had a minor cuebid in mind.

 

Now that spade King is huge.

 

But I honestly can’t say how my partnerships would bid these hands. I mean, it’s easy to construct somewhat plausible auctions given that I can see both hands but, at the table, I think both players have several unclear choices and getting to grand requires lucky guesses.

[P_Marlowe]

Forcing?

No.

 

You could also bid 5H, I like to play 5M as quantitative invite.

It comes up.

 

You could also bid 6H, asking partner to choose between 6H and 6S.

You give up on 7. But at least you described your hand.

 

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jillybean]

 

Bidding 3S might be best, hoping to be able to pull 3N to 4H. Now that 4H bid is true support…else we’d pass 3N, bid 4D or 4S

 

 

I think this is where the auction gets to the level of agreements we simply don't have, having played once a week for 2 months. I don't have this level of agreement with my regular partners.

 

The splinter mistake saved the day. Perhaps we could use a primer on splinters?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if you are willing to forget about the spade suit, given that you have only a limited set of agreements,

you could also make a direct forcing raise for hearts, if you have this available.

 

If you are missing a game force raise of openers major, I would start adding this agreement, before discussing

splinter.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I am not sure, we would be bidding the Grand, I did not give it too much thought.

[jillybean]

Hi,

 

if you are willing to forget about the spade suit, given that you have only a limited set of agreements,

you could also make a direct forcing raise for hearts, if you have this available.

 

If you are missing a game force raise of openers major, I would start adding this agreement, before discussing

splinter.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I am not sure, we would be bidding the Grand, I did not give it too much thought.

Yes, we have 4 card GF major raise via J2nt and 3 card GF major raise via 1M:2♣ but with South hand, we have to try to show this spade suit.

Noone did bid the Grand but I think it should be bid.

[P_Marlowe]

Yes, we have 4 card GF major raise via J2nt and 3 card GF major raise via 1M:2♣ but with South hand, we have to try to show this spade suit.

Noone did bid the Grand but I think it should be bid.

Ok, South decided to show the spade, which is sensible.

But with 3H he changed plan, and changing plan is like changing the a horse while it is running.

In other words he should stick to his plan and rebid 3S, and over 3NT, he should do something drastic,

he knowes the partnership has 30+ HCP. His options are 4H, 5H, 5S, 6H. Bids above 4NT will bury the Grand,

but you will get to the correct Small.

 

For whats it worth, I have no idea, how I would interpret 4H in the given seq. as North.

[jillybean]

Just checking my understanding,

No, the real message is even less helpful.

 

1♥ "I have hearts" - 1♠ "I have spades and usually not hearts".

However, I could have a gf hand with spades and real heart support for you but too many points/wrong shape to make any sort of initial heart raise ?

 

3♦ "I have diamonds and extra values" - 3♥ "I am not sure where to go over that. I cannot rebid my spades since I don't hold six (or more) of them, I cannot bid 3NT because my clubs are weak and I don't want to go past 3NT".

Or, I have club control but I also have slam interest I don't want the auction to end in 3nt?

 

3♠ "I do not have great clubs for you but also do not want to go past 3NT. Maybe you can upgrade your club values a little in light of the fact that I do not have a nice 5-5 (I would have bid 4♣ or 4♦) or 6-4 (I would have bid 4♥), so by implication I have some, but not a lot, of club values?"

I'm a little lost here, does 3♠ promise any spades? What would opener do with 3550, 2551?

[jillybean]

Yep. With restricted space, 3♥ is pretty wide ranging - game before slam.

 

 

No, it was natural - mikeh mentioned an artificial convention, but in 'standard' bidding without that or other special conventions, you sometimes need to "lie" by reversing / jump shifting into a 3 card minor, which is what all the other commenters were referring to.

. Do you really mean reversing here?

[AL78]

This hand isn't worth a 2♠ bid even if you were.

 

It is lacking in HCP but it does have seven playing tricks opposite a 1♥ opener and it does get the suit off your chest and set up a game forcing auction.

[DavidKok]

Edit: I only realised this after writing everything below, but it's important enough it should go at the top. I think different partnerships will play this differently, and the auction is both confusing and ambiguous. Below I'll write what I think is standard here (which is not even identical to what I play here). There's a bit more clarification on goals and methods further down. In my opinion the two most important concepts to keep in mind here are that 1) there is insufficient bidding space to achieve all our goals, so we will have to make compromises. This is true regardless of methods after the 1♥-1♠; 3♦ start of the auction. Any method that claims to have neat solutions, or even just a neat list of which hand types make which bids, will most certainly have to give up on some goals (so figure out which those are!). And 2) these ambiguous auctions are the bane of beginners and experienced players alike. Usually the methods themselves contain many ambiguous bids, which in turn also makes them difficult to explain (and, if I'm being honest, often even experts will simply not have a clear view of what they think a bid should mean). This is simply a very weak part of standard bidding as well as of bidding theory in general.

 

Just checking my understanding,

However, I could have a gf hand with spades and real heart support for you but too many points/wrong shape to make any sort of initial heart raise ?

Yes, though with a balanced raise with SI I would bypass the spades and bid 2♣ instead (though this is not standard, even though I think it should be). I personally think you should only show the spades if you are prepared to rebid them. Unfortunately if partner jumps or the opponents interfere this means you won't be able to show both good spades and support, so be prepared to sacrifice one or the other. On the example hand I'd show the 7 spades and give up on hearts.

 

Or, I have club control but I also have slam interest I don't want the auction to end in 3nt?

A stronger hand with clubs would bid 4NT (quantitative), although e.g. a 5=2=3=3 or 5=2=2=4 hand too strong for a quantitative 4NT (approximately 11-13) might punt with 3♥ to get more information. 3♠ (6+), 3NT (to play), 4♣ (control bid for diamonds), 4♦ (diamond fit, denies a club control), 4♥ (weak hands with long spades and 3 hearts, wanted to show the spades along the way), 4♠ (weak hand with long spades and nothing else), 4NT (quantitative) and 5♦ (weak with long diamonds) are all highly descriptive (and there's a few other bids I skipped). 3♥ is the catchall bid for hands that don't meet any of these criteria, which by itself becomes quite descriptive.

 

I'm a little lost here, does 3♠ promise any spades? What would opener do with 3550, 2551?

With a 3550 I'd rebid 4♠. You've painted an excellent picture of your hand, if we belong in 5♦ instead partner might pull. If we belong in 4♥ in the Moysian that's rough, but partner will almost always have 5 spades for the 3♥ bid (after all: no 3♥ unless SI, with 5♣4♠ partner would rebid 3NT (if weak) and would have responded 2♣ instead of 1♠ (if strong), with 4(+) diamonds partner had the option to raise diamonds now or after so it's just 4=2=3=4-shape with weak clubs where we might prefer 4♥ to 5♦, and partner would have bid 3NT anyway on some of those hands). I think a 2=5=5=1 hand should rebid 4♦. Partner is initially showing doubt about their club stopper for 3NT, and we don't have it. So we should go past 3NT.

I think 3♠ actually denies spades. It shows a willingness to play in 3NT even when partner has some doubts about their club holding, so it promises some (but not a lot of) clubs along with the 5♥4♦ already shown. Usually this will be a 1=5=4=3 or 2=5=4=2 with so-so clubs, you might want to include a 1=5=5=2 in there.

 

As an important aside, one way to solve all of these problems is by playing Gazzilli. Any set of methods has hand types where auctions get ambiguous and/or you will not be able to get to the best contract reliably. In standard methods the strong jump shifts are such an example - experts will frequently make these bids on single-suited hands too strong for other rebids, and if responder has multiple messages to convey there will often not be enough bidding space left to share them all. The standard solution is to have multiple 'kicking the can down the road' bids which don't show anything in particular but clarify the hand only by failing to make a more descriptive bid. I personally consider this a great weakness of these methods, and one of the difficult to explain barriers to becoming familiar with a bidding system. Most bidding systems, 2/1 first and foremost, have several auctions like this and it can really confuse players (myself included), but I'll stop here before it becomes a longer rant.

Generally the solution takes the following form. In ambiguous auctions where no trumps have been agreed:

• Bids of game are offers to play, and show a hand that in context is happy to play in the denomination suggested. Both partners should strain to make game bids with extra shape and limited values.
  
• The cheapest bid is a punt, and only describes the hand through the negative inference of not being able to make a more descriptive call.
  
• Other bids show extra shape in the suit bid.
  

 

. Do you really mean reversing here?

Yes, for example a 1=3=3=6-hand with (18)19HCP (or more) will bid 1♣-1♥/1♠; 2♦ 'fake reverse'. In standard the 3♣ rebid shows approximately 15-17 and is NF, so stronger hands have to first force through a fake bid (either the jump shift at the 3-level or specifically a club-diamond reverse at the 2-level). It is generally not done to lie about a major suit holding so a 1=3=6=3 hand would fake jump shift with 1♦-1♥/1♠; 3♣ instead.

[jillybean]

What is SI?

[DavidKok]

Slam interest.

[AL78]

Perhaps we could use a primer on splinters?

 

I've just found this link about splinter bids which I found very useful:

 

https://www.bridgebum.com/splinters.php

 

It includes an explanation about splinter bids being limited to seven loser hands, 9-12 HCP which are good enough to go to game but not slam. They are effectively a mild slam try if opener has extra values and a well fitting hand. I think most of my partners don't play splinters with a strength limit.

[smerriman]

I know you prefixed your message to say different people play different things, but this may still be worth going into more detail on as you two don't often disagree:

 

I think 3♠ actually denies spades.

3S by opener shows three card support.

Showing 3 card support with a 3541 type hand seems more logical to me (this was the one pattern not listed in your post - what would you bid with that?), even if it may turn out to be theoretically suboptimal, so is what I would have assumed is standard (and did with my earlier post, though I'll be the first to admit my posts don't ever have much weight behind them compared to yours!)

[DavidKok]

I think it is a good idea to reserve 4♣ for 3=5=4=1 hands - it 'should' show a 1=5=4=3 when natural, but that hand type bids 3NT. Alternatively it 'should' show a club auto-control bid setting diamonds as trumps (which I also suggested in some earlier post), but 4♦ is adequate to cover those hand types and they are rare to begin with.

Without discussions none of my suggested uses for 4♣ will be understood by partner, so at the table I'd probably choose between 4♥ and 4♠. Again I think it is fine to bypass 3NT on this sequence as our singleton club opposite a doubt-showing partner is insufficient. So we're likely playing 4M in the 7-card fit, and I might as well pick spades where we get club ruffs in the short hand (and on a good day partner has five spades). Passing back the buck with 4♣ would be even better though, relieving partner from the pressure of deciding when to correct back to diamonds (with, say, a 4=2=4=3 minimum, where 4♠ is likely best opposite 3=5=4=1 but 5♦ is attractive opposite 3=5=5=0).

 

Edit: maybe to clarify why all these unnatural bids are not as crazy as they seem: hands with 3 spades and club shortage have a relatively clear idea on what we should play, i.e. 4M (possibly in a 7-card fit). Meanwhile hands with short spades are less certain - 3NT, 4♥ and even 5♦ are still very possible. So, in keeping with the idea that the cheapest bid should be the flexible punt and game bids should be more descriptive, the long(-ish) spade hands should bid past 3NT while the short spade hands should stay below it. At the risk of simplifying too much I think the 'standard' rebid structure over 3♥ is:

• 3♠ - 2-3 decent clubs, suggesting playing in 3NT opposite a half stopper.
  
• 3NT - 3(+) decent clubs (AK or AQ tight is good enough as well, and honestly with AJ tight or ATx I'd bid it as well just to attempt to end the auction), to play.
  
• 4♣ - Does not exist (but can, and ideally should, be used to take some pressure off of the higher bids).
  
• 4♦ - 5(+)♥5(+)♦
  
• 4♥ - 6(+)♥4(+)♦ or 2=5=4=2 with very weak clubs. With 5(+) diamonds the hearts are considerably stronger than the diamonds.
  
• 4♠ - 3♠5♥4-5♦0-1♣
  

Higher bids do not exist. This gives up on reaching 4♥ when the 5-2 fit plays better than the 4-3 spade fit, but gets to 3NT pretty much always when it is right.

[jillybean]

Slam interest.

Ooof, of course. I am so focused on the spades here I was trying to come up with an acronym for Spade-something.

The more I delve into this, the more I have to accept that even if I can get my head around it, without a partner putting in the same work, I'm not going to have this level of agreements. We'll be back defaulting to jumping to an il conceived keycard ask and hoping for the best.

 

The splinter foul up in the early stages up the auction involved the 3♦ being taken as a splinter, believing 4♦ would have been a void splinter. A little knowledge, and probably a good concept but as often happens, a bid considered in isolation of the rest of the system. You don't have the time to sit and think at the table, especially under the gun with this sort of hand. Unless it comes naturally and I think it probably does to some, it's going to take a lot of work, time and commitment to get to this level.

I'm humbled by people who play multiple complex cards with different partners.

 

We've decided 1♥:2♠ is drop dead so I don't have to worry about continuations with this partner, we do need to discuss splinters.

[jillybean]

1♥:1♠

3♦:3♥

3♠

 

I'm stuck and confused here and want to take back the first response and bid a gf 2♣. I find the 1M:2♣ auctions allow so much bidding space, the auction is easy. Why not extend it to include a 63xx hand as suggested up thread.

[DavidKok]

I think the 3♥ bid is a mistake and responder should rebid 3♠ (and give up on hearts). As far as I know there is no way to show "6+ good spades and 3-card heart support" over a strong jump shift by opener. So over 3♦ you have to take stock and pick what you are still going to show (and I would pick the spades).

 

Also a belated welcome to modern 2/1, where we cram as many hands as can fit into 1M-2♣ just because it's easier ;)

[mikeh]

 

Edit: maybe to clarify why all these unnatural bids are not as crazy as they seem: hands with 3 spades and club shortage have a relatively clear idea on what we should play, i.e. 4M (possibly in a 7-card fit). Meanwhile hands with short spades are less certain - 3NT, 4♥ and even 5♦ are still very possible. So, in keeping with the idea that the cheapest bid should be the flexible punt and game bids should be more descriptive, the long(-ish) spade hands should bid past 3NT while the short spade hands should stay below it. At the risk of simplifying too much I think the 'standard' rebid structure over 3♥ is:

• 3♠ - 2-3 decent clubs, suggesting playing in 3NT opposite a half stopper.
  
• 3NT - 3(+) decent clubs (AK or AQ tight is good enough as well, and honestly with AJ tight or ATx I'd bid it as well just to attempt to end the auction), to play.
  
• 4♣ - Does not exist (but can, and ideally should, be used to take some pressure off of the higher bids).
  
• 4♦ - 5(+)♥5(+)♦
  
• 4♥ - 6(+)♥4(+)♦ or 2=5=4=2 with very weak clubs. With 5(+) diamonds the hearts are considerably stronger than the diamonds.
  
• 4♠ - 3♠5♥4-5♦0-1♣
  

Higher bids do not exist. This gives up on reaching 4♥ when the 5-2 fit plays better than the 4-3 spade fit, but gets to 3NT pretty much always when it is right.

I disagree, especially with your suggestion that the sequence 1H 1S 3D 3H 4C doesn’t exist or that opener jumps to 4S with 3=5=4=1 shape over 3H

 

I recognize that individual partnerships tend to develop their own meanings for sequences. I’m definitely in that camp in one partnership.

 

But in standard, 1H 1S 3D 3H 3S shows something like AQx AKxxx AQxx x

 

Unless playing Gazilli or something akin, where opener makes a cheap but forcing bid over 1S (in Gazilli, a potentially artificial and forcing 2C), opener should bid 3D over 1S. Committing to spades is silly. Picture Kxxx x KJxxx Axx where 7D is the desired contract, yet setting spades as trump over 1S eliminates any realistic chance of ev3n finding the diamond fit.

 

Meanwhile, responder would rebid 3H over 3D with hands such as KJxxx Qx Kxx xxx

 

He’d also do it with xxxx Qx KJx xxxx, and I doubt we’d enjoy 4S very much

 

So here’s my notion of mainstream bidding

 

1H 1S 3D 3H

 

3H is essentially a punt. In a BW MSC problem years ago, there was support for the notion that with a peculiar hand, responder could do it with a stiff Jack, but that wasn’t the panel consensus and I’m not suggesting it…merely observing that the expert consensus is the 3H says very little…it’s more that it denies certain holdings than that it sends any clear positive message. Responder can’t rebid spades, bid 3N or raise diamonds or jump to 4H and that’s about it.

 

3S by opener…3=5=4=1 or 3=5=5=0

 

3N. 2=5=4=2 with good clubs or one stopper and a difficult choice. Or 1=5=4=3. Or, very rarely 0=5=5=3…many such hands might choose 4D.

 

4C agrees hearts. Hearts are good enough that mere tolerance is sufficient. Slam try in hearts, but responder’s 4D is support, not a cue bid. Why? Because 3D might have been a 3 card suit.

 

Jx AKQxxx AQx Ax

 

Responder AQxx Jx KJxx xxx It’s possible that 4D might be better than 3H but responder would be uncomfortable passing opener’s 4H bid so might choose 3H, hoping to show diamonds (and slam interest) next time. After all, opener might be 6=3 reds but also might be 6=4 or 5=5 etc

 

I’m not claiming that ‘everyone’ in NA (at an expert level) would agree, especially not with everything. But I’m pretty sure that this approach would be fairly common, at least in NA in partnerships that play 2/1 without Gazilli or similar.

[pescetom]

I'm humbled by people who play multiple complex cards with different partners.

 

We've decided 1♥:2♠ is drop dead so I don't have to worry about continuations with this partner, we do need to discuss splinters.

 

Glad I convinced you that can be drop dead, at least :)

 

I think you are wrong to be humbled by people who play multiple complex cards with different partners: it's not much harder to remember a new card than an auction or the cards played, so long as it is basically a variant on a system you know. What's difficult is playing with a partner who doesn't remember his own card.

[jillybean]

Also a belated welcome to modern 2/1, where we cram as many hands as can fit into 1M-2♣ just because it's easier ;)

Haha, I truly feel like I am groundbreaking with some of this stuff. Years ago when I was very new to the game and the Vancouver Bridge scene, thanks to Forums, I started playing 2♣ / 1M gf balanced or clubs. People would roll their eyes, laugh and shake their heads, now of course they are playing it.

Considering extending the 2♣ meaning is exhilarating. So 2♣/1M turns into GF, could have 3 card support for the major, otherwise completely undefined?

 

Apologies for continuing to have a side conversation while the very important but over my head discussion regarding 3♠ is going on.

Off to the club with my new meaning for 2♣/1M :)