GF (almost) with a void in partner's suit

[jillybean]

Now partner has shown a decent 7-card suit in spades and set trumps by partnership agreement. In my experience this is one of the sequences many weaker players get wrong - bidding your major suit for the third time without a jump is not consultative. If you belong in any other strain you should have made an effort to bid them, and weaker hands can jump to game with a long suit. This is a try for 6♠, although you may correct to 6NT. Your hand can hardly be less suitable, and I would bid 4♠. Partner will expect a singleton in support at most.

 

I don't know why we would rebid 3♣ rather than 3♥ though. That rebid shows a clubs-hearts two-suiter. Seems reasonable.

How do I distinguish between a 1♠:2♣* clubs-hearts two-suiter and a 1♠:2♣* balanced hand, clubs-hearts probing for a diamond stopper?

I thought it was necessary to bid clubs a second time to show the club suit.

[DavidKok]

Balanced hands without a major suit fit don't probe for a diamond stopper. Where else do you want to play? There's no point asking if you don't have a good way to handle a negative response.

[jillybean]

Balanced hands without a major suit fit don't probe for a diamond stopper. Where else do you want to play? There's no point asking if you don't have a good way to handle a negative response.

What do I do with Kxxxx,xx,AKQx,xx xx,AKQx,xx,Kxxxxx after partner opens 1♠:2♣* 2♠:?

 

Make that Kxxxx,xxx,AKQx,x. x,AKQx,xxx,Kxxxxx

 

I don't have a ♦ stopper, partner may a partial stop, they need to bid nt

[DavidKok]

I'm sorry, partner opens in our 5-card spade suit? I would raise partner with 2NT.

[jillybean]

Oh never mind, I'm getting stuck thinking a 2 suiter is 6-5/6-4 type distribution and the struggles we had when 1M:2x 2M was with 5+ cards

[apollo1201]

Perhaps not if you find yourself facing a minimum without the entries to ♠/♣ and go down especially if you stretch to open.

 

I also have the 3♣ bid, but not with the ♥. I did run a number of simulations when considering whether 11 or 12 should be the top end of the range for this bid, settling on 12 especially with the void.

 

GF does just mean we are not stopping below, it doesn’t mean we ll make it

 

I completely agree that I might go down in game - like a horrible 3NT when partner opened a shapely reverse 64 hand (or 55)

 

But I didn’t pay my entry fees to play a partial score on this one😁😁😁

[bluenikki]

I thought it was necessary to bid clubs a second time to show the club suit.

If not playing 2/1 gf, you are forced to rebid 3♥, suppressing the main feature of the hand. the _strong_ 6+ ♣.

 

The purpose of 2/1 is to let you describe your hand, I thought. Foolish me.

[bluenikki]

GF does just mean we are not stopping below, it doesn’t mean we ll make it

 

 

No, apparently it also means the opponents can't make a highlevel contract

[jillybean]

If not playing 2/1 gf, you are forced to rebid 3♥, suppressing the main feature of the hand. the _strong_ 6+ ♣.

 

The purpose of 2/1 is to let you describe your hand, I thought. Foolish me.

We play 2♣/1M GF clubs or balanced, if balanced clubs can be as short as 2 , (I'd like to play it as short as 0) with 6+ clubs we would rebid the clubs.

On this hand, as David pointed out, the correct bid is 3♥

[mw64ahw]

We play 2♣/1M GF clubs or balanced, if balanced clubs can be as short as 2 , (I'd like to play it as short as 0) with 6+ clubs we would rebid the clubs.

On this hand, as David pointed out, the correct bid is 3♥

Does the balanced include 2353 & 2533 or are these still 2♦ & 2♥ responses?

[jillybean]

Does the balanced include 2353 & 2533 or are these still 2♦ & 2♥ responses?

We currently show these 5 card suits at the 2level. 1♠:2♦, 1♠:2♥

[bluenikki]

On this hand, as David pointed out, the correct bid is 3♥

So you think it is iOK to bid the same way as when you exchange the heart 10 with the club queen.

 

Seems nuts to me.

[jillybean]

So you think it is iOK to bid the same way as when you exchange the heart 10 with the club queen.

 

Seems nuts to me.

 

I don't understand your question, what is Souths hand now?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shat76dj63caqj876&w=st872h2dkt972c932&n=sakj9653hkj85da5c&e=sq4hq943dq84ckt54&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1sp2c(*)p2sp3h]399|300[/hv]

[bluenikki]

♣

I don't understand your question, what is Souths hand now?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shat76dj63caqj876&w=st872h2dkt972c932&n=sakj9653hkj85da5c&e=sq4hq943dq84ckt54&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1sp2c(*)p2sp3h]399|300[/hv]

Compare the hand with the one where the hearts are AQJx and the clubs A10xxxx. Should they be bid the same? You think so. I do not.

 

When 2♣ is not forcing to game, you _must_. That is _bad_. Why would you do it voluntarily?

[Gerardo]

I don't understand your question, what is Souths hand now?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shat76dj63caqj876&w=st872h2dkt972c932&n=sakj9653hkj85da5c&e=sq4hq943dq84ckt54&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1sp2c(*)p2sp3h]399|300[/hv]

 

4+♥, longer ♣, GF

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=shaqj7dj63cat8765&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2cp2sp3h]133|200[/hv]

 

I think I need to tell partner that we have game. To do this I need to bid 2♣*

Partner rebids spades, showing 6+, now I get to describe my hand as a GF 2 suiter. ©DavidKok

Yes there is a discrepancy in suit quality between hand 1 and this hand but I don't see how the methods used would differ.

[smerriman]

For reference:

 

2♥ or 2♠? (Currently 62% 2♥)

3♣ or 3♥? (Currently 60% 3♣ and 30% 3♥ (with 3 votes for 2N)).

 

Not that the majority decision in any poll is necessarily the right one, but definitely a couple of tricky decisions in this hand.

[bluenikki]

[hv=pc=n&s=shaqj7dj63cat8765&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2cp2sp3h]133|200[/hv]

 

I think I need to tell partner that we have game. To do this I need to bid 2♣*

Partner rebids spades, showing 6+, now I get to describe my hand as a GF 2 suiter. ©DavidKok

Yes there is a discrepancy in suit quality between hand 1 and this hand but I don't see how the methods used would differ.

With the original hand, the only game might be 5♣ on a 6-1 fit. Showing the poor hearts won't get you there.

 

With the hypothetical, the only game might be 4♥ on a 4-3 fit. How will you get there if the 3♥ is not taken as suggesting a possible strain?

 

Or is it your point that _because_ 2/1 is not quite GF, you can't describe this hand. I certainly agree with that!

[DavidKok]

No, the point is that even with 2♣ 100% GF, natural continuations simply aren't sophisticated enough to solve all these issues. We might belong in 3NT, we might belong in 4♥ or 4♠ or even in slam or 5♣. Showing your shape is almost always the best way to get to a good contract - at the very least you won't regularly miss 8 card major suit fits. Using different routes to describe the same shape based on suit quality is nice but places a lot of strain on the system, and doing so in anticipation of a good 7-card fit is masterminding.

If your system is good enough to have two sequences to show 4♥5(+)♣ but with different suit qualities for each I would take the route that best matches the example hand. I know for a fact that my continuations over 1♠-2♣ are not, so I'll just bid my suits one at a time and hope partner can do something intelligent.

[bluenikki]

"Using different routes to describe the same shape based on suit quality is nice but places a lot of strain on the system, and doing so in anticipation of a good 7-card fit is masterminding."

 

I would have said that EXCLUDING 7-card fits is masterminding.