Rebid Headache

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sa64hakqj74d62ca9]133|100|Scoring: IMP

You open 1H (Agree, disagree, or maybe?). Your partner responds 1S. How do you describe this monster now? [/hv]

[inquiry]

DisAgree with 1♥. I play that ACOL 2 in a majors are opened 2♣. Yes, yes, it is odd, but there you go. Over 2♣, 2♦ is semi-positive or better, while both 2♥ and 2♠ are both instant double negatives, with 2♥ denying a trick for a ♥ contract, 2♠ denying a trick for a ♠ contract (and by implication, a probably ruff if played in ♥'s.

 

So I would open 2♣. Then,

---If partnerbid 2♥, I pass and he gets to play. He should make 8 tricks

---If partner bids 2♠, I bid 3♥. He needs to see his way to two likely tricks to bid 4♥

---If partner bids 2♦, by far most likely, I bid 2♥ forcing.

 

Over 2♥, partner will bid 2NT if he has but one likely trick for a heart contract, anything esle is GF. If partner bids 2NT then I rebid 3♥ knowing that I have done enough. He can bid again, but I have described my hand (this 3♥ rebid shows 8 tricks, great heart suit, five or more controls... just what I have).

 

Now if you force me not to open 2♣ with this hand, then over 1♠, alll rebids are flawed, the votes will be all over the place. 3NT (maybe they will not lead a ♦, 3♦ (maybe partner will not raise, 3♣ (so I am short a bid), 3♥, well it is a good suit, 3♠ - well it is the value bid except for the short spade. At the table, I would bid 3NT I guess.

[Free]

There's a simple treatment for such situations:

 

3♥ = 6+♥ and 3♠

3NT = 6+♥ and less than 3♠s

 

Both are maximum ofcourse...

[luis]

I think I would open 2♣ I would hate to play 1♥ with this hand.

Free's treatment is very very good so if you open 1♥ I think 3♥ is a good bid showing 3♠ 6♥ and a strong hand.

[mike777]

3nt simple version=around 18-19 hcp and solid hearts, nothing about spades.

4H would show more shape, 3nt shows running hearts and less shape.

[Guest Jlall]

This is becoming really annoying.

 

1) this is the SAYC and 2/1 discussion forum.

2) if you could show 6H and 3S and extra values, or if you could show 8 tricks in a major with a 2C opener, this hand would NOT be a problem.

3) Please assume standard methods. Bidding problems on here seem to end up being "I have X treatment so thats how I solve this bidding problem" as opposed to "I'm playing standard methods thus this is a problem hand so what, in my judgement, is the best bid?" Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this is the point of bidding porblems in general, especially on the sayc 2/1 board. I know in real life if I gave this problem and someone said "I bid 3H showing 6H and 3S and extras" I would say "you don't have that bid available, so what do you bid?"

 

That being said, yes I would open 1H. Over 1S I'll just bid 4H. I make opposite the KQ of spades and out so I can't see making a non forcing bid, and 3C is just sick. 3N could work out, but it could work poorly as well.

 

On a side note: here is a bidding problem for you free. J AQT9xx KQx Axx playing YOUR methods, 1H p 1S ?

[Fluffy]

1♥-1♠-2NT GF, simple and easy :)

[Guest Jlall]

1♥-1♠-2NT GF, simple and easy :)

ROFL...i guess my post was a lost cause. ok. If you could bid this way would this hand be a problem?

[Free]

~snip~

On a side note: here is a bidding problem for you free. J AQT9xx KQx Axx playing YOUR methods, 1H p 1S ?

With MY methods, this is a 1♣ opener, but that's VERY far from natural...

 

With the treatment I suggested, your bidding problem is a 3NT rebid (maybe 2♥ if you're afraid). And yes, it sucks on such hands from time to time, but it also scores a lot more on other hands.

 

I've never read anything about sayc (don't see any reason to torture myself), but I suppose the 3NT bid is available since it's a simple system, so 2NT probably shows 18-19 balanced (no?).

Problems for pickup partnerships aren't really useful imo (unless it's about how standard methods are interpreted) and it wasn't mentioned what kind of partnership it was, so I just suggest a rather good and VERY simple gadget. Btw, this is hardly a gadget around here, and I don't even use it cause it doesn't fit in the system I play.

 

Btw, why do you think your post is a lost cause? Fluffy's 2NT is a clear sayc bid to show a balanced hand with 18-19HCP, which is GF in sayc. I actually like his idea more than an immediate 4♥ or any NF bid showing length in ♥. I understand your point, but not why you're sooooooooooo annoyed.

[Al_U_Card]

1♥-1♠-2NT GF, simple and easy :)

ROFL...i guess my post was a lost cause. ok. If you could bid this way would this hand be a problem?

Remember that us fogies tend to be hard of hearing AND tend to forget quickly AND are often just wrong-headed so let youth be served.....just say your probably sensible and correct answer and don't let any of them get to ya.

 

btw any sense to a 4S bid? Since I play the F-u-know-what bid I will not allow that to deter me from thinking in terms of taking the D tap in the short hand and using all those H for discards.....

[Al_U_Card]

Btw, why do you think your post is a lost cause?  Fluffy's 2NT is a clear sayc bid to show a balanced hand with 18-19HCP, which is GF in sayc.  I actually like his idea more than an immediate 4♥ or any NF bid showing length in ♥.  I understand your point, but not why you're sooooooooooo annoyed.

Really? 100% HTG GF? Thot it was a descriptive limit bid that can be passed opposite the ratty 5 count. Only when pard makes a rebid does it become a GF.....or was that from a previous life experience?

[mikeh]

If you are playing in a partnership with no specific agreements, then your choices appear to be:

 

-- underbid of 3♥

-- distortion of 3♣

-- misdecription of 4♥

 

In other words, there is no 'correct' bid.

 

I cannot stand missing game here, even if game fails. So count me out of 3♥.

 

This hand has too much slam potential for a 4♥ bid, which to me describes a different hand.

 

So I choose the 'sick' 3♣ bid.

 

In standard or 2/1 this jumpshift is usually treated with caution anyway: we all manufacture this one, just as we sometimes reverse into a non-suit if faced with no other attractive alternative.

 

I am not saying that 3♣ solves all problems, but it forces to game while preserving a realistic chance of reaching slam when 4♥ might not.

 

BTW (and this is for Justin :) ) I do have a gadget here: only it is not really 'my' gadget.

 

I like to play that 3♣ is explicitly one of two hand types: the first is 'standard': I hold a game force with 5+♥ and 4+♣. The other is a huge one-suiter in ♥: too many hcp for a namyats opening, wrong shape, texture, for a 4♥ rebid. Partner usually bids 3♦ to allow me to clarify. If he did so here, I would have to choose between 3♠ and 3♥: I would choose 3♥ to avoid suggesting a ♦ stiff.

 

This is an extension of Jeff's magic elixir.

[kfgauss]

With the treatment I suggested, your bidding problem is a 3NT rebid (maybe 2♥ if you're afraid).  And yes, it sucks on such hands from time to time, but it also scores a lot more on other hands.

 

Mid-range (16-18) point hands like this are much more frequent than the GF ones (and I think the game/partscore decision on those is more important than the distinction you're making here).

 

Btw, why do you think your post is a lost cause?  Fluffy's 2NT is a clear sayc bid to show a balanced hand with 18-19HCP, which is GF in sayc.  I actually like his idea more than an immediate 4♥ or any NF bid showing length in ♥.  I understand your point, but not why you're sooooooooooo annoyed.

 

2NT isn't forcing in sayc (remember that you just told us you don't know sayc).

 

---------

 

As for the actual hand, 3NT does (by inference) show a solid 6+ card suit (as mike suggested) in sayc. I'm worried about the diamonds, though (perhaps I shouldn't be as much as I am). I'd like to try 3C, but at the table I might chicken out and bid 4H or 3NT.

 

Andy

[Free]

Btw, why do you think your post is a lost cause?  Fluffy's 2NT is a clear sayc bid to show a balanced hand with 18-19HCP, which is GF in sayc.  I actually like his idea more than an immediate 4♥ or any NF bid showing length in ♥.  I understand your point, but not why you're sooooooooooo annoyed.

Really? 100% HTG GF? Thot it was a descriptive limit bid that can be passed opposite the ratty 5 count. Only when pard makes a rebid does it become a GF.....or was that from a previous life experience?

You only live twice. In my previous life I was worldchampion, so I know what I'm talking about :)

 

Anyway, why would you bid with a ratty 5 count in the first place?? :blink: Don't you open light from time to time? Responding with decent 4-5 counts is imo ok, but not with 3 Jacks and a Queen...

 

Apparently 2NT isn't forcing in sayc, so just bid 3NT to show that solid suit (which is in fact standard apparently).

[Al_U_Card]

Anyway, why would you bid with a ratty 5 count in the first place?? :) Don't you open light from time to time? Responding with decent 4-5 counts is imo ok, but not with 3 Jacks and a Queen...

The number 4 was not mentioned (See Justin, spreads like the plague, it does) and often those nice 2 suiters that can't be opened 2C (again in sayc or 2/1 methods) just need a fit to make game. I always respond at the 1 level with 5 hcp because pard has promised me a rebid......

[awm]

This is really a classic problem hand -- "what do you do with a really good hand (too good for single raise) holding length in your original suit and exactly three cards in partner's major?"

 

Honestly this is one of the biggest unaddressed problems with (constructive) standard bidding. That's why we see so many people answering with "I play X convention." Without added conventions there isn't really a nice answer for such problems. I think the best option is:

 

(1) Without enough for game, rebid 3 of your suit. You may play the wrong partial, but partner will often rebid 3M with five on the way to game, allowing you to show your fit.

 

(2) With enough for game, make up a suit. Then try correcting to partner's suit. Most good partners will be aware that 1X-1Y-3♣ in particular is often a three-card (or shorter!) suit trying to describe a game force.

 

On this hand I take option (2). You're good enough to be in game opposite a 1/1 and at least you have the club ace (so if partner tries notrump you won't be off a stopper). I think 3NT could easily be the top spot opposite some minimums (Kxxx xx Kxxx xxx). If partner tries to raise the clubs I'd back into hearts immediately, and hopefully partner will know that I have the "game forcing one suiter" type of 3♣ bid with only 2-3 clubs. If partner tries 3♦ or 3♠ I am well placed to show my spade support.

[pclayton]

3N doesn't seem to be a bad description either. Are we more likely to lose 4 tricks in hearts than 5 tricks in NT?

 

I'm sure we'd all love to tell you that we have a fix for hands like this. Like some of the others, this isn't a problem for me .

[Guest Jlall]

Free,

 

1) 2N is not forcing in SAYC. Thus my comment. You are correct in SAYC it shows 18-19 balanced, but fluffy said "GF" which is his own personal treatment.

 

2) If you bid 3N on that hand you will get too high fairly frequently. I was just pointing out that though your convention solves the problem on this hand, you lose on other hands and create a different set of problems. Just like with ALL conventions. There is always a price.

 

Al,

 

I was not saying fluffy made the wrong bid or I made the right bid. The point is there is no "right" bid, and its interesting to hear the viewpoints of others on tough hands. That's one of the purposes of this forum. Old fogies may be hard of hearing, but Fluffy is quite young I believe :blink:

 

Mike,

 

Canadians are expected to bid 3C with this hand (one day I'll stop the Canadian jokes :))

[jdeegan]

I make opposite the KQ of spades and out so I can't see making a non forcing bid, and 3C is just sick.

:)

Maybe 3♣ is sick, but my goodness, I am looking at a hand that, while one winner short of an opening two bid, is quite remarkable, esp. opposite a six+ count with spades. It now looks better than half of my two openers. It takes so little in pard's hand to roll six or even seven (the KQ fifth of ♠ and the missing ace).

 

To me 4♥ feels like I am taking a position and masterminding the hand. Of course, bidding 3♣ makes me a little nervous, too. The auction might get out of control. Ah!, Risk versus reward, the same old story.

 

For me, greed trumps fear. Sick or not, I have to try 3♣. Can't I at least find out if partner has five spades?

[Guest Jlall]

hehe, it's funny you consider 4H (jumping to game with a game going hand in your 6 solid) a mastermind but not 3C (jump shifting to your 2 card suit) one. I would not be shocked to miss a slam, though, and 3C could easily be the winner. Bad things could also happen like partner goin wild about his QTxxx of clubs and getting you to a hopeless slam, or the opps finding a killing diamond lead when you do end up in 4H. Nothing is foolproof with this hand.

 

As for playing spades, I don't really understand that concept. If you are hoping partner has 5 spades so you can DISCARD then I understand. I don't think I'll let partner play with spades as a trump suit though when I have this heart holding.

[han]

I do have a gadget for this hand, but I won't mention this. Seen pictures of Justin in what looked like a black leather jacket and I don't want to get into a fight.

 

Without gadgets I would bid 3NT. This gets the strength and good hearts across. If they can take the first 11 tricks I'm less happy, but partner is likely to correct to 4H with a diamond void.

[mikeh]

Mike,

 

Canadians are expected to bid 3C with this hand (one day I'll stop the Canadian jokes :blink:)

Hey, I took it as a compliment, not a joke :D

 

We Canadians are proud of our contributions to bidding theory, going back to Drury. More recent examples include Eric Kokish, who has to be on anyone's list of the top theorists in the world, and Fred: before he moved to the US he was a Canadian star... and indeed I think Fred would acknowledge that Eric's ideas helped him widen his understanding of the game.

 

Several other top 'US' players have their roots in Canada: it is a common theme in our culture... witness such actors as William Shatner aka Captain Kirk :D

 

That reference may be too old for Justin, however :)

[Guest Jlall]

Hey I'm not arguing. Funny story...I hadnt played bridge long at all, less than a year and I completely worshipped Kokish and Silver. I went to Lille, France with my parents for the world championships and I met Eric. I immediately asked for his autograph lol. I think he was touched that an 11 year old wanted his autograph...he was really nice. He bought me a world championship book that he had done work on and signed it for me. I still have it. Also, my main partner these days is canadian (David Grainger).

[whereagles]

Good hand for the SEF 2C "fort indetermineé". In SAYC you need gadgets or open 2C or 2NT.

[iggygork]

This is really a classic problem hand -- "what do you do with a really good hand (too good for single raise) holding length in your original suit and exactly three cards in partner's major?"

 

Honestly this is one of the biggest unaddressed problems with (constructive) standard bidding. That's why we see so many people answering with "I play X convention." Without added conventions there isn't really a nice answer for such problems. I think the best option is:

 

(1) Without enough for game, rebid 3 of your suit. You may play the wrong partial, but partner will often rebid 3M with five on the way to game, allowing you to show your fit.

 

(2) With enough for game, make up a suit. Then try correcting to partner's suit. Most good partners will be aware that 1X-1Y-3♣ in particular is often a three-card (or shorter!) suit trying to describe a game force.

 

On this hand I take option (2). You're good enough to be in game opposite a 1/1 and at least you have the club ace (so if partner tries notrump you won't be off a stopper). I think 3NT could easily be the top spot opposite some minimums (Kxxx xx Kxxx xxx). If partner tries to raise the clubs I'd back into hearts immediately, and hopefully partner will know that I have the "game forcing one suiter" type of 3♣ bid with only 2-3 clubs. If partner tries 3♦ or 3♠ I am well placed to show my spade support.

Funny that this "Bridge World Problem" hand should come up here, I had one this weekend, which ended in disaster:

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=saxhakqj9xdkxckxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

I opened this hand 1♥ in fourth seat and pard responded 1♠. Playing vanilla 2/1 I had to manufacture a jump shift to 3♣ and then the bidding proceeded 3♦ by partner (presumably natural), 3♥ by me and now pard polished things off with 4♣!. By now I had figured out that pard has a ♥ void and something like 4-0-5-4, so I tried to bring things to a close by bidding 4♥ with my semi solid suit. Unfortunately pard had a ten count and we inched our way to 6NT via 5♣ by him, 5♦ by me, 5♠ by him, 5NT by me (intended as to play, taken as GSF by pard, neat is it not?), 6♣ by pard and a final 6NT by me. We went down 1. At the other table they were down 2 in 6NT.

 

The red suits were 5-5 on my left. My pard owes me a dollar.