BBO Discussion Forums: am I being unreasonable? - BBO Discussion Forums

jillybean, on 2014-October-16, 07:56, said:

Whether we like South's jump to 3NT or not is moot. The key meta-rule is:

When you have made a description of your hand, and partner places the contract in 3NT, IT IS TIME TO STOP THINKING and get ready to put down your hand as dummy.

If you think you haven't adequately described your hand, that ship has sailed. The time to think about that was when you rebid 2D.

1) I play 3♣ in this sequence as extended new minor forcing, so that is the call that I would make. Even if I did not play 3♣ as artificial, that is probably the call that I would make.

2) A couple of posters have stated that, for lack of a better phrase, 3NT ends all auctions. The actual hand shows how silly that can be. 6♦ is cold barring a 5-1 heart split. This can be attributed to South failing to appreciate the possibility that there is a slam here when he holds QT9 in support of a rebid diamond suit. Maybe that will become clear if he bids 3♣ and hears 3♦ by North. Or maybe 6♦ is just too difficult to bid.

North could help partner out by bidding 3♥ rather than 3♦ over 3♣. Or, if South insists on bidding 3NT over 3♦, maybe North should then bid 4♥. It would be nice to know whether this hand was played at IMPs or at matchpoints. At matchpoints, it is far more tempting to play in 3NT rather than explore for slam and risk playing in 5♦. That is not a problem at IMPs (other than the fact that 5♦ might be too high).

ArtK78, on 2014-October-16, 09:03, said:

The basic problem I think is that 1♦- rebid 2♦has such a wide range in Standard. Here North has 7 playing tricks and I would value this a worth a jump to 3♦. Then the slam is easy to reach. Acollers who play a strong 2♦ (perhaps a dying breed) would happily rebid 3♦. And multi 2♦ers who incorporate a near game minor could do so also. How strong do the posters play a rebid of 3♦?

I don't think this is a bad slam to miss. Switch either player's black suits and moving beyond 3N is okay at IMPs and very bad at MPs.

Wackojack, on 2014-October-16, 10:50, said:

Yes, this is sort of my point. Some might even call that hand 8 playing tricks.

Art is right, in a way, when he says "3NT ends all auctions is silly". But, I gave some caveats...that removing 3NT (if it is bid to play) is not the time to decide we are unhappy with our previous auction.

This board should launch a discussion in the bar afterwards..after the 3NT contract made most of the matchpoints or went down after they ran 5 club tricks.

The discussion would involve the decision to rebid 2D and the 3NT Jump, and how they might have gotten to 6D if one or both of them had made different choices. Don't bother with what happened after 3NT was pulled on the actual board; you can't shine crap. Don't bother with adding gadgets, here; this isn't a gadget hand unless you call control bidding a gadget.

Would definitely have bid 3♦ not 2♦.

Several posters are suggesting that North should have rebid 3♦, not 2♦. I don't think that the North hand is good enough to bid 3♦, but I can understand the bid. The North hand has a lot of playing stregth ASSUMING THAT THE HAND IS PLAYED IN DIAMONDS. In any other contract, the playing strength of the North hand is not as clear.

It has the potential to provide eight tricks in NoTrump, also; which is more than I can say for all my 2NT opening bids.

aguahombre, on 2014-October-16, 08:28, said:

I have never disagreed with a post as vehmently as I disagree with this response. After I make a minimum rebid,(11-15) albeit wide ranging one, and partner jumps to 3NT I will always continue to think and reevaluate my hand. fwiw, I think the hand is closer to a 2♦ rebid than 3♦.

edited to include range of my typical minimum rebid in this auction.

jillybean, on 2014-October-16, 18:42, said:

I have no doubt those are things you believe. A minimum rebid is not wide ranging; it is a limited bid. 1H-1S--2D is wide ranging...11-18. 1D-1M-2d should not be wide ranging. What you believe doesn't change that.

jillybean, on 2014-October-16, 18:42, said:

The point is that if your 2♦ rebid is more tightly defined, you don't need to think over 3N. This hand is 7 playing tricks, exactly what a classical 3♦ bid shows. Counting points is the wrong approach here, count tricks.

If you're going to play them as wide ranging as this, I suggest using a Bourke relay or similar (I believe that would be 2♠ in classical Bourke, but we use 2♥).

Playing on BBO with an unknown partner I think it best to keep it simple and bid 3 nt. With a regular partner use your favourite methods.

Incidentally, it is usually best for the lead to come up to Ax, not through it. E.g opposite QJ or J10x.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-October-16, 11:42, said:

If anything it is slightly too good for 3♦ which partner will pass with xxx xxxx xxx Axx for sure. I did not comment on this thread until now because of the ludicrous 2♦ bid. However, I think that the hand should now bid 4♦, a diamond slam try, which basically says, "I should have bid 3♦ last time." I will then respect the sign-off in 4NT, which I hope partner will not make on the hand he had. I would not confuse partner with 4♣ which must be a self-splinter for diamonds, although I think that is the better bid.

jillybean, on 2014-October-15, 23:41, said:

Absolutely NOT 2s - we don#t tell lies about major suits. 3c is a possibility but where are we going? What if p replies 3d? There must be a chance for 3nt so I will bid it, especially at imp scoring or teams.

jmcilkley, on 2014-October-17, 08:20, said:

This is theory only, since you should not have to make that choice on the given board. However, "we don't tell lies about major suits" --while a generally good idea -- does not apply here.

1D-1H
2D-? 2S is a bid in a suit which partner cannot hold; so there is no danger of ending in a silly spade contract. It is also the cheapest bid which establishes a game-force; it can't be all that bad.

So this has finally become a controversial thread, and funny too. (Considering, for instance, that initially the 3NT bid was rated too strong by some and later too weak by others .)

I think 3NT shows just the right strength for a hand with values for an opening bid opposite a weak opening hand. And yes, bidding game shows values for game and not much more, so partner is expected to pass with any previously limited hand! This can be different after a sequence such as 1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 3NT when opener is, well, theoretically limited but in a very wide range and may still have 19 HCP rather than the promised 12 HCP and then may start a slam try.

Anyway, once one is reasonably sure what the final contract should be, one should bid it. The question here is: Should we go for 3NT or 5♦? I believe that, while 3NT will sometimes fall and 5♦ will make or not, 3NT should be the winning alternative with this hand in the long run. So I would bid 3NT with a hand like this if ... I had 4 cards in ♥. But having 5 cards in ♥, 4♥ is an attractive alternative and we should give partner the opportunity of showing 3-card ♥ support. For this reason, mainly, we should force on with 2♠ or 3♣ here rather than bid 3NT. Which of them is better? Usually I don't like bidding artificial major suits. With minors it is less likely that things will go wrong. On the other hand, the problem with 3♣ here is that opener may still have a 4-card ♣ suit and raise to 4♣, and then the attractive 3NT contract is lost. For this reason I would prefer 2♠ here unless I see a significant probability that opener still has a 4-card ♠ suit which I think should not be the case. With 6-4 in ♦ and ♠ they would rebid 1♠ rather than 2♦, or perhaps not? Anyway, a bid of 3♠ can be corrected to 3NT, and in the unlikely case of 4♠ it can be corrected to 5♦.

This brings us to the North hand. I can understand that some prefer to bid 2♦ with just 12 HCP, and indeed if partner does not support ♦ and opps' ♦s split badly, and if the entry to the North hand is lost and we cannot establish the ♦ suit, then 3NT, 4♥ or higher may end up in a terrible desaster. But that is a lot of 'if's. I think one should be less pessimistic here and reasonably hope that the ♦ cards turn out useful, and then this hand has 7.5 playing tricks certainly worth a jump to 3♦ which should bring us close enough to a slam.

This sequence, 1♦ - 1♥ / 2♦ - 3NT / 4♦, by the way, I am not sure what I would think of it. Does it really mean "I should have bid 3♦ earlier, and I hope to play a slam now" or does it mean "I should have opened 3♦ and 3NT has no chance"? It is usually a bad idea to correct one's former bid even if you realize it was bad; because if you try to correct it, partner will often draw the wrong conclusions from your activity and not react as expected. While if you stick with your decision it will likely not make a difference; and if it does, it will sometimes even be good; and if it is not, you apologize and move on. We all should be allowed to make mistakes.

Seems to me that if the hand was good enough for N to think of slam, it was good enough for N to completely describe the strength of the hand by bidding 3D, 2D shows a minimum and 3NT would be a shut out. If N bids the 16-18 point jump raise, then S should be excited for slam and ask aces.

Conditions are that the only forcing bids are 2♠ & 3♣.

I think that 2♠ is only forcing to 2NT or 3♦, while 3♣ is forcing to 3NT or 4♦. If I am going to force to game, as I am here, then I make the bid that shows where my features are and I would bid 3♣ on the given hand.

If I have a game-forcing hand with nothing in either black suit, then I have a problem. My preferred version of inverted minor raises allows me to raise with a 4-card major and longer ♦ but you can do this only if you either play weak NT or do it with game-forcing hands. With other hands that don't have a singleton, I might have made a strong jump shift (if playing them) or I might rebid 4♦ here.

I am aware of two approaches that probably do better: "The Bourke Relay" by David Bird & Tim Bourke (Bridge World July 1996) or "TSAR" by Jeff Rubens (Bridge World web-site under Esoterica). They both use the cheapest new suit bid as a relay.

blasting out a slam when you were willing to play in 2♦ if partner has ill fitting 10. Now partner could have an ill-fitting 13 and you want to be in slam? I vote unreasonable.

helene_t, on 2014-October-16, 01:38, said:

philking said:

Combining these two together, 2S art forcing showing 5 hearts, 2N F1 showing 4 hearts. So over 2N you don't need to worry about showing 3 hearts, you can play 3D min, 3suit shortness (including 3H), 3N max no shortness. I play this in some partnerships and quite like it (though in precision I play 3C as natural since 6-4 always rebids 2D, in standard I think you can play 3C shortness since 6-4 will typically bid 2C unless the diamonds are very good).

Anyways, sorry for the system derail, definitely agree that AKJxxxx and an ace should rebid 3D. The hand has too much trick taking potential not for diamonds but for NOTRUMP.