[Hanoi5]

You hold:

♠AT9xx
♥8
♦AQ87x
♣J9

1♠-2♥
???

Is 3♦ normal and wtp? Is 2♠ (catch-all) better?

[MarkDean]

I used to play a style where this was a 3♦ bid, but I have been converted and now play this is a 2♠ catch all. Partner bids 2NT if it is at all possible, and then we can bid 3♦. I was skeptical at first, but it does seem to work out reasonably well.

[neilkaz]

MarkDean, on Jul 6 2010, 10:29 PM, said:

I used to play a style where this was a 3♦ bid, but I have been converted and now play this is a 2♠ catch all.  Partner bids 2NT if it is at all possible, and then we can bid 3♦.  I was skeptical at first, but it does seem to work out reasonably well.

Me also, not so long ago, but not I prefer to have at least a bit of extra playing strength for 3♦ and this hand doesn't have it so 2♠ also.

[jillybean]

I think 3♦ is old fashioned, this is a routine 2♠ for me.

[ArtK78]

3♦ is far from old-fashioned. In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game. It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

[jillybean]

ArtK78, on Jul 6 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

3♦ is far from old-fashioned. In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game. It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

What did you do in the old days with this hand then?

[peachy]

Whether playing 2/1 or SAYC, 3D is an overbid with this. 2S.

[CSGibson]

3♦. I have an opportunity to describe to partner a salient feature of my hand, so I will do so (assuming that we're playing 2/1. Sayc I'm a 2♠ bidder).

[gwnn]

I'd definitely bid 3D with AQ AQ, but this would be alittle too much for my liking.

[mike777]

Hanoi5, on Jul 6 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

You hold:

♠AT9xx
♥8
♦AQ87x
♣J9

1♠-2♥
???

Is 3♦ normal and wtp? Is 2♠ (catch-all) better?

easy 3d if 2s promise 6...

3d can be ten hcp often...

of course that means 2h is a really good hand, not crap.


----------------


if 2s shows 5 and most others catch all...than i guess 2s is forced

2h can be much weaker now.

[rogerclee]

In a normal American 2/1 style, you can argue about where to draw the line with 5-5, but this is not particularly close to it.

[whereagles]

hanoi, if you're bidding 3♦ on both that hand and some monster with 18 hcp, you're gonna have serious problems latter finding the right level of play.

Thus 2♠ is better.

[helene_t]

jillybean, on Jul 7 2010, 04:58 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 6 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

3♦ is far from old-fashioned.  In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game.  It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

What did you do in the old days with this hand then?

I the really old days it was a 2♠. When Hardy's book came it became fashionable to bid 3♦. But now 2♠ is standard I believe.

I generally prefer not to play the 2♠ catch-all but I would like to make an exception for this specific situation where the fourth suit is at the 4-level. This would make it impossible to sort out both strain and level in some situation. Say responder bids 3♠ over 3♦. IMHO this can't promise 3-card support since it is the only waiting bid available for a hand with no clear direction and 3NT as a possible strain - 3♥ should show 6. So after 3♠ we still need to sort out strain. I am afraid we can't do that while at the same time sorting out the strength of at least one of the two hands.

[mich-b]

helene_t, on Jul 7 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

jillybean, on Jul 7 2010, 04:58 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 6 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

3♦ is far from old-fashioned.  In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game.  It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

What did you do in the old days with this hand then?

I the really old days it was a 2♠. When Hardy's book came it became fashionable to bid 3♦. But now 2♠ is standard I believe.

I generally prefer not to play the 2♠ catch-all but I would like to make an exception for this specific situation where the fourth suit is at the 4-level. This would make it impossible to sort out both strain and level in some situation. Say responder bids 3♠ over 3♦. IMHO this can't promise 3-card support since it is the only waiting bid available for a hand with no clear direction and 3NT as a possible strain - 3♥ should show 6. So after 3♠ we still need to sort out strain. I am afraid we can't do that while at the same time sorting out the strength of at least one of the two hands.

It has been suggested that in the specific sequence :
1♠ - 2♥
3♦ - ?

it is better to reverse 3♠ and 4♣, so that
3♠ = 4th suit forcing,
4♣ = 3♠s , good hand

This avoids the problem of using 4th suit forcing on the 4 level.

[gordontd]

gwnn, on Jul 7 2010, 06:50 AM, said:

I'd definitely bid 3D with AQ AQ, but this would be alittle too much for my liking.

So you play that a high reverse shows extra, but not much extra?

[gwnn]

yes, and I like to play it as 5-5. AQ AQ is pushing it but I want to show my shape. it will get crowded but it's always crowded over 1S-2H.

[gordontd]

ArtK78, on Jul 7 2010, 04:55 AM, said:

3♦ is far from old-fashioned.  In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game.  It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

There feels like a contradiction or a typo in this.

However, I think 2♠ is the truly modern approach - because 2NT would show six spades and 3♦ would show extras. So, all hands with only five spades and no extras will rebid 2♠.

[ArtK78]

gordontd, on Jul 7 2010, 07:30 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 7 2010, 04:55 AM, said:

3♦ is far from old-fashioned.  In old-fashioned Standard bidding, where 2♥ was not a game force, 3♦ was a "high reverse" and was forcing to game.  It showed a hand of about 16 HCP or equivalent playing strength.

2♠ on this hand is actually the modern approach.

There feels like a contradiction or a typo in this.

However, I think 2♠ is the truly modern approach - because 2NT would show six spades and 3♦ would show extras. So, all hands with only five spades and no extras will rebid 2♠.

Yes. It was a sort of a typo. More like a brain fart.

I got interrupted between the first paragraph and the last sentence.

2♠ is the old fashioned approach, as the hand is not good enough for a 3♦ bid.

Now, there is more of a division between 2♠ and 3♦. If you play that 2♠ promises 6, then you cannot bid 2♠ and are endplayed into bidding 3♦. Clearly, 3♦ does not show extras in this method.

If you promise extras with the 3♦ rebid, then you have to bid 2♠.

I strongly suspect that most players playing Standard methods would bid 2♠ on these cards.

[Vampyr]

I thought that if you were playing 2/1 GF, then you could rebid all manner of things without showing extras.

[Hanoi5]

I think the problem lies in that several hands are opened with a very low HCP level and if you find yourself in 1♠-2♥-3♦ with 10 HCP's in front of 13 HCP's and no fit, then things get ugly.

The concept of 'catch-all' pretty much helps with this problem, I think.