[kenberg]

---

We got this far.

2♠ showed five spades, was forcing, did not promise or deny the strength to go on. If N had four diamonds and five spades he would have shown the diamond fit rather than rebid the spades, but other than that the 2♠ just shows five spades.

3♦ over 2♠ would now show the 6-5 shape and be forcing, 3♣ would not be forcing, nor would it promise any extra shape, other than a preference for 3♣ rather than 2NT, since opener had to bid something over 2♠. Your call?

This was a matchpoint game.

[mikeh]

3♣. I had to reverse...couldn't avoid it, but now I'm pulling in my horns....would bid 3♥ if my red suits were reversed, because 4♥ would still be in the picture. I'm not looking for 4 minor nor 5minor unless partner can bid over my 3♣.

No way I'm bidding 3♠ or notrump. I admit, however, that 3♠ might well be a winner...I just can't bring myself to do it.

[kenberg]

I held the shown hand, and I was not considering 3♠. With Qx and a heart void I would perhaps not just consider it but do it. But here, I wasn't.

Partner didn't have all that much, but it fit great. I also rebid 3♣ and played it there, making 5. Partner held Axxxx of spades, three heart spots, the QJx of diamonds and two small clubs.


Since clubs are 3-2 I think I can manage 6♦, but 5♣ would be good enough. Partner apologized for not going on but of course I took the responsibility, he has no further bid to make.

Maybe it's just a magic hand, but I was wondering if I might have been more aggressive and rebid 3♦. Obviously it could go wrong.

Partner actually had slightly more, I think his spades were AJxxx, but the J is of no consequence in the bidding or the play.

[Phil]

Yes, 3♣ - just not enough firepower for 3♦. If pard take delayed preference to diamonds, I will press on.

Anyone think 3♦ is forcing (by pard over 3♣)? I think you can make a very strong case that it is.

[Fluffy]

Clear 3♣ IMO, quality makes this a clear 1♣ opener to fake a 4-6 (7)

[kenberg]

Phil, on 2010-December-02, 18:01, said:

Yes, 3♣ - just not enough firepower for 3♦. If pard take delayed preference to diamonds, I will press on.

Anyone think 3♦ is forcing (by pard over 3♣)? I think you can make a very strong case that it is.

In earlier discussions, I came to the conclusion that after 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ then responder, if holding diamonds and enough values for a direct 3♦, should show that now even if he holds five spades. My thinking was that firstly opener usually does not have three spades and secondly it gets tough to show both the strength and the shape if, after the 2♠ rebid, opener cannot raise spades. So far, on a small sample size, this seems to work. If opener has three spades he bids them at his third turn. Now if you played the way you suggest, that argument would be weakened significantly. Perhaps it should be forcing.

Forcing wouldn't really help here, since I doubt responder with modest values would want to make a forcing 3♦ bid when he has no reason to believe I have five diamonds. Possibly it is better here for it to be non-forcing. With QJx he could, perhaps, decide to give 3♦ a try figuring that it gives me another opportunity and if I pass, well QJx may suffice.

Btw, I don't see the 3♣ bid as promising six cards. Give me 1=3=4=5 with values concentrated in the minors. What am I to do over 2♠? Taking a potshot at 2NT on Qxx doesn't appeal to me, and even if I have Axx it seems I had better have at least the clubs ready to run.

People say "It promises six clubs but sometimes you have to lie". To me, this means that it doesn't promise six.

[cloa513]

kenberg, on 2010-December-02, 17:31, said:

I held the shown hand, and I was not considering 3♠. With Qx and a heart void I would perhaps not just consider it but do it. But here, I wasn't.

Partner didn't have all that much, but it fit great. I also rebid 3♣ and played it there, making 5. Partner held Axxxx of spades, three heart spots, the QJx of diamonds and two small clubs.


Since clubs are 3-2 I think I can manage 6♦, but 5♣ would be good enough. Partner apologized for not going on but of course I took the responsibility, he has no further bid to make.

Maybe it's just a magic hand, but I was wondering if I might have been more aggressive and rebid 3♦. Obviously it could go wrong.

Partner actually had slightly more, I think his spades were AJxxx, but the J is of no consequence in the bidding or the play.

That's your partner's fault for undervaluing his hand- his is easily worth a cue or at least 3D.

[Siegmund]

Surprising thread to me. I imagined this was a 3DWTP... it's not anything close to a minimum, between the 5th diamond, the super-chunky clubs, AND the upgraded SQ (4 losers where it could have been six, if we can find somewhere to play!) There are not many 5-6s that I wouldn't be willing to rebid 3D on if I were willing to reverse in the first place, really.

[Free]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-02, 18:59, said:

Clear 3♣ IMO, quality makes this a clear 1♣ opener to fake a 4-6 (7)

Wow, not opening 1♦ with this hand?

[han]

About the hand: clear 3C.

About the 2S bid: If you play that 2H is the weak bid, then I would suggest that in this auction (and only in this auction) 2S is GF. This means that you'll have to bid 2H with bad hands and 5+ spades. The good news is, you might be able to stop in 2S on those hands if you start with 2H, and defining 2S as GF is convenient (for example, we could bid 3D with this hand). I had long discussions about this with cherdano, I think I failed to convince him so maybe it is a bad idea.

About partner bidding 3D directly with 5+ spades and 4 diamonds: Yes I think this is often the right thing to do when you have some slam interest. The same holds for hands with 5 spades and 3 clubs. Still, I would play partner's 3D over 3C as forcing. I had a long discussion about this with jdonn once, in the end we both agreed that this was the better style.

About bidding 3C with 1-3-4-5 shapes and "only" Qxx of hearts: TERRIBLE IDEA!

[Wackojack]

han, on 2010-December-03, 05:14, said:

About the hand: clear 3C.

About the 2S bid: If you play that 2H is the weak bid, then I would suggest that in this auction (and only in this auction) 2S is GF. This means that you'll have to bid 2H with bad hands and 5+ spades. The good news is, you might be able to stop in 2S on those hands if you start with 2H, and defining 2S as GF is convenient (for example, we could bid 3D with this hand). I had long discussions about this with cherdano, I think I failed to convince him so maybe it is a bad idea.

This seems like a good idea to me. I notice that mikeh in his pinned primer on reverse bidding in the B/I section suggests this is part of the Ingberman convention. Is this so? I have often wondered what the precise differences between Ingberman and Lebensohl were.

[gwnn]

hear no evil, see no evil, bid your shape: 3♦. so we will end a little too high every now and again, that's a part of the game.

[kenberg]

han, on 2010-December-03, 05:14, said:

About bidding 3C with 1-3-4-5 shapes and "only" Qxx of hearts: TERRIBLE IDEA!

Thank you for this. I am glad I brought it up and I won't send you the bill if 3NT bites the dust. I still need to think some, but probably I'll buy it.

Also, I am surprised that I did not myself think of playing 2♠ as gf since 2♥ is being played by us as artificial and weak. Seems pretty obvious. I doubt partner would have bid a game forcing 2♠ here, since he didn't bid over 3♣, so it doesn't by itself get us out of the woods on this one. Still, it seems 2♠ as gf is the way to go.

About 3♦ over 3♣ as forcing. After a gf 2♠ then sure. But:

Suppose now that the auction begins 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ (potentially weak, not denying five spades) 3♣. On this auction, after the 2♥ call, then 3♦ can hardly be forcing, right? This is just a hand wanting to get out in diamonds rather than clubs, it seems. Or are you saying that even after the 2♥ bid the 3♦ is still forcing?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Siegmund, on 2010-December-02, 22:11, said:

Surprising thread to me. I imagined this was a 3DWTP... it's not anything close to a minimum, between the 5th diamond, the super-chunky clubs, AND the upgraded SQ (4 losers where it could have been six, if we can find somewhere to play!) There are not many 5-6s that I wouldn't be willing to rebid 3D on if I were willing to reverse in the first place, really.

I agree with Siggy.... 3D

[nige1]

kenberg, on 2010-December-02, 16:35, said:

We got this far.
2♠ showed five spades, was forcing, did not promise or deny the strength to go on. If N had four diamonds and five spades he would have shown the diamond fit rather than rebid the spades, but other than that the 2♠ just shows five spades.
3♦ over 2♠ would now show the 6-5 shape and be forcing, 3♣ would not be forcing, nor would it promise any extra shape, other than a preference for 3♣ rather than 2NT, since opener had to bid something over 2♠. Your call?
This was a matchpoint game.

---

IMO 3♦ = 10, 3♣ = 9, 3♠ = 8, _P (with a forgiving partner) = 7.

[gwnn]

why does pass get 7 points? because we're signing off when we have no idea how high we belong or because we have no idea what strain we belong to?

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2010-December-03, 11:40, said:

why does pass get 7 points? because we're signing off when we have no idea how high we belong or because we have no idea what strain we belong to?

Of course this has to depend on agreements. Our agreement is that 2♠ shows five spades, and says nothing whatsoever about strength. With that agreement in place, I regard pass as life threatening.

[kayin801]

I was initially gonna say 3♦ based on hand strength but I feel like 3♣ has a better chance of getting us to 3NT, since with a fit partner might try 3♥ (stopper ask for me) or 3NT and we have a chance of running away with 10+ tricks in 3NT when slam isn't on. We are REALLY in business if we know the club suit is coming in, but it's easier for that to come in than diamonds. And as others have said, if partner bids diamonds after 3♣ I'm not displeased.

[Phil]

The reason I think 3♦ is forcing is because so often 2♦ is made on a fragment with a concentration of values. Responder can't conveniently choose 3♦ over 3♣ as a result.

I don't see why 2♠ can't be GF in this auction if 2♥ is available as a slow-down. Opener can give preference with even Hx on the way to 2N so I'm not sure what you lose. Han, what was Cherdano's objection?

[nige1]

gwnn, on 2010-December-03, 11:40, said:

why does pass get 7 points? because we're signing off when we have no idea how high we belong or because we have no idea what strain we belong to?

kenberg, on 2010-December-03, 12:34, said:

Of course this has to depend on agreements. Our agreement is that 2♠ shows five spades, and says nothing whatsoever about strength. With that agreement in place, I regard pass as life threatening.

It is pairs and Pass was my fourth choice. At pairs. however, partners should be allowed to flout system for what they deem to be good reason. If it works they can accept accolades for good judgement. If it is a disaster, as here, they can accept blame and grovel. If partner is a homicidal maniac, that puts a slightly different complexion on proceedings