[helene_t]

mgoetze, on 2014-December-09, 06:03, said:

Oh... so he wants to play 4♣ in potentially a 4-2 fit? I guess that's ... equally ridiculous.

If opener is short in spades he will have 5+ clubs so it's more like a 5-4 fit, isn't it?

[Fluffy]

I would bid 3♠ just because it shows more spades than 3♥ so partner might raise with 2, but I wouldn't like it if it is passed out.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2014-December-09, 04:54, said:

First off, I agree with you that bidding clubs first, then spades, doesn't work. We might do the same with 4-6 the other way in the black suits.

But I still wonder what to do over 4♥ after 3♠ (which I would do also). The most likely hand for partner at this point is a balanced hand with exactly 2 spades (weak and balanced is already the most likely hand to start with; it gets even more likely given that RHO has the red suits and I have the black suits). He could be 2=4=4=3 or 2=3=5=3 or 2=3=3=5 or 2=3=4=4, etc. Obviously, if we knew partner had the balanced hand, we would bid 4♠ not 5♣.

Is "most likely balanced" strong enough indication to make us bid 4♠ opposite his ambiguous opening, too?

The problem is primarily our methods which, to me, suck big time. I can't see how the OP method generates gains that offset the obvious problems that arise when one can and should (???) open 1♣ on 3=3=5=2 hands. I suspect the idea is to split the 1N rebid, but a far easier fix is to play 14-16 1N, so that the 1N rebid is 11-13. 14-16 has significant theoretical advantages over the traditional 15-17 anyway (tho, in fairness, it has some downsides as well).

As it is, the OP method means that we cannot know if we have any fit whatsoever, which tells us all we need to know about how effective this method is in competitive auctions.

However, we can't do anything about the method mid-hand (tho I'd be having a serious discussion with partner after this hand, whether I guessed 'right' or not).

3♠ seems ok to me, if only because on many hands, partner will be able to raise to game, especially in competition.

As you note, the real issue is when LHO bids 4♥ and the auction is passed back to us...and we can all see that a BIT by partner creates a real mess should that happen.

We are in a guessing situation. I suppose one could try 4♠ hoping that it works, and planning to pull to 5♣ if doubled, which might teach LHO a lesson if partner held something like x xxxx AQx KQxxx

Tbh, I don't know what I would do at the table, and I suspect it would depend upon my mood at the time, my sense of the action and so on. Most importantly, in terms of being able to predict my action, I can truly say that I would never be in this position: the closest I would be would be if partner were 3=4=3=3, and then he may have been able to bid 4♠, altho in fairness that shape hardly shouts to bid on.

[mgoetze]

mikeh, on 2014-December-09, 10:58, said:

The problem is primarily our methods which, to me, suck big time. I can't see how the OP method generates gains that offset the obvious problems that arise when one can and should (???) open 1♣ on 3=3=5=2 hands. I suspect the idea is to split the 1N rebid, but a far easier fix is to play 14-16 1N, so that the 1N rebid is 11-13. 14-16 has significant theoretical advantages over the traditional 15-17 anyway (tho, in fairness, it has some downsides as well).

Uhm... note that in the OP I also said

mgoetze, on 2014-December-08, 04:32, said:

partner opens 1♣, 2+ clubs, most often 11-13 balanced

and I assure you that I do not open 1♦ when I have 14 balanced. In fact with 11-13 I open 1♣ and complete the transfer, with 14-16 I open 1NT and with 17-19 I open 1♣ and rebid 1NT - allowing me to play 14-16 without lowering the range of my 2NT opener, playing Mexican 2♦ or guessing blindly on 2NT rebids. Now our British friends here on the forum will suggest that it is even better to open one minor with 11-13 and the other minor with 17-19, but they are going to have the exact same problem in competition.

And while you are wondering about the gains, don't overlook that we will never have to worry about partner having only 3 diamonds when he opens 1♦ ... he almost always has 5.

Anyway, worrying about 3=3=5=2 shape all day long is, IMHO, misguided. Large parts of the world will routinely open 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 shape, and we'll have that more often than we will have 3=3=5=2, so this is hardly exotic. Nor are we in a significantly worse situation than if we opened a weak 1NT and, hypothetically, opps played 2NT over that as showing 5-5 in the red suits. I'm not going to be switching to ACOL just so my 1♣ opening can promise 4 cards in the suit.

[whereagles]

WesleyC, on 2014-December-08, 09:07, said:

This situation feels tactical rather than technical.

My instinct is to just bid 4S and hope that jams their auction.

There's not much to be jammed after a precise two-suited overcall


I think I'll just pass for the moment.

[PhilKing]

whereagles, on 2014-December-09, 12:26, said:

There's not much to be jammed after a precise two-suited overcall


I think I'll just pass for the moment.

We have a winner. Since 3♠ is available to show a limited hand with spades, pass followed by 4♠ should show moderate hand with a club fit. And it hits the brief - the sequence is very unusual but achievable (there is a 92% chance the auction will continue 4♥-p-p) .

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2014-December-09, 18:08, said:

We have a winner. Since 3♠ is available to show a limited hand with spades, pass followed by 4♠ should show moderate hand with a club fit. And it hits the brief - the sequence is very unusual but is marked (there is a 92% chance the auction will continue 4♥-p-p) .

You may well be correct, but I confess that if I were opener I would at least consider that partner was trying to show me something like QJxxxxxx and out: say 8=1=2=2.

In fact, that would almost certainly be the hand type for which I would play him.

Of course, if we have the agreement that we'd pre-empt to 4♠ with that, I'd have to revise my inference. I don't have that specific agreement.

[nige1]

cherdano, on 2014-December-09, 04:54, said:

First off, I agree with you that bidding clubs first, then spades, doesn't work. We might do the same with 4-6 the other way in the black suits. 4♠ opposite his ambiguous opening, too?

Partner hasn't promised any ♠s but he has at least 2 ♣s. Admittedly, 3♣ is a bit of a distortion. IMO, it might work, in practice, when it allows you to introduce ♠ at the 4-level or even the 3-level. Your failure to start with a red-suit should warn partner that you're bidding on shape. 3♠ might be a more sensible alternative but the auction is quite likely to be at 4♥ when it comes back to you. At this vulnerability, you might then balk at 5♣. With prior agreement, you might use an immediate 4♠ or some other sequence, to show this hand.

[aguahombre]

whereagles, on 2014-December-09, 12:26, said:

There's not much to be jammed after a precise two-suited overcall

I think I'll just pass for the moment.

There are hands where we would consider passing, and then bidding our spades -- whatever the message it might convey. But, it is not true about "jamming". Even when righty's 2-suiter is known, lefty's tools are inhibited when we bid above those two suits -- it is their ability to judge level for further competition which is being jammed.

[mcphee]

I venture 3S, sort of what I have. I am not so confident about bidding 5C later but we may not face that problem if partner were to raise spades. When dear partner might have just 2C it seems to me that if I were to bid 5C over 4H they may not make a paddle big enough to save us! Difficult to know what is best.

[PhilKing]

mikeh, on 2014-December-09, 18:16, said:

You may well be correct, but I confess that if I were opener I would at least consider that partner was trying to show me something like QJxxxxxx and out: say 8=1=2=2.

In fact, that would almost certainly be the hand type for which I would play him.

Of course, if we have the agreement that we'd pre-empt to 4♠ with that, I'd have to revise my inference. I don't have that specific agreement.

I would assume long spades as well, but those of us who play the dreaded two-card club probably need to redefine our delayed sequences.