[gwnn]

ArtK78, on 2015-June-17, 05:42, said:

You hold:

AKJT9xx AQ AQx x

The auction starts:

1♠ - (P) - 1NT - (P)

What is your call?

I suspect that many players (if not most players) who do not have any specialized gadget would bid 3♦ on these cards. Slam in spades is virtually cold opposite:

xxx Kxx Kxx xxxx

and has play opposite other hands consistent with a forcing NT response.

My point is to show how hopeless it is for partner to raise diamonds (especially 5♦) on the hand in the OP. A diamond raise by responder should show 5 (and probably 6) diamonds with no more than a singleton small spade.

4C is fine with that hand but I prefer 2C initially. I respect 3S on the stiff Q (I wouldn't ever say it is hopeless) but I like 4D more, planning to pass a 4S rerebid by opener.

[GrahamJson]

Some here play a system that is very strange to me. 4D seems the obvious bid. I certainly wouldn't expect anything like the huge hands opposite that some have suggested, although clearly he should have good values.

[wank]

that's a 2c opener. partner won't have that.

[helene_t]

Mike777, it is a very unusual agreement that 2♦ would show extras. Even if 1NT is not forcing, 2♦ is normal with a 5-5 11-count.

I thought it was forum standard to rebid 3♦ on some strong 6331 hands so I voted 4♣ but maybe 4♦ is better, p will either have 4+ diamonds or 6+ spades so either way his rebid will probably take us to the best game.

[mikeh]

I agree that Art's example looks like a 2♣ opener to me, and I suspect that he would be in a tiny minority were he to open 1♠ in real life. Make it AKJxxxx Ax AQx x, and he'd have a lot more company (altho even then I suspect some would open 2♣), and now his basic argument is valid, unless one played that one could self-splinter to the 4 level, which I don't. If one does, then make it AKJxxxx x AQx Ax. Maybe some splinter in hearts, but I play it as a pronounced 2-suiter, with tricks and not hcp (hence not 3♥). A typical hand would be 6-6.

I may be doing the diamond bidders a disservice, but I think that their arguments, as I see them here, really boil down to 'Partner won't understand/expect 3♠ on this hand, so I won't do it'. I haven't seen any arguments about what makes 3♠ a worse choice than 4♦ other than this expectation issue. Since in my partnerships, 3♠ is understood to include a 'punt', the 'he won't expect this' is irrelevant and my partners and I can make our choices based on the bridge merits of the action.

Now, if the diamond bidders view that their choice is superior on bridge factors, great....and I'd enjoy reading them, since they may persuade me.

Note that I am not claiming I would never raise diamonds. Give me, say, Q Jxx Qxxx Axxxx and I would bid 4♦ because this hand has real slam aspirations and should partner hold real diamonds, I am not the least bit afraid of 5♦. The actual hand is a piece of crap, to the point that one poster suggested passing a forcing bid! I don't have any desire to play 5♦ on a 4-4 fit or even many 5-4 fits, if 4♠ is a reasonable spot on a 5-1. Partner is NEVER bidding 4♠ to play on a 5 card suit, since our failure to bid 3♠ tends to deny as many as 2 cards in the suit, and our possession of the spade Q means his suit will look broken to him.

[Phil]

I would bid 3♠.

[Zelandakh]

PhilKing, on 2015-June-16, 14:40, said:

If I bid 3♥ and pard bids (for instance) 4♥, 5♦ would be undiscussed, but I guess a cue for hearts. If I want to cue hearts, I have to jump to 4♥ over 3♦ (usually showing the ace).

I don't see why 3♥ then 4♦ is not just natural (64 or good 54).

I guess you just play 3♥ as natural then. I thought you might use it as a possible grope on this auction allowing the use of, to take your example, ...3♥ - 4♥ - 4♠ to show a hand like this one with 4 diamonds and spade tolerance. Perhaps it is too dangerous in practice to use a major this way but I think it has the potential to solve some issues if handled properly.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on 2015-June-17, 09:36, said:

I agree that Art's example looks like a 2♣ opener to me, and I suspect that he would be in a tiny minority were he to open 1♠ in real life. Make it AKJxxxx Ax AQx x, and he'd have a lot more company (altho even then I suspect some would open 2♣), and now his basic argument is valid, unless one played that one could self-splinter to the 4 level, which I don't. If one does, then make it AKJxxxx x AQx Ax. Maybe some splinter in hearts, but I play it as a pronounced 2-suiter, with tricks and not hcp (hence not 3♥). A typical hand would be 6-6.

I may be doing the diamond bidders a disservice, but I think that their arguments, as I see them here, really boil down to 'Partner won't understand/expect 3♠ on this hand, so I won't do it'. I haven't seen any arguments about what makes 3♠ a worse choice than 4♦ other than this expectation issue. Since in my partnerships, 3♠ is understood to include a 'punt', the 'he won't expect this' is irrelevant and my partners and I can make our choices based on the bridge merits of the action.

Now, if the diamond bidders view that their choice is superior on bridge factors, great....and I'd enjoy reading them, since they may persuade me.

Note that I am not claiming I would never raise diamonds. Give me, say, Q Jxx Qxxx Axxxx and I would bid 4♦ because this hand has real slam aspirations and should partner hold real diamonds, I am not the least bit afraid of 5♦. The actual hand is a piece of crap, to the point that one poster suggested passing a forcing bid! I don't have any desire to play 5♦ on a 4-4 fit or even many 5-4 fits, if 4♠ is a reasonable spot on a 5-1. Partner is NEVER bidding 4♠ to play on a 5 card suit, since our failure to bid 3♠ tends to deny as many as 2 cards in the suit, and our possession of the spade Q means his suit will look broken to him.

When I first created my example hand, I had Ax of hearts instead of AQ, but then I thought that some might not jump shift with that hand, preferring to just jump to 4♠. So I added the ♥Q to make the hand stronger. Apparently, I was being a bit too conservative, even if the hand with AQ of hearts doesn't meet my criteria for a 2♣ opening. Technically, it is a 4 loser hand by MLTC, which is one too many for a 2♣ opening. But I can certainly see why most would open it 2♣.

[dave_beer]

Partner doesn't necessarily have a real ♦ suit but could have some GF hand with a 6-card ♠ and only a 3-card ♦ suit.

I think that 4♦ is very forward-going if partner really has ♦ and that 5♦ shows at least 5-card support (so partner isn't worried if he has only 3 of them) but an otherwise bad hand.

I think that 3♥ shows a real suit that we couldn't bid on the previous round and 3NT shows stoppers in the unbid suits.

If I am playing with someone who would expect it I would bid 3♠ which does not necessarily shown any kind of support but is merely a mark-time bid. Partner's rebid should show why he jump-shifted. I will may still have a problem after that but I have given partner extra room to describe his hand at a lower level.

If I am playing with some who would not expect it to be an advanced cue-bid for ♦, I would bid 4♣.

[mike777]

I think Art's example would be an example to bid 2d here. Perhaps with one less spade and one more club.

granted it would need to be discussed and agreed on.

I do agree opening 2c would be much more common way.
-----

Perhaps I am taking this idea of shifting suits to show extras to a bit of an extreme but my only point was to say you do not always need to jump shift on some of these hands. simply shift suits.

That allows 3d here to be a real high quality suit.

I understand people are afraid pard will pass you in 2d when you have game, that is the concern. The other concern is with a minimum hand what do we rebid.

Anyway I just present the above approach as something different to think about.

[iandayre]

5D is an atrocity, I would sooner pass the forcing bid. I would be thrilled to hear partner bid 4S over 4D, which I would pass quickly. Obviously 3NT could work but I prefer bidding my hand, not what I wish my hand was.

[neilkaz]

iandayre, on 2015-June-17, 18:25, said:

5D is an atrocity, I would sooner pass the forcing bid. I would be thrilled to hear partner bid 4S over 4D, which I would pass quickly. Obviously 3NT could work but I prefer bidding my hand, not what I wish my hand was.

Many of us who don't play forcing ♣ have to sometimes "fake" a 3m J/S. I have a rule with PD that they can NEVER raise such a J/S to 5m.

If you don't fake a J/S you likely need Namyats along with somewhat weaker than normal 2♣ openings (perhaps combined with a 2♦ opening for true GF and then you need an understanding about what opening 1M and rebidding 3NT shows.

One can play Mexican 2♦ opening and use a 2NT gadget, or one can play something (Gazilli(ish)) where 2♣ is forcing. There's no easy route.

For me opener's J/S means GF opposite the worst crap one can respond with unless a total psych on nothing. This isn't a system where 1♠ is limited at 15 or 16.

Passing 3♦ is a NPAB for me. (New Partner Asking Bid). I don't J/S 3♦ with a random 5-2-4-2 18 count but rather with a hand that needs little for game and almost opened 2♣ except for thinking the two suiter was a tad shy of 2♣. My last ex PD to pass my 3♦ J/S complained about only 6 pts and watched me go +170. When I showed her my hand, she said that while she'd have thought about opening 2♣, she preferred my 1♠ opening. I then stressed that she trust her next PD's GF bids. This was a reasonably serious online PD but I'll admit that I was ready to move away from her anyhow and this pushed me over the edge.

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2015-June-17, 14:33, said:

I think Art's example would be an example to bid 2d here. Perhaps with one less spade and one more club.

granted it would need to be discussed and agreed on.

I do agree opening 2c would be much more common way.
-----

Perhaps I am taking this idea of shifting suits to show extras to a bit of an extreme but my only point was to say you do not always need to jump shift on some of these hands. simply shift suits.

That allows 3d here to be a real high quality suit.

I understand people are afraid pard will pass you in 2d when you have game, that is the concern. The other concern is with a minimum hand what do we rebid.

Anyway I just present the above approach as something different to think about.

I have thought about it. It is unplayable.

[helene_t]

I play this (Mike777 style) with shogi. I must say I really don't like it after a 1nt response, but after a 1-level suit response it is not as bad as it may sound. Obviously you lose some when you have a minimum 5-5. You have to make a very offshape 1nt rebid most of the time. You win when you have a jump shift. When you have a 15-17 two-suiter it usually doesn't matter.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2015-June-18, 08:14, said:

I play this (Mike777 style) with shogi. I must say I really don't like it after a 1nt response, but after a 1-level suit response it is not as bad as it may sound. Obviously you lose some when you have a minimum 5-5. You have to make a very offshape 1nt rebid most of the time. You win when you have a jump shift. When you have a 15-17 two-suiter it usually doesn't matter.

Would it not be easier to play transfer rebids?

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2015-June-18, 10:34, said:

Would it not be easier to play transfer rebids?

Would it not be easier to play anything else besides a simple new suit rebid showing a powerhouse?

[case_no_6]

mike777, on 2015-June-16, 00:48, said:

5d


pard could have just bid 2d to show extras with long spades
this is important, very important

1) 3d shows more much more in d and huge hand compared to 2d
2) 5d shows less much less than 4d now.
3) please note that means you cannot, cannot rebid 2d with any normal opening bid....2d shows extras...
------------------


Of course you can play with other agreements.

Sorry, but 2D does not show extras in Expert Standard, though it could easily be made on a very good hand - perhaps as many as 18 HCP.

In standard, the jump shift rebid (even over 1NT) is 100% game forcing. In this case, the 3D rebid may very well be made on a genuine two suited hand (with spades and diamonds), but this will not always be the case. Opener might have only 4 diamonds and powerful spades or, infrequently, partner might have a long powerful spade suit and a "manufactured" diamond suit of only 3 cards with a hand unable to raise NT (e.g., AKJTxx, Ax, KQJ, xx - a hand just shy of a 2C opener).

For this reason, it is a mistake to raise diamonds with poor 4 card support, even to the 4 level. It is best to mark time by taking a false preference to 3S and await developments.

I bid 3S. I just don't see any other intelligent choice. After a jump shift rebid, the preference rebid is the expected action whenever responder does not have something important to show. I don't have anything worth showing, so it is best to make the most flexible bid available to enable partner to finish describing his hand.

[yunling]

Passing might be better for the first round, and I'm passing now.
I know that passing a gameforcing 3♦ is not appreciated, but I can't see any reasonable spot over 3♦.
You have a pretty poor hand and it is downgraded after partner's 3♦ rebid.
Just try to catch the last chance for a plus score and pray

[mikeh]

yunling, on 2015-June-18, 21:33, said:

Passing might be better for the first round, and I'm passing now.
I know that passing a gameforcing 3♦ is not appreciated, but I can't see any reasonable spot over 3♦.
You have a pretty poor hand and it is downgraded after partner's 3♦ rebid.
Just try to catch the last chance for a plus score and pray

AKJ10x xx AKQxx x

Is a minimum strong jump shift, and you can't see any reasonable spot beyond 3D?

Many would bid this way with say AKJxxx x AKQxx x

I could go on, but if you seriously think that game cannot have play, you need to think a little more optimistically

[apollo1201]

I’ll reluctantly go for 3S, because it is the Q.

If it was a low singleton and Qxxx in D, I would probably bid 5D, risking a 4-3 fit. Lots here do not seem to realize that 4D is a seriously slammish hand since we are in a GF auction so partner might just jump to 6 and be kinda dissapointed when I table dummy.

Having bid my (minimal) values so far (6-10), I shouldn’t pass.