[han]

How would you bid this hand:

x
AK10x
QJ10xx
AJx

If you open 1D, what do you plan to rebid if partner bids 1S?

[gnasher]

I'd open 1♦ and then reverse, hoping that my aces and good diamonds will make up for the deficiency in overall strength. I don't think this is any more satisfactory than the alternatives of opening 1NT, bidding 1♦ then 2♦, or bidding 1♦ then 2♣. Somehow, though, reaching a hopeless game never feels as bad as missing a good one.

[P_Marlowe]

1D.

I would make the reverse, but than I belong to
the light reverse brigade, i.e. the reverse does
not promise another bid, an 2S over 2H is
nonforcing.

Assuming I would somehow be forced to play a
stronger reverse style, I would bid 2D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ochinko]

1♦, 1NT

I don't see a reason to reverse with a misfit in sight. If you swap ♠ and ♣ 1♦, 2♥ would be more appropriate

[fred]

2C - I don't like bidding 3-card suits, but I think it is the least of evils here.

If I had the same point count, but a singleton honor in spades instead of an x, I would have opened 1NT.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

I would rebid 2♣ and then pattern out with 2♥ after p takes preference with 2♦.

This is a good hand for 4th suit forcing for only one round. Suppose partner raises my 2♣ bid. Since I play 4th suit forcing to game, 3♣ will have a somewhat wide range. I would pass 3♣ but could miss game.

With a slightly weaker hand I would rebid 1NT.

[han]

I don't know if it matters to anybody, but I was playing MPs.

[pclayton]

fred, on Oct 13 2008, 03:29 AM, said:

2C - I don't like bidding 3-card suits, but I think it is the least of evils here.

If I had the same point count, but a singleton honor in spades instead of an x, I would have opened 1NT.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

This is my reaction too. I think I have just enough for 2♥ over 2♦, especially with these 10's.

[han]

If you rebid 2C partner bids 2S.

[Apollo81]

han, on Oct 13 2008, 09:12 AM, said:

If you rebid 2C partner bids 2S.

I'd pass that.

[Edmunte1]

I would rebid 2♦, i think it is the least of evils here

[Codo]

If you are allowed to reverse with 16, I would reverse. The body of the suits is too good for 2 Diamond.
If your border is higher, I bid 2 ♣. To do the same as Fred could be quite a good idea.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on Oct 13 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

I would rebid 2♣ and then pattern out with 2♥ after p takes preference with 2♦.

If 2♣ followed by 2♥ is pattering out, I don't see why it should be any weaker than an immediate 2♥. In either case partner may be forced to give preference at the three level. All it does is misstate your shape in addition to overstating your values.

[Echognome]

gnasher, on Oct 13 2008, 12:24 PM, said:

helene_t, on Oct 13 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

I would rebid 2♣ and then pattern out with 2♥ after p takes preference with 2♦.

If 2♣ followed by 2♥ is pattering out, I don't see why it should be any weaker than an immediate 2♥. In either case partner may be forced to give preference at the three level. All it does is misstate your shape in addition to overstating your values.

If we held x AKT QJTxx AJxx it would be a wtp hand. We'd open 1♦, rebid 2♣, and then bid 2♥ over a 2♦ preference. I personally like to call this "bidding around the horn" which shows a range from about a K above minimum to minimum reversing strength. So no, I do not think it overstates values. Your agreements may, of course, differ.

If we held --- AKTx QJTxx AJxx, I think most would bid 1♦ then 2♣ then 2♥.

So that's the hand I'm going to sell it as.

Edit: We may also have an awkward 1=4=4=4 with slightly better values. Say we held x AKTx KJTx AJxx, now we would also bid the same way, at least I think we would.

[gnasher]

Echognome, on Oct 13 2008, 09:45 PM, said:

If we held x AKT QJTxx AJxx it would be a wtp hand. We'd open 1♦, rebid 2♣, and then bid 2♥ over a 2♦ preference.

If we held --- AKTx QJTxx AJxx, I think most would bid 1♦ then 2♣ then 2♥.

You may be right about what people actually do on these shapes, but to me it seems undesirable to follow the same sequence with a four-card heart suit as we would with a three-card suit. How is partner supposed to know what to do with a 5=4=2=2 eight-count?

[Echognome]

gnasher, on Oct 13 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

You may be right about what people actually do on these shapes, but to me it seems undesirable to follow the same sequence with a four-card heart suit as we would with a three-card suit. How is partner supposed to know what to do with a 5=4=2=2 eight-count?

I will readily admit that I'm biased on that by the fact that we play reverse Flannery (so partner would have bid 2♥ over my 1♦ opening to begin with. I suppose if we did not have that gadget it may go:

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♦
2♥ - ?

If partner feels he has enough to force game, then he can try 3♥ and we will find 4♥.
If partner feels he does not have enough for game, then he will bid 2NT and we will play there. I agree that is suboptimal.

[sathyab]

Why is there a need to bid 2♥ when partner takes a preference to 2♦ ? Is it to cater for a reverse flannery hand not strong enough to bid a forcing 2♥ (at least for one round the way most people play) over 2♣ or is it to say you have more than a minimum 5-4 hand? If the former, then, when partner has only four hearts, you're not improving matters much as you'll be playing in a seven card heart fit when you might have had at least as many or more trumps in a diamond contract. If partner took a preference to 2♦ with a 5521 hand of non-invitational strength, introducing hearts now is a winner whether you had a 1453 or 1354 hand. If it's the latter, then why not bid 2nt ?

If you play reverse flannery, you can rebid 2♣ and pass partner's preference to 2♦.

[P_Marlowe]

For whats it worth

For us 2H in the seq.

1D - 1S
2C - 2D
2H

is FSF.

If it is natural, say 5440, the bid has to show reverse
strenngth, and if this is so, why did partner not bid 2H
the round before?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gnasher]

P_Marlowe, on Oct 13 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

For us 2H in the seq.

1D - 1S
2C - 2D
2H

is FSF.

I too would play that as FSF. So far, I haven't heard much to persuade me that it's better played as natural.

[whereagles]

fred, on Oct 13 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

2C - I don't like bidding 3-card suits, but I think it is the least of evils here.

Do you guys ever make reverses that side of the ocean? 1♦ + 2♥ for me.