[ArtK78]

2♣ now, intending to raise spades strongly later.

Not 3♦ even if my diamonds were better than this, as I do not want to emphasize playing in diamonds - I want to emphasize playing in spades, even on a 4-3. But I do not want to imply that I have 4 spades by raising directly to 3♠, which is what my hand is worth.

The idea of opening this hand 1NT cannot be taken seriously.

[Jlall]

Don't really do this nearly as often as I used to but 2C.

[quiddity]

3S for me. I don't like the diamond suit opposite a singleton and I think it risks a pass when 4S is on. The cards are too prime and the hand too shapely for 2NT.

I think 2C runs a real risk of partner passing because:
- partner is a passed hand;
- the diamonds are significantly longer than the clubs (so partner will likely hold longer clubs than diamonds);
- where are the hearts? Partner could easily hold 5-4 or 5-5 in the majors and pass out the "misfit". He might do this with a decent hand, which would be a disaster.

[aguahombre]

not only is 2c a time-honored improvisation with this and similar difficult rebids, but I believe it was made into an actual convention by Murray/Kehela way back. It might have been Kokish and someone, though...my memory fades.

[the hog]

Phil, on Aug 26 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

2♣, not 3♦. Everything else is a distortion and not worthy of consideration.

Whether or not you play 2♣ as forcing, or close to it, isn't that important.

If you consider the subset of hands that passes 3♦ and the subset that passes 2♣, they are quite similar. So why not try to get across the fact you have three spades, and nine cards in the minors?

Great problem.

And 2C is not a distortion, Phil? Sorry , but this is a lol.

[the hog]

ArtK78, on Aug 27 2009, 01:25 AM, said:

2♣ now, intending to raise spades strongly later.

Not 3♦ even if my diamonds were better than this, as I do not want to emphasize playing in diamonds - I want to emphasize playing in spades, even on a 4-3.  But I do not want to imply that I have 4 spades by raising directly to 3♠, which is what my hand is worth.

The idea of opening this hand 1NT cannot be taken seriously.

And if there is no later?

[nigel_k]

Since nobody has mentioned them yet, I would prefer 2♥ or 2NT to either 3♠ or 3♦.

I don't know whether 2♣ will work out best on average, but 3♠ and 3♦ are not even in my top three choices.

[Phil]

The_Hog, on Aug 26 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Aug 27 2009, 01:25 AM, said:

2♣ now, intending to raise spades strongly later.

Not 3♦ even if my diamonds were better than this, as I do not want to emphasize playing in diamonds - I want to emphasize playing in spades, even on a 4-3.  But I do not want to imply that I have 4 spades by raising directly to 3♠, which is what my hand is worth.

The idea of opening this hand 1NT cannot be taken seriously.

And if there is no later?

If there is no later than we we will likely be playing a 4-3 club fit instead of a 6-2 diamond part score. Certainly not the end of the world as we know it.

Finding game simply has to take priority. Unless your partner routinely rebids a weak five card major after 3♦, you aren't finding 4♠ isn't going to happen unless you guess later to bid it over 3N.

[Double !]

nigel_k, on Aug 26 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

Since nobody has mentioned them yet, I would prefer 2♥ or 2NT to either 3♠ or 3♦.

WHAT?
Inventing a Reverse on a stiff Ace suit in order to ensure a rebid from Partner?
UNTHINKABLE! Inconceivable. Never heard of such a thing (yeah, right! lol ).
I, too, like a 2 ♥ rebid unless I'm sure that partner will not pass a 2♣ rebid.
The Diamond suit is an honor short of qualifying for a 3 ♦ rebid with 2/3 of your honor cards being outside of your diamond suit.
There are hands that you are able to show/ describe, and there are hands that are difficult to describe and where you need to ask questions/ try to get further descriptions of partner's hand. This given hand seems to fall into the second category.

DHL:

[gnasher]

Phil, on Aug 27 2009, 04:27 AM, said:

Unless your partner routinely rebids a weak five card major after 3♦, you aren't finding 4♠

Isn't that exactly what partner is supposed to do, if 3♦ doesn't deny three spades? With all those diamond tricks available in notrumps, we're unlikely to want to play a 5-2 spade fit, so suit quality shouldn't come into it.

[rd6789]

No one has mentioned whether they tend to raise partner's 1S on a 3-card suit when you have a shortage outside - say you are 3154. That is my style and is common in the UK and Europe I think. Playign those methods to bid 2C here shows a weak distirbutional hand with less than 3 spades - so partner is quite likely to pass with 5 spades and 3 or 4 clubs and 8-10 points when 4S is cold.

I don't think 3D here shows esp good D just a good hand with 6D, and it certainly doesn't deny 3 spades so I expect partner to rebid a 5-card suit.

2H might work well... but probably not if p is 54 in the majors

[the hog]

Double !, on Aug 27 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

nigel_k, on Aug 26 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

Since nobody has mentioned them yet, I would prefer 2♥ or 2NT to either 3♠ or 3♦.

WHAT?
Inventing a Reverse on a stiff Ace suit in order to ensure a rebid from Partner?
UNTHINKABLE! Inconceivable. Never heard of such a thing (yeah, right! lol ).
I, too, like a 2 ♥ rebid unless I'm sure that partner will not pass a 2♣ rebid.
The Diamond suit is an honor short of qualifying for a 3 ♦ rebid with 2/3 of your honor cards being outside of your diamond suit.
There are hands that you are able to show/ describe, and there are hands that are difficult to describe and where you need to ask questions/ try to get further descriptions of partner's hand. This given hand seems to fall into the second category.

DHL:

Hmmm,

1D 1S
2H 4H

How are you going to sort this out now chappies?
And don't give me that bulldust that 4S now would be to play, H are agreed, so 4S would be a cue.


rd6789:

Also I don't mind raising on a 3 card support, but I DO mind raising to the 3 level on 3 card support, and no, raising to the 3 level is definitely NOT common in the UK or Europe.

The thing is, this hand type is a perennial problem unless you play some sort of gadget.

[rd6789]

The_Hog, on Aug 27 2009, 05:03 AM, said:

rd6789:

Also I don't mind raising on a 3 card support, but I DO mind raising to the 3 level on 3 card support, and no, raising to the 3 level is definitely NOT common in the UK or Europe.

The thing is, this hand type is a perennial problem unless you play some sort of gadget.

No, I wasn't advocating raising to the 3 level - I was saying to bid 2C was very risky. I would bid 3D as the least bad/risky bid.

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Aug 27 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

1D 1S
2H 4H

How are you going to sort this out now chappies?
And don't give me that bulldust that 4S now would be to play, H are agreed, so 4S would be a cue.

I don't think that sequence exists - partner should never bid more than 3♥, to allow for the possibility that the reverse was fake.

[the hog]

gnasher, on Aug 27 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 27 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

1D 1S
2H  4H

How are you going to sort this out now chappies?
And don't give me that bulldust that 4S now would be to play, H are agreed, so 4S would be a cue.

I don't think that sequence exists - partner should never bid more than 3♥, to allow for the possibility that the reverse was fake.

Andy! You are kidding me. That is a standard sequence.
Reversing into a non existent major is a crazy thing to do.

[gnasher]

rd6789, on Aug 27 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

No one has mentioned whether they tend to raise partner's 1S on a 3-card suit when you have a shortage outside - say you are 3154. That is my style and is common in the UK and Europe I think. Playign those methods to bid 2C here shows a weak distirbutional hand with less than 3 spades

I don't know where you play your bridge, but where I play:
- It's normal to raise spades with a minimum 3154
- It's normal to bid 2♣ with a non-minimum 3154
- 2♣ therefore shows either fewer than three spades or a non-minimum

If you really play that 2♣ shows "a weak distirbutional hand with less than 3 spades", what do you do with a 3154 16-count, a 1354 16-count, or a 2155 16-count?

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Aug 27 2009, 12:15 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 27 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 27 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

1D 1S
2H  4H

How are you going to sort this out now chappies?
And don't give me that bulldust that 4S now would be to play, H are agreed, so 4S would be a cue.

I don't think that sequence exists - partner should never bid more than 3♥, to allow for the possibility that the reverse was fake.

Andy! You are kidding me. That is a standard sequence.

It was standard until people started reversing on three- and two-card suits. Now that it's common to reverse on nonexistent suits, it is (or should be) also standard not to raise them to the game level.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-August-27, 05:20

[mike777]

I am very surprised on the lack of 2c bidders here in the forum.

Given how many posters reverse or jump shift into a non suit it seems rebidding 2c on a nonsuit would not be an issue.

IMO worrying about being stuck in a 3-3 club fit is just playing scared bridge.

[neilkaz]

mike777, on Aug 27 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

I am very surprised on the lack of 2c bidders here in the forum.

Given how many posters reverse or jump shift into a non suit it seems rebidding 2c on a nonsuit would not be an issue.

IMO worrying about being stuck in a 3-3 club fit is just playing scared bridge.

Well... a reverse or jump shift cannot be passed...2♣ can be passed in standard systems.

[Phil]

edited