[BunnyGo]

The hand I held was:

AQ9876, QJ4, A75, A

After opening 1♠ partner bid 1NT forcing. Now what? I usually like 3♠ to be on a more solid suit, but the hand seems too strong for just 2♠ and not strong enough to bid 3♦ as a fake suit for a jump shift.

What are your considerations and borderlines for the 3♠ rebid here? (I did bid 3♠ and it worked out this time.)

[helene_t]

3♠ is fine.

If the suit had been really poor you could make a fake 2m bid, planning to raise responder's preference bid to 3♠. Or maybe open 1NT (with 6322. 1NT with 6331 goes too far). This hand is probably strong enough for a 2NT rebid, though, so you could do that also.

[han]

The suit is absolutely fine. Come back when you hold jack empty sixth.

[jmcw]

You have full value for a 3♠ rebid, suit quality is fine. With proper strength, I would make a jump rebid with 6 to the QJ or better.

[jdeegan]

3♠, wtp?

[P_Marlowe]

Show the strength, forget about suit qualiy.
If you have the combined power to make game, the HCP value is 25HCP,
you can lower or increase this value, if p has a sensible 8 count, than
make the bid.
So this translates to - if you have 16HCP make the jump.

The suit quality can compensate a bit for the lack of HCP power.

If you have add. agreements, e.g. that 2C in this seq. is forcing, than
you can start worrying about suit quality.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[VM1973]

I agree with the others that 3♠ is a fine call.

[JLOGIC]

The 9876 make me comfortable. If it was AQ5432 I would feel very uncomfortable bidding 3S, but I'd probably still do it. If you made it much weaker, I would be tempted by the genius 2D bid.

[BunnyGo]

What do you mean by "genius" 2D bid?

[P_Marlowe]

BunnyGo, on 2011-September-01, 01:11, said:

What do you mean by "genius" 2D bid?

I am not sure, if this covers it completly, but ...

2D usually showes a 4 card suit, and you only have 3.
So you have the choice to mislead p regarding length or suit quality.

And Again, this is only relevant, if you did not agree beforehand, that
2C in this seq. is artificial / forcing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[BunnyGo]

Thanks for the comments. I posted this because at the time, partner said I didn't have a 3♠ rebid. So I posted it here to see what the consensus was. When he saw the hand again here he said, "oh! I miscounted you as having a K less strength, 3♠ is absolutely fine." Thanks for all the explanations!

Here's the full hand (the names have been changed to protect the innocent)

---

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the hand of your p is ggod enough to make a slam move, best would be a 4C cue,
that showes values, Ace or King.
The hand of your p is very pure, very control rich, and you could be stronger.

I am not sure, you will reach 6S afer 4C, but 4C gives you a chance in contrast
to 4S.

This is a no wastage slam, the diamond length matches nicely with the number of
fast discards you have on the clubs.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[VM1973]

This is the second time I've seen "CHO" and I don't know what it stands for. I understand LHO and RHO.

[semeai]

VM1973, on 2011-September-01, 12:58, said:

This is the second time I've seen "CHO" and I don't know what it stands for. I understand LHO and RHO.

Cross Hand Opponent

Added: Yes, probably MrAce is right and it's Center, not Cross traditionally

[MrAce]

VM1973, on 2011-September-01, 12:58, said:

This is the second time I've seen "CHO" and I don't know what it stands for. I understand LHO and RHO.

Center Hand Opponent (Partner)

[VM1973]

I just don't classify my partner as an "opponent." I guess that's where my confusion kicked in.

[JLOGIC]

VM1973, on 2011-September-02, 13:44, said:

I just don't classify my partner as an "opponent."

Hence the amazing humor of the joke!!!!

A deeply philosophical acronym, it has just enough layer of truth in it to appeal to our dark side (how often have we wanted to kill partner), and yet it is a light, ironic term at the same time. Some people lacking the depth in their humor to get it never do, going on sadly throughout life not knowing what they are missing.

[BunnyGo]

Oh, ho, ho, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a, a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.

[MrAce]

VM1973, on 2011-September-02, 13:44, said:

I just don't classify my partner as an "opponent." I guess that's where my confusion kicked in.

You obviously did not play with Haspel or Harmon or me as pd That could change your mind about how to classify partners