[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

You open 1H (Agree, disagree, or maybe?). Your partner responds 1S. How do you describe this monster now?

---

[inquiry]

DisAgree with 1♥. I play that ACOL 2 in a majors are opened 2♣. Yes, yes, it is odd, but there you go. Over 2♣, 2♦ is semi-positive or better, while both 2♥ and 2♠ are both instant double negatives, with 2♥ denying a trick for a ♥ contract, 2♠ denying a trick for a ♠ contract (and by implication, a probably ruff if played in ♥'s.

So I would open 2♣. Then,
---If partnerbid 2♥, I pass and he gets to play. He should make 8 tricks
---If partner bids 2♠, I bid 3♥. He needs to see his way to two likely tricks to bid 4♥
---If partner bids 2♦, by far most likely, I bid 2♥ forcing.

Over 2♥, partner will bid 2NT if he has but one likely trick for a heart contract, anything esle is GF. If partner bids 2NT then I rebid 3♥ knowing that I have done enough. He can bid again, but I have described my hand (this 3♥ rebid shows 8 tricks, great heart suit, five or more controls... just what I have).

Now if you force me not to open 2♣ with this hand, then over 1♠, alll rebids are flawed, the votes will be all over the place. 3NT (maybe they will not lead a ♦, 3♦ (maybe partner will not raise, 3♣ (so I am short a bid), 3♥, well it is a good suit, 3♠ - well it is the value bid except for the short spade. At the table, I would bid 3NT I guess.

[Free]

There's a simple treatment for such situations:

3♥ = 6+♥ and 3♠
3NT = 6+♥ and less than 3♠s

Both are maximum ofcourse...

[luis]

I think I would open 2♣ I would hate to play 1♥ with this hand.
Free's treatment is very very good so if you open 1♥ I think 3♥ is a good bid showing 3♠ 6♥ and a strong hand.

[mike777]

3nt simple version=around 18-19 hcp and solid hearts, nothing about spades.
4H would show more shape, 3nt shows running hearts and less shape.

[Fluffy]

1♥-1♠-2NT GF, simple and easy

[Free]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 05:49 PM, said:

~snip~
On a side note: here is a bidding problem for you free. J AQT9xx KQx Axx playing YOUR methods, 1H p 1S ?

With MY methods, this is a 1♣ opener, but that's VERY far from natural...

With the treatment I suggested, your bidding problem is a 3NT rebid (maybe 2♥ if you're afraid). And yes, it sucks on such hands from time to time, but it also scores a lot more on other hands.

I've never read anything about sayc (don't see any reason to torture myself), but I suppose the 3NT bid is available since it's a simple system, so 2NT probably shows 18-19 balanced (no?).
Problems for pickup partnerships aren't really useful imo (unless it's about how standard methods are interpreted) and it wasn't mentioned what kind of partnership it was, so I just suggest a rather good and VERY simple gadget. Btw, this is hardly a gadget around here, and I don't even use it cause it doesn't fit in the system I play.

Btw, why do you think your post is a lost cause? Fluffy's 2NT is a clear sayc bid to show a balanced hand with 18-19HCP, which is GF in sayc. I actually like his idea more than an immediate 4♥ or any NF bid showing length in ♥. I understand your point, but not why you're sooooooooooo annoyed.

[Al_U_Card]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 12:18 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 31 2005, 12:13 PM, said:

1♥-1♠-2NT GF, simple and easy

ROFL...i guess my post was a lost cause. ok. If you could bid this way would this hand be a problem?

Remember that us fogies tend to be hard of hearing AND tend to forget quickly AND are often just wrong-headed so let youth be served.....just say your probably sensible and correct answer and don't let any of them get to ya.

btw any sense to a 4S bid? Since I play the F-u-know-what bid I will not allow that to deter me from thinking in terms of taking the D tap in the short hand and using all those H for discards.....

[Al_U_Card]

Free, on Aug 31 2005, 12:35 PM, said:

Btw, why do you think your post is a lost cause?  Fluffy's 2NT is a clear sayc bid to show a balanced hand with 18-19HCP, which is GF in sayc.  I actually like his idea more than an immediate 4♥ or any NF bid showing length in ♥.  I understand your point, but not why you're sooooooooooo annoyed.

Really? 100% HTG GF? Thot it was a descriptive limit bid that can be passed opposite the ratty 5 count. Only when pard makes a rebid does it become a GF.....or was that from a previous life experience?

[mikeh]

If you are playing in a partnership with no specific agreements, then your choices appear to be:

-- underbid of 3♥
-- distortion of 3♣
-- misdecription of 4♥

In other words, there is no 'correct' bid.

I cannot stand missing game here, even if game fails. So count me out of 3♥.

This hand has too much slam potential for a 4♥ bid, which to me describes a different hand.

So I choose the 'sick' 3♣ bid.

In standard or 2/1 this jumpshift is usually treated with caution anyway: we all manufacture this one, just as we sometimes reverse into a non-suit if faced with no other attractive alternative.

I am not saying that 3♣ solves all problems, but it forces to game while preserving a realistic chance of reaching slam when 4♥ might not.

BTW (and this is for Justin ) I do have a gadget here: only it is not really 'my' gadget.

I like to play that 3♣ is explicitly one of two hand types: the first is 'standard': I hold a game force with 5+♥ and 4+♣. The other is a huge one-suiter in ♥: too many hcp for a namyats opening, wrong shape, texture, for a 4♥ rebid. Partner usually bids 3♦ to allow me to clarify. If he did so here, I would have to choose between 3♠ and 3♥: I would choose 3♥ to avoid suggesting a ♦ stiff.

This is an extension of Jeff's magic elixir.

[kfgauss]

Free, on Aug 31 2005, 05:35 PM, said:

With the treatment I suggested, your bidding problem is a 3NT rebid (maybe 2♥ if you're afraid).  And yes, it sucks on such hands from time to time, but it also scores a lot more on other hands.

Mid-range (16-18) point hands like this are much more frequent than the GF ones (and I think the game/partscore decision on those is more important than the distinction you're making here).

Free, on Aug 31 2005, 05:35 PM, said:

Btw, why do you think your post is a lost cause?  Fluffy's 2NT is a clear sayc bid to show a balanced hand with 18-19HCP, which is GF in sayc.  I actually like his idea more than an immediate 4♥ or any NF bid showing length in ♥.  I understand your point, but not why you're sooooooooooo annoyed.

2NT isn't forcing in sayc (remember that you just told us you don't know sayc).

---------

As for the actual hand, 3NT does (by inference) show a solid 6+ card suit (as mike suggested) in sayc. I'm worried about the diamonds, though (perhaps I shouldn't be as much as I am). I'd like to try 3C, but at the table I might chicken out and bid 4H or 3NT.

Andy

[Free]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 31 2005, 06:46 PM, said:

Free, on Aug 31 2005, 12:35 PM, said:

Btw, why do you think your post is a lost cause?  Fluffy's 2NT is a clear sayc bid to show a balanced hand with 18-19HCP, which is GF in sayc.  I actually like his idea more than an immediate 4♥ or any NF bid showing length in ♥.  I understand your point, but not why you're sooooooooooo annoyed.

Really? 100% HTG GF? Thot it was a descriptive limit bid that can be passed opposite the ratty 5 count. Only when pard makes a rebid does it become a GF.....or was that from a previous life experience?

You only live twice. In my previous life I was worldchampion, so I know what I'm talking about

Anyway, why would you bid with a ratty 5 count in the first place?? Don't you open light from time to time? Responding with decent 4-5 counts is imo ok, but not with 3 Jacks and a Queen...

Apparently 2NT isn't forcing in sayc, so just bid 3NT to show that solid suit (which is in fact standard apparently).

[Al_U_Card]

Free, on Aug 31 2005, 12:59 PM, said:

Anyway, why would you bid with a ratty 5 count in the first place?? Don't you open light from time to time? Responding with decent 4-5 counts is imo ok, but not with 3 Jacks and a Queen...

The number 4 was not mentioned (See Justin, spreads like the plague, it does) and often those nice 2 suiters that can't be opened 2C (again in sayc or 2/1 methods) just need a fit to make game. I always respond at the 1 level with 5 hcp because pard has promised me a rebid......

[awm]

This is really a classic problem hand -- "what do you do with a really good hand (too good for single raise) holding length in your original suit and exactly three cards in partner's major?"

Honestly this is one of the biggest unaddressed problems with (constructive) standard bidding. That's why we see so many people answering with "I play X convention." Without added conventions there isn't really a nice answer for such problems. I think the best option is:

(1) Without enough for game, rebid 3 of your suit. You may play the wrong partial, but partner will often rebid 3M with five on the way to game, allowing you to show your fit.

(2) With enough for game, make up a suit. Then try correcting to partner's suit. Most good partners will be aware that 1X-1Y-3♣ in particular is often a three-card (or shorter!) suit trying to describe a game force.

On this hand I take option (2). You're good enough to be in game opposite a 1/1 and at least you have the club ace (so if partner tries notrump you won't be off a stopper). I think 3NT could easily be the top spot opposite some minimums (Kxxx xx Kxxx xxx). If partner tries to raise the clubs I'd back into hearts immediately, and hopefully partner will know that I have the "game forcing one suiter" type of 3♣ bid with only 2-3 clubs. If partner tries 3♦ or 3♠ I am well placed to show my spade support.

[pclayton]

3N doesn't seem to be a bad description either. Are we more likely to lose 4 tricks in hearts than 5 tricks in NT?

I'm sure we'd all love to tell you that we have a fix for hands like this. Like some of the others, this isn't a problem for me .

[jdeegan]

Jlall, on Aug 31 2005, 11:49 AM, said:

I make opposite the KQ of spades and out so I can't see making a non forcing bid, and 3C is just sick.

Maybe 3♣ is sick, but my goodness, I am looking at a hand that, while one winner short of an opening two bid, is quite remarkable, esp. opposite a six+ count with spades. It now looks better than half of my two openers. It takes so little in pard's hand to roll six or even seven (the KQ fifth of ♠ and the missing ace).

To me 4♥ feels like I am taking a position and masterminding the hand. Of course, bidding 3♣ makes me a little nervous, too. The auction might get out of control. Ah!, Risk versus reward, the same old story.

For me, greed trumps fear. Sick or not, I have to try 3♣. Can't I at least find out if partner has five spades?