[han]

They should lock the doors between these worlds, that's what I think.

[FrancesHinden]

 kenrexford, on 2011-May-27, 11:07, said:

If the concern is over a pass, I think Responder only passes with a stiff and at least four diamonds, personally, and that sounds like a good spot also.

 kenrexford, on 2011-May-28, 10:05, said:

...Second, you are not converting 2♦ to 2♥ with 1♥/3♦ in any world I know.

I agree with han

[gordontd]

Whose sig is "gibberish in, gibberish out"?

[kenrexford]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-June-01, 15:49, said:

I agree with han

Let me see if I understand this.

If you have 3♦/1♥ and fewer than four spades, the least wild distribution will be 3-1-3-6 pattern. With that pattern, you would surely not convert to 2♥, right? That would be silliness.

Juxtaposing my two comments suggests a logical flaw. I indicated that I would pass with 1♥/4♦, which seems right also. But, the question then is what to bid with 1♥/3♦ is you don't pass and you don't correct to 2♥. The juxtaposition suggests that these are the only two options, in which case I boxed myself in.

However, as I indicated earlier, the least distributional hand for this sequence is 3-1-3-6. Take away a spade, and you have seven clubs. Bidding clubs seems like the solution to that problem. Even with six clubs, bidding clubs looks appealing, as a general rule.

However, this is why I introduced the concept of rebidding 2♠ with these hands. Spade tolerance (meaning 3-4 spades -- and yes 4 is possible) with long (6-card) clubs and heart intolerance (usually will also have 2-3 diamonds as well). hence, the solution is easily 2♠ or 3♣, depending upon the 1♥/3♦ specifics in the black suits.

[Elianna]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-June-01, 15:49, said:

Posted Today, 14:49

Quote

If the concern is over a pass, I think Responder only passes with a stiff and at least four diamonds, personally, and that sounds like a good spot also.

Quote

...Second, you are not converting 2♦ to 2♥ with 1♥/3♦ in any world I know.

I agree with han

Unfortunately, I can't vote this up more than once.

[gordontd]

 kenrexford, on 2011-June-01, 17:25, said:

However, as I indicated earlier, the least distributional hand for this sequence is 3-1-3-6. Take away a spade, and you have seven clubs. Bidding clubs seems like the solution to that problem. Even with six clubs, bidding clubs looks appealing, as a general rule.

However, this is why I introduced the concept of rebidding 2♠ with these hands. Spade tolerance (meaning 3-4 spades -- and yes 4 is possible) with long (6-card) clubs and heart intolerance (usually will also have 2-3 diamonds as well). hence, the solution is easily 2♠ or 3♣, depending upon the 1♥/3♦ specifics in the black suits.

So now, when you have 3631 opposite 3136 you get to choose between playing 3♣, 3♥ or 2♠, rather than 2♥.

[whereagles]

 han, on 2011-May-28, 15:16, said:

They should lock the doors between these worlds, that's what I think.

Yes, we cannot let the demons emerge from the lower plane. The portal must stay shut!

[daveharty]

 whereagles, on 2011-June-02, 05:09, said:

Yes, we cannot let the demons emerge from the lower plane. The portal must stay shut!

[JLOGIC]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-June-01, 15:49, said:

I agree with han

elianna said:

Unfortunately, I can't vote this up anymore than once.

I personally would have downvoted. Finding someone contradicting themselves with their own posts is awesome and I'm all for it, however it was pretty obvious that ken was saying partner will bid 3C with 13 in the reds, and only pass with 1-4+. I think that is ridiculous but it did not contradict itself. Frances was the one who looked silly in that post, not ken.

Ken I am always passing without 6 good clubs, ie xxx x KQx J9xxxx or so, I am just passing. I think it is by far a percentage action, even if it risks a 3-3 fit sometimes. Usually we'll have a 4-3 fit and be playing at the 2 level with a ruffing value which is fine, and sometimes we'll find a 5-3 fit and be great. I think sometimes people who post on forums and read bridge problems a lot have a distorted view of how often a certain unlikely but common in problems type of situation happens.

Also, Ken when responding to Gordon was always right that gordon was being a little bit ridiculous, for instance he implied partner might pass 2D with 2-3 in the reds which is indeed a "wtf" moment, and gordon also implied that ken's partner would false preference with 1 heart and 3 diamonds which ken said would not happen, which is true. Gordon was being weirder than Ken.

[gwnn]

JLOGIC I think kenrexford was saying that he'd bid 2♠ on a 3136, I think 3136 and no other shape, but I'm not sure.

[kenrexford]

 gwnn, on 2011-June-02, 15:30, said:

JLOGIC I think kenrexford was saying that he'd bid 2♠ on a 3136, I think 3136 and no other shape, but I'm not sure.

Yes, that's almost exactly what I was saying. With great clubs, you can of course rebid 3♣ even with 3136. But, with the average or ratty clubs, 2♠ works.

Will this cause a problem on that rare hand where partner then has 3631? Sure. If those two patterns face each other, opener probably laughs and passes, playing the 3-3 spade fit. The funny thing is that, years ago, these two exact patterns did face each other. My approach at that time was to respond 1♠ with the three-card suit! Partner then raised to 2♠ because her hearts sucked. So, we ended up in the 3-3 fit anyway. The humorous thing, though, was that the opponents balanced into some other suit (I think clubs).

If you don't end up in a 3-3 fit ever, you are not bidding right, IMO. LOL

Also, the mere fact that you have a plan for some hand types does not mean that you cannot deviate on occasion. If I were dealt ♠Jxx ♥x ♦AKx ♣9xxxxx, I'm passing. Screw methods.

[gwnn]

The only thing I don't understand then is why did you mention a superaccept of diamonds somewhere upthread? Looks like you don't have it.

[jdeegan]

 fred, on 2011-May-26, 16:56, said:

I think that opening 1H is quite normal nowadays. I would open 1H and I consider myself sounder than most about such things.What surprises me is the number of people who say they would rebid 2D over 1NT. To me that is one strange bid - rebidding 2H is even more normal than opening 1H in my view.Fred GitelmanBridge Base Inc.www.bridgebase.com

Learn to bid from the good players. Rebid 2♥. Six to the ten opposite two small is where you want to be in a part score. In what other contract can you get THREE ♥ tricks?

[kenrexford]

 gwnn, on 2011-June-03, 07:11, said:

The only thing I don't understand then is why did you mention a superaccept of diamonds somewhere upthread? Looks like you don't have it.

1♥-1NT
2♦-3♠

or

1♥-1NT
2♦-4♣

These two super-accepts.

[Lurpoa]

 kenrexford, on 2011-May-27, 10:12, said:

Yeah, but part of that for me is somewhat partnership understanding. As you may suspect, I have a lot of strange partnership understandings.

The idea?

You start with the concept of what to do generally after forcing 1NT. Generally, I like a 2♦ rebid to promise four. Thus, for example, with 3532, we would rebid 2♣ (normally).

You then get to the strange circumstance of 4531. In that situation, 2♣ seems like too much. I've done it, but it smells ugly. So, yet get an exception that 2♦ could be three diamonds with a stiff or void in clubs, which means four spades.

You then assume that 2♦ either shows a heart-diamond two-suiter OR a heart-spade two-suiter (with a diamond fragment).

Once you assume that, then a 2♦ rebid is a two-way bid. 4630 is closer to a 4531 contextually than it might be otherwise. You are putting more description on the table, in a sense, than a traditional 2♦ rebid would show.

The "would you rather" discussion is quite misloeading.

"Would you rather play in a 4-3 fit or a 6-2 fit?" Who passes Two Diamonds with 4D/2H?!?!?

"Would you rather play in a 3-3 fit or a 6-1 fit?" If partner has 3-1-3-6, my concern is actually playing in a 6-0 fit, somewhat. Besides, if you play that 1H-1NT-2D-2S (that precise sequence) shows spade tolerance with long clubs, the question becomes, "Would you rather play in a 3-3 fit, a 6-1 fit, or a 4-3 fit?" I like the 4-3 fit.

No problem, if you agree with partner that he never can pass 2♦.

Oh yes, just a little one, if he is 3-2-4-4, he will bid 3♦.

All considered, if you do not want P to pass 2♦, better bid 2♥, at least he is warned.... and if according to your methods, he was allowed to bid a 4card ♠ over 2♦, he can do that now also now, .... but why did he not bid them on the first round ?

[Zelandakh]

These kind of hands are great for 1H - 1S invitational-plus relay. If Responder has some values then they respond 1S and Opener can rebid 2C to show the spade suit. If Responder is weak then they either support hearts or bid 4 card suits up the line with 1NT showing spades. So if Responder bids 2D then Opener can pass knowing there is a 5-3 fit. And over 2C we are back with the field in 2H except that Opener will often pass 2C with 3-4 clubs so it makes pushing on to the 3 level less appealing with the aforementioned 3136 shape. If you take all of the awkward possibilities mentioned in this thread and apply this approach it is clear that you end up in a reasonable spot without having to make distorting "expert" bids.

[kenrexford]

 Lurpoa, on 2011-June-05, 04:02, said:

No problem, if you agree with partner that he never can pass 2♦.

Oh yes, just a little one, if he is 3-2-4-4, he will bid 3♦.

All considered, if you do not want P to pass 2♦, better bid 2♥, at least he is warned.... and if according to your methods, he was allowed to bid a 4card ♠ over 2♦, he can do that now also now, .... but why did he not bid them on the first round ?

I'm not sure that I understand all of this.

[Lurpoa]

 kenrexford, on 2011-June-10, 13:06, said:

I'm not sure that I understand all of this.

♥

Maybe I got your partnership understanding wrong.
From your proposal I understood that a 2♦ bid was forcing, and that is was done to discover a possible ♠fit.

I wanted to say that that is a little dangerous....
I think it is better to bid directly 2♥, to warn partner that possibly you have a very weak hand in♥.
If ♥ do not suit him, but he has a reasonable hand he still can bid 2♠, which is forcing one round, to discover a ♠ fit.
With a weak hand he simply passes 2♥, and we stay very low (at the risk of missing a ♠fit): with the 2♦ bid as you proposes you play at least in 3♥....or 3♠...
Isn't it ?