[dickiegera]

---

Assuming a 1♦ opening and a 2♠ bid over 2♥ how should the bidding continue?

Thank you

[navahak]

What is scoring?

Assuming IMP and no firm agreements:
3♣-4♦;
5♣-5♥;

Then opener has to just guess if biding 7 is odds on or not. No easy way to figure out trump holding after earlier bidding takes so much space.

Of course opener could just bid 4NT to ask aces after 4♦. That would work this time when answer is 3 aces. But two aces would be pure guess if there is 11 or 12 or 13 tricks.

[whereagles]

dickiegera, on 2014-November-07, 10:30, said:

how should the bidding continue?

dunno.. maybe this?

1♦ (2♥) 2♠
3♣ 4♦
4♠ 4NT
5♥ 5♠
7♦

4♦ = slammish
5♠ = queen ask, confirms all keycards
7♦ = got queen + extra source of tricks

[mikeh]

I appreciate that the opening bid forms part of the OP, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. This should be an obvious 1♣ opening to everyone.

It isn't that surprising that the auction goes pretty easily after a reverse, by the way. Power auctions tend to work best when opener actually describes the key features of his hand.

As it is, opener has no choice but to bid 3♣, and the question is what can responder do?

I think in standard 2/1, 3♦ is non-forcing since 2♠ in competition is not game force, so 3♦ has to be a preference.'


That means that east has to do something else. 3♠ isn't forcing either. We can bid 4♦, forcing, or 3♥, forcing but conveying no information about strain.

Since spades are still in the picture, opener having shown only 9 of his 11 minor suit cards and no extras, 4♦ seems mis-directed. In addition, looking at our majors, we can't expect opener to be able to cue at the 4-level, unless we are lucky enough to catch him with a stiff heart.

So I make the ambiguous 3♥ call and opener bids 4♣. Now my 4♦ is forcing.

Opener has a good hand, so can try 5♣ which focuses on the lack of heart control. Responder can now bid 5N, which might be taken as GSF, as would indeed be what responder would be hoping, but I'm not sure that it is. Maybe responder just closes his eyes and bids 7♦


Consider:


1♣ (2♥) 2♠ P
3♦ (P)

Responder can invoke keycard now. I mean, looking at those major cards, and seeing that overcaller probably has some heart values, opener has either substantial hcp in the minors or decent minors with some extras. Either way, keycard in diamonds will at worst get to a grand that needs a 3-2 trump fit. Generally one shouldn't, at imps, bid grands that need a 3-2 split, but this one needs 'at worst' such a fit and may in fact be virtually bullet-proof.

What a difference it makes when responder sees a reverse.

[ggwhiz]

mikeh, on 2014-November-07, 13:31, said:

I appreciate that the opening bid forms part of the OP, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. This should be an obvious 1♣ opening to everyone.

What a difference it makes when responder sees a reverse.

1♣ opening is hardly obvious or even correct and 20-20 hindsight with the actual hands.

A reverse into ♦ doesn't show 5 of them until/unless the opponents conveniently let me bid them twice and cheaply as in no 3♥ bid (2♠ by responder didn't promise the worlds fair). Not exactly what I'm interested in as responder if it's a misfit and/or they compete.

After 2♠ - 3♣ I would be inclined to cue 3♥ to set the game force and then it will get murky ie.

4♣ - 4♦
5♣ - 5nt gsf if partner is on the same wavelength that my heart cue is a game force but I haven't guaranteed what it's in until I supported diamonds.

If East jumps to 4♦ instead (over 3♣) I'm not cueing the spade void (float?)
but after 5♣, a 5♥ cue by east should get 7♦ from me or 5nt if we are playing a graded gsf where partner can show 1 of the top 3.

This hand has so many angles it could well be in the EX pert forum.

[TylerE]

ggwhiz, on 2014-November-07, 15:27, said:

1♣ opening is hardly obvious or even correct and 20-20 hindsight with the actual hands.

Uh, we have more clubs than diamonds, and a super strong hand, but not quite a 2♣ opening. How is 1♣ not obvious. This is a 1♣ playing SAYC, 2/1, ACOL, Precision, Moscito, or Polish Club.

[mikeh]

ggwhiz, on 2014-November-07, 15:27, said:

1♣ opening is hardly obvious or even correct and 20-20 hindsight with the actual hands.

A reverse into ♦ doesn't show 5 of them until/unless the opponents conveniently let me bid them twice and cheaply as in no 3♥ bid (2♠ by responder didn't promise the worlds fair).

I don't think anyone suggested that a reverse into diamonds promised 5 of them.

However, a reverse does two things that a 3♣ call, as in the OP auction, doesn't do. It shows longer clubs than diamonds, which is what we have, and it promises extra values, by way of either or both shape and high cards, and we have both.

3♦,after opening 1♣, doesn't promise 5 cards tho it hardly denies it. What it does do is to set a gf, which 3♣ would not have done, and begins to convey accurate, meaningful information to responder. Since such an information exchange underlies all naturally-based standard bidding methods, this should be seen as a good thing.

Btw, consider how the auction would go on more mundane hands and auctions after 1♣ or 1♦ and I think (hope?) that you would agree that the reverse, followed if possible by a rebid in diamonds, would likely lead to a far more accurate sequence than an auction in which opener would show long diamonds and hand in which clubs could be longer than diamonds only if the hand were weak (which this isn't).

To suggest that anyone is pointing out a reverse as the correct approach is motivated by hindsight is silly, especially when the person you are accusing found his reverse thread pinned to the forums. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on reverses, and indeed I no longer agree with everything I wrote back then, but I can assure you that this hand has been a reverse to me for at least the past 35 years

[masse24]

mikeh, on 2014-November-07, 16:32, said:

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on reverses, and indeed I no longer agree with everything I wrote back then . . .

At the risk of a mini thread hijack, I would be curious to read what ideas--specifically--that you wrote back then, that you no longer agree with. Though it has been awhile since I read your reverses post, I have referred others to it often as a good starting point in understanding reverses. Please update your pinned post with your current thinking!

Thanks Mike!

[mycroft]

I will admit I'd much rather describe my hand (with 3♠) after 1♣...3♦ than after 1♦...3♣. I'm not likely to get passed in it either way, but oh my. And with AKQT98, I can play 4♠ opposite a void, and it'll score better than 5m (yes, I know 6m, or in this case 7m, but see above about ...3♦). After 3♠, 4♦ gets the point across quite nicely thank you, and I expect North will just keycard into the grand.

Yes, 3♥ rather than 2♥ makes things uglier if I haven't yet mentioned the suit that just happens to be our fit, but I can't see where opening 1♦ gains on the same hand with 6-2-1-4, and I don't play any systems that tell me which of those two shapes partner has before the opening call.

[Edit: Friday night, IMP pairs at the sectional, you pick up as dealer: - - AKQTxx AKQJxxx. And yes, partner has a very similar hand to the North in this case: AKQTxxx KQJx Jx -. What's with the freaks this week?]

[neilkaz]

3♣ now of course, but why wasn't 1♣ opened?

[johnu]

ggwhiz, on 2014-November-07, 15:27, said:

1♣ opening is hardly obvious or even correct and 20-20 hindsight with the actual hands.

A reverse into ♦ doesn't show 5 of them until/unless the opponents conveniently let me bid them twice and cheaply as in no 3♥ bid (2♠ by responder didn't promise the worlds fair). Not exactly what I'm interested in as responder if it's a misfit and/or they compete.

Are we playing canape???

While a reverse into diamonds doesn't immediately show 5 diamonds, how many rounds of bidding is it going to take to show 6 clubs and more clubs than diamonds if you open 1♦ ? I think about 8 rounds IIRC. I'm not concerned about a misfit in clubs since a void in clubs may be good enough for zero losers.

[rmnka447]

Yep, put me in with those who would open this hand 1 ♣ and reverse into ♦. This is a big minor suit player and there's no reason to distort the description of the hand by bidding ♦ first.

Given the actual auction, opener now has to start describing his hand. So, 3 ♣ seems right. That starts to show the minor orientation of the hand, but doesn't really define the strength of the hand very well.

With the actual responding hand, showing an unbalanced minor 2 suiter should be enough to get you on track to slam. However, one could easily construct similar responding hands where knowing ♣ are longer than ♦ is very important in finding the optimal spot.

[fourdad]

mikeh, on 2014-November-07, 13:31, said:

I appreciate that the opening bid forms part of the OP, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. This should be an obvious 1♣ opening to everyone.

It isn't that surprising that the auction goes pretty easily after a reverse, by the way. Power auctions tend to work best when opener actually describes the key features of his hand.

As it is, opener has no choice but to bid 3♣, and the question is what can responder do?

I think in standard 2/1, 3♦ is non-forcing since 2♠ in competition is not game force, so 3♦ has to be a preference.'


That means that east has to do something else. 3♠ isn't forcing either. We can bid 4♦, forcing, or 3♥, forcing but conveying no information about strain.

Since spades are still in the picture, opener having shown only 9 of his 11 minor suit cards and no extras, 4♦ seems mis-directed. In addition, looking at our majors, we can't expect opener to be able to cue at the 4-level, unless we are lucky enough to catch him with a stiff heart.

So I make the ambiguous 3♥ call and opener bids 4♣. Now my 4♦ is forcing.

Opener has a good hand, so can try 5♣ which focuses on the lack of heart control. Responder can now bid 5N, which might be taken as GSF, as would indeed be what responder would be hoping, but I'm not sure that it is. Maybe responder just closes his eyes and bids 7♦


Consider:


1♣ (2♥) 2♠ P
3♦ (P)

Responder can invoke keycard now. I mean, looking at those major cards, and seeing that overcaller probably has some heart values, opener has either substantial hcp in the minors or decent minors with some extras. Either way, keycard in diamonds will at worst get to a grand that needs a 3-2 trump fit. Generally one shouldn't, at imps, bid grands that need a 3-2 split, but this one needs 'at worst' such a fit and may in fact be virtually bullet-proof.

What a difference it makes when responder sees a reverse.

I absolutely agree with the above and wonder why one would chose to open a 5 card suit when one has a 6 card suit that is stronger.

[whereagles]

fourdad, on 2014-November-08, 04:48, said:

wonder why one would chose to open a 5 card suit when one has a 6 card suit that is stronger.

Because bidding isn't a linear problem. Sometimes tactical factors dictate non-canonical solutions.

Not that this hand is a big problem.. both 1♦ and 1♣ should, in practice, work out just fine.

[Cthulhu D]

I think it makes more sense to start 1D if you've got a weaker hand (say, jettison both queens for small cards), then you want to be able to show the fundamental nature of the hand over what you have to anticipate is going to be heavy major suit bidding, but let partner get out at 3C if that's the right spot.

But for the same reason with this hand I want to start with 1C, it will let me bid 3D or 4NT as two places to play later on and get the extra values across when they start bidding.

[Trump Echo]

I don't like the opening.

Regardless, in this auction, I would bid 4 Clubs, with no chance my regular partner would think Gerber.

Partner would see grand slam potential in Diamonds and bid Blackwood.

An incidental advantage to 4 Clubs is it seems to warn of extreme shortness in Spades since 3 NT is happily passed by.

[TylerE]

FWIW: I posted opener's hand (only) over on BW. Currently, 1♣ is leading over 1♦ 49-0.

[aguahombre]

TylerE, on 2014-November-10, 14:00, said:

FWIW: I posted opener's hand (only) over on BW. Currently, 1♣ is leading over 1♦ 49-0.

I would think the margin would be greater