[Zelandakh]

apollo1201, on 2015-June-19, 15:50, said:

Lots here do not seem to realize that 4D is a seriously slammish hand since we are in a GF auction so partner might just jump to 6 and be kinda dissapointed when I table dummy.

I think almost every poster here has a good grasp of what their bids mean and what the effects might be. PK already outlined why he disagrees with your assessment of 4♦. You need a way of showing diamond support and spade tolerance here for the purposes of giving a choice of game. Some use 4♦ followed by passing 4♠ for this, others use 3♠ followed by 4♦. And I suggested the use of a semi-artificial (grope) 3♥ advance. I do agree that the "Standard" call would be 3♠ but the main thing is that both partners are on the same page regarding the follow-ups. Clearly you would not be with the 4♦ bidders - that does not mean they are wrong.

[yunling]

mikeh, on 2015-June-18, 22:46, said:

AKJ10x xx AKQxx x

Is a minimum strong jump shift, and you can't see any reasonable spot beyond 3D?

Many would bid this way with say AKJxxx x AKQxx x

I could go on, but if you seriously think that game cannot have play, you need to think a little more optimistically

Take your club Q away and it will be 1♠ AP, no blame, isn't it?
If we play in 5♦, my club honors won't be of much use anyway, so it's more like a 3- or 4-count hand.
btw, the chance for partner to have a 5-card diamond suit goes down when I hold 4 of them.
I'm not claiming that game can never have play, but it just cannot have some 40%+ chance to makes it biddable at matchpoints.

Probably the main concern is how will your partner behave after taking 2 overtricks

[FrancesHinden]

Funnily enough, raising diamonds didn't occur to me on this hand. I was trying to decide between 3♠ and 4♣

I'm surprised so few people have mentioned 4♣: make my hand Q Jx xxx QJ109xxx and I think it's obvious. If partner bids 4D we bid 4S; if partner bids 4S we pass.
Perhaps partner has AKxxxx - AKQx Axx and I'll be racking up my +920 with diamonds 4-1.

I don't think 4C is obvious. But I think it deserves serious consideration. One strong reason not to do it playing with a pick-up partner is the fear that partner will take it as a cue bid for diamonds, although he shouldn't.

[Jinksy]

PhilKing, on 2015-June-16, 12:26, said:

Do not jump to 5♦!

In my view it's a pretty significant mistake to play "fast arrival" in the minors. I prefer to use it to show a mild slam try with good trumps and not much else. But that's not the main reason it's a mistake - the silver bullet is that you often need to give partner the chance to offer 4♠ as a contract. So I would raise to 4♦ here, and pass if he continues with 4♠ holding something like:

♠AKJTxx
♥Qx
♦AKQx
♣x

Would you still play 4♠ in such as a sequence as an offer to play at IMPs, or would you treat it as a slam try then?

[wank]

of course 4s is to play over 4d. opener hasn't even promised real diamonds.

[PhilKing]

Jinksy, on 2015-June-21, 07:10, said:

Would you still play 4♠ in such as a sequence as an offer to play at IMPs, or would you treat it as a slam try then?

It's just natural as far as I'm concerned.

[mike777]

wow
so many posters live in a world where 3d does not promise natural and high quality d suit.

But none of you I repeat none of you alert it....silly..


5d seems easy unless you play secret....


unless 3d does not promise d.....wow.

[ArtK78]

I don't know what world you live in Mike, but the idea that 3♦ does not promise a real suit on this auction is completely normal. What else do you do on a 7231 19 count?

[MrAce]

mike777, on 2015-June-22, 02:21, said:

wow
so many posters live in a world where 3d does not promise natural and high quality d suit.

But none of you I repeat none of you alert it....silly..


5d seems easy unless you play secret....


unless 3d does not promise d.....wow.

Mike...are you trying to win the "most hopeless/clueless comment of the year" award? I thought this train is long gone with PhilG in it but I think you are getting very close to catch him.

[aguahombre]

In all fairness --- even though we recognize that the nebulous 3m jump shift is a common thing, I don't believe anyone is happy with it or proud of it when it happens.

This very thread shows why it sucks. Holding a 7-1-3-2 monster, we shouldn't rush into opening 1S without considering how ugly a rebid might be after the expected 1NT response. Opening 2C instead is often acceptable if it looks like a 9-trick hand -- or just rebidding 4S might be wiser, hoping to get on to the next hand without too much damage. Of course if we really feel the need to be prepared, we could have a g-word toy or whatever in our kit bag.

[helene_t]

ArtK78, on 2015-June-22, 05:26, said:

I don't know what world you live in Mike, but the idea that 3♦ does not promise a real suit on this auction is completely normal. What else do you do on a 7231 19 count?

Autosplinter. If you can insist on spades you either have 2♣ opening or a 4♠ rebid, imho. I understand that some play a 4♠ rebid as not so strong, but I don't see why. If we don't have a maximum 1♠ opening, isn't a 3♠ rebid plenty?

The problem is when you have a 6331 and want to keep the options open for 3nt or 4♥ (or 5♦ if p has 5+ card support). And assuming you don't have a 2nt or 2♣ or even 3♣ rebid gadget. If the stiff club is the king or ace, a 3nt rebid has appeal.

So I don't think this 3♦ rebid is very nebolous.

[MrAce]

helene_t, on 2015-June-22, 09:05, said:

Autosplinter. If you can insist on spades you either have 2♣ opening or a 4♠ rebid, imho. I understand that some play a 4♠ rebid as not so strong, but I don't see why. If we don't have a maximum 1♠ opening, isn't a 3♠ rebid plenty?

The problem is when you have a 6331 and want to keep the options open for 3nt or 4♥ (or 5♦ if p has 5+ card support). And assuming you don't have a 2nt or 2♣ or even 3♣ rebid gadget. If the stiff club is the king or ace, a 3nt rebid has appeal.

So I don't think this 3♦ rebid is very nebolous.

Auto splinter requires a self sufficient trump. Perhaps Art's example almost always fit into this group since it has 7 spades, but think about only 6 spades.

KJxxxx AQx AKQ x

I am not bidding 3♠ with this nor opening 2♣

To me opening and jump rebidding this suit is 100% about suit quality and not strength.

[Zelandakh]

MrAce, on 2015-June-22, 10:42, said:

Auto splinter requires a self sufficient trump. Perhaps Art's example almost always fit into this group since it has 7 spades, but think about only 6 spades.

This was precisely what helene was saying Timo.

[MrAce]

Zelandakh, on 2015-June-22, 11:03, said:

This was precisely what helene was saying Timo.

Right. This is what happens when you reply without reading the whole thing.

Sorry Helene.

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2015-June-22, 02:21, said:

wow
so many posters live in a world where 3d does not promise natural and high quality d suit.

But none of you I repeat none of you alert it....silly..


5d seems easy unless you play secret....


unless 3d does not promise d.....wow.

Mike, I think all of us play that the jumpshift to diamonds 'shows' diamonds, just as in standard methods, absent specific agreements, we play that 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 'shows' clubs. There is a profound difference, in bridge bidding, between showing something and promising something. One always ought to have what one promises. One need not have what one shows.

Consider that in standard methods (I include variants such as 2/1 gf), there are hands that don't fit into the neat little categories that are shown in all bidding texts and lessons. There are hands that aren't adequately described by any one call in a given sequence, and we have to distort.

For example, in a method in which you have agreed that a 1N rebid promises at least 2 spades, what do you bid with say x AQJx 8xxxx AKx after 1♦ 1♠?

We are too weak to reverse, and we can't (by agreement) bid 1N, and we really don't want to rebid that diamond suit, so what do we do?

Some would say we distort by bidding 1N. Others that we risk playing a 5-1 diamond fit, but many would advocate a 2♣ bid.

In a similar vein, with a monster 6=3=3=1, too strong for a 3♠ rebid, not good enough for 2♣, and unable/unwilling to insist upon spades, we have to do something, and many of us would prefer to bid 3♦ as the smallest lie. Others might prefer 2N as the lie, but the point is that while a call may 'show' something, there will be and should be many times when it shows but doesn't promise.

As an example, which seems contrary to the way you play (and I wonder if you alert your idiosyncratic treatments), the sequence of 1♠ 1N (forcing) 2♠ not only shows 6+ spades, but it also promises 6+, since there is no legitimate bridge reason to use this call as a distortion.

In a similar vein, bidding a major in response to stayman shows and promises a 4+ major. However, imagine playing 10-12 1N and picking up xx Jxxx xxxx xxx.

Passing 1N is hiding one's head in the sand. It is in my view preferable to bid 2♥ (assuming that one doesn't play transfers) despite the fact that this 'shows' 5+ hearts.

[Mbodell]

At the table results: I raised to 5♦ and partner played there for +400. In the 2 session sectional open pairs this was good for 19.75 MP on a 26 top (about 76%). Partners hand was AKJ73 Q82 AKJT7 - so we were in our 5-4 game fit. You can see the hand record and results as board 8 at http://www.paloaltob...en%20Recap.htm. Double dummy diamonds makes 11 tricks, spades 10 tricks, and NT 9 tricks so par is 4♠ making for +420. In actuality one pair played 2♠ (making 5), 1 pair played 3nt (making 5), 2 defended 3♥ doubled off 3, 6 played 5♦ (1 made 12, others 11), 5 played 4♦, 11 played 3♦. I don't know how many tables faced the same decisions as I did, because I'd guess a fair number of players would overcall 2♥ over the 1♠ w/w at MP holding Txx AKTxx 9x A98.

I also polled this on bridge winners where you can see the voting was about 2:1:1 for 4♦:5♦:3♠.

I can see I need to be a bit more cautious when my partner bids 3♠ or 4♦ on these auctions in the future, and that if I held this hand today I think I'd go with 4♦ opposite most people, but I can certainly see the appeal of 3♠.

[rmnka447]

Like Art and several others, I don't believe that 3 ♦ necessarily holds ♦ when jump shifting in them. So, I bid 3 ♠ and let partner have as much space as possible to complete telling their story with their second rebid.

[Mbodell]

Would nearly everyone who bids 3♠ here expect that with a 3 card limit raise they'd bid 4♠ direct over 3♦ J/S, or would some folks have everything from the very weak preference to the 3 card limit raise as part of the 3♠ bid?

[mike777]

mikeh, on 2015-June-22, 11:50, said:

Mike, I think all of us play that the jumpshift to diamonds 'shows' diamonds, just as in standard methods, absent specific agreements, we play that 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ 'shows' clubs. There is a profound difference, in bridge bidding, between showing something and promising something. One always ought to have what one promises. One need not have what one shows.

Consider that in standard methods (I include variants such as 2/1 gf), there are hands that don't fit into the neat little categories that are shown in all bidding texts and lessons. There are hands that aren't adequately described by any one call in a given sequence, and we have to distort.

For example, in a method in which you have agreed that a 1N rebid promises at least 2 spades, what do you bid with say x AQJx 8xxxx AKx after 1♦ 1♠?

We are too weak to reverse, and we can't (by agreement) bid 1N, and we really don't want to rebid that diamond suit, so what do we do?

Some would say we distort by bidding 1N. Others that we risk playing a 5-1 diamond fit, but many would advocate a 2♣ bid.

In a similar vein, with a monster 6=3=3=1, too strong for a 3♠ rebid, not good enough for 2♣, and unable/unwilling to insist upon spades, we have to do something, and many of us would prefer to bid 3♦ as the smallest lie. Others might prefer 2N as the lie, but the point is that while a call may 'show' something, there will be and should be many times when it shows but doesn't promise.

As an example, which seems contrary to the way you play (and I wonder if you alert your idiosyncratic treatments), the sequence of 1♠ 1N (forcing) 2♠ not only shows 6+ spades, but it also promises 6+, since there is no legitimate bridge reason to use this call as a distortion.

In a similar vein, bidding a major in response to stayman shows and promises a 4+ major. However, imagine playing 10-12 1N and picking up xx Jxxx xxxx xxx.

Passing 1N is hiding one's head in the sand. It is in my view preferable to bid 2♥ (assuming that one doesn't play transfers) despite the fact that this 'shows' 5+ hearts.

thank you Mikeh for your thoughtful reply.

I think 5d is easy if 3d often shows natural and strong d.

again if not ok

clearly many many posters think not
3d shows some kind of offbeat hand often


3d is not natural and high quality
--------------

agree with many posters that rebid of spades shows 6 or super 5
I may have not been clear

[kuhchung]

Mbodell, on 2015-June-29, 22:43, said:

Would nearly everyone who bids 3♠ here expect that with a 3 card limit raise they'd bid 4♠ direct over 3♦ J/S, or would some folks have everything from the very weak preference to the 3 card limit raise as part of the 3♠ bid?

I think Justin posted that he likes to play the jump to game as picture.