[mr1303]

IMPs, Game all

♠ AJ107543
♥ KQ
♦ K
♣ KQ9

Opponents silent, you deal and open 1♠. Partner responds 2♣. Your go

Several choices here, either rebidding 2 spades planning on catching up later, trying 3 spades which lies slightly about the suit quality (BBO advanced defines this as a solid suit), or raising partner's clubs.

[jtfanclub]

Looks solid to me!
I'm confident that three spades
Will work out just fine.

[Echognome]

I'll take it slow with 2♠. I want to hear more about what partner has to say. If I had to guess now, we are going to be playing in spades, but with KQx of partner's suit, I'm not going to object playing there either.

To me 3♠ sets the suit, so I'm not going to jump the gun on that.

[pclayton]

2♠ for now. I don't want to 'force' to support or cue, since his spade length may be the key to 6 or 7.

I think this is a much tougher problem at MPs - or at least a subsequent decision on this hand.

[mike777]

2s expect it to be unanimous.

Why bother to play some version of 2/1 and jump around on this type of hand full of holes.
Second choice is 3clubs if you are afraid your partnership is not strong enough to get back to clubs as trumps.

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Jul 13 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

Why bother to play some version of 2/1 and jump around on this type of hand full of holes.

Because this isn't 2/1, or at least, if it has been defined as 2/1 I missed it.

I can probably show a 6 card suit later, but 7?

[Foxx]

Four notrump. This is a problem of what information we need, and how easily we can get it. Can we find out if partner has a singleton spade? Not through any mechanism I know of. I don't see what 4NT could be here other than key-card Blackwood for clubs. We'll be well on our way to placing the contract once we know how many aces partner holds. I don't usually play 1430, but it will come to our rescue here. If partner bids 5♣ (one), we can leave him there, and at IMPs we don't have to be concerned about coming to rest in our lower-scoring club fit. If partner bids 5♥ (two), slam is a heavy favorite opposite a singleton spade or the ♠K, or on a finesse opposite ♠Qx. Over 5♦ (virtually certainly three), I'll go on with 5NT to ask for kings, giving up on the magic grand when partner holds ♠x ♥Axxx ♦AQx ♣AJ10xx.

[inquiry]

jtfanclub, on Jul 13 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 13 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

Why bother to play some version of 2/1 and jump around on this type of hand full of holes.

Because this isn't 2/1, or at least, if it has been defined as 2/1 I missed it.

I can probably show a 6 card suit later, but 7?

I can't speak for Mr1303's BPO poll, but BPO polls were designed to use BBO Advanced (a 2/1 system) so that users could become use to it. And since we are BBO, using BBO instead of say, Bridge World Standard, made more sense. I suspect most regulars will assume BBO advanced unless the original question specifically stated something else.

[Dwingo]

2S . If the DK was SK, I would have bid 3S. The S suit is not good enough for a 3S rebid.

[mr1303]

Yes, I've assumed BBO Advanced 2/1 for the purposes of the marking here.

[P_Marlowe]

jtfanclub, on Jul 13 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 13 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

Why bother to play some version of 2/1 and jump around on this type of hand full of holes.

Because this isn't 2/1, or at least, if it has been defined as 2/1 I missed it.

I can probably show a 6 card suit later, but 7?

For starters you could bid 2S, 3S and 4S
which shows a 7 carder.

The question is, do you think the suit good
enough to set the suit as trumps, if you do
bid 3S else bid 2S, which may not even promise
a 6 carder, because it is the catch all bid,
or do you prefer showing the club support.

For whats it worth I would go with 2S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

inquiry, on Jul 13 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

I can't speak for Mr1303's BPO poll, but BPO polls were designed to use BBO Advanced (a 2/1 system) so that users could become use to it. And since we are BBO, using BBO instead of say, Bridge World Standard, made more sense. I suspect most regulars will assume BBO advanced unless the original question specifically stated something else.

I did not realize
Advanced used two over one
Change me to Two Spades

Sorry!

[Gerben42]

I bid 3♣. If partner has secondary ♠ support I'll notice at some point. Meanwhile if he really has ♣ as usual, this gets us to slam more easily.

[mikeh]

2♠: in BBO std or NA std, this cannot be passed. This is a non-problem in BBO std, since the suit is not good enough for 3♠, and 3♣ shows a different hand... a hand that doesn't hold a 7 card suit!

[skjaeran]

2♠, wtp?
Switch the minors, and 4♠ might be possible, but I'd still rebid 2♠.

[mr1303]

Well, with this hand, I felt a lot stronger about the correct rebid on this hand being 2S. For one thing, getting back to clubs after a 3S rebid may well be impossible, since a 3S rebid (showing at most a 1 loser suit opposite a stiff) invariably sets trumps, and as a result later club bids will sound like cue bids as opposed to strong support which we have.

Equally, letting partner know about a 7 card spade suit may well be difficult if we choose to raise clubs at this point, and as a result if we later pull a 2 or 3NT bid to clubs we'll show this sort of support and strong values, a better description of the hand.

Since it seems likely that we are going to force to slam on these cards unless we're off 2 aces, the issue of 2 possible trump losers opposite a singleton spade made me upgrade the club raise over the 3S call.

As a result:

2S = 100
3C = 50
3S = 30

[Foxx]

Hmmm. I may have been the lone vote for 4NT on this problem, but zero? Whenever partner has at least 5 clubs, it gets us to the right spot a lot of the time....

[Walddk]

I forwarded this problem to Mark, and I agree that 2♠ is superior when 2♣ is game forcing.

What I did not tell Mark, however, is that I found the hands in an old issue of a British magazine. Yes, Acol was the system (as it still is for the vast majority in that part of the world), and now you are well and truly stuck.

I guess you must rebid 3♠ to show this powerhouse and create a game force, and now you can most likely wave goodbye to the laydown 7♣.

♠ 8
♥ A96
♦ AQ64
♣ AJ1083


♠ AJ107543
♥ KQ
♦ K
♣ KQ9

They still teach newbies Acol in Britain. Hopeless, really. This is just one example. Users who are frequent visitors in the vugraph theatre know how much I dislike the system, but more importantly, top class English players like Tom Townsend, Peter Crouch and Geoffrey Wolfarth are in the same camp.

Roland

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Jul 15 2007, 12:15 PM, said:

2♠: in BBO std or NA std, this cannot be passed.

That's not the issue.

The problem is after

1♠ 2♣
2♠ 2NT

Both 3♣ and 3♠ are non-forcing, at least the way I'm used to playing it. So if 2♣ is not forcing to game, you can find yourself well and truly hosed later, and it's virtually impossible to show a 7 card suit.

If 2♣ is forcing to game, this is a non-problem, particularly since 2♣ can be a made-up bid with just 3 cards in the suit.