[kenrexford]

1♣-2♦-X-P-
???

Suppose Opener has ♠Axx ♥Axx ♦Kxx ♣Jxxx, or something like that where he's about to pick a major.

Which one, if you do, and why?

I have heard that one is preferred over the other, but the explanation of why seems backwards to me.

[TylerE]

While I might bid 2NT (I really think 2M should show 4, but I guess I'm old fashioned like that.) If I was going to bid a major, it would be ♥. 2♠ looks to much like an actual preference.

[karlson]

Partner could have a constructive hand with 5 or 6 of one major, which he's about to bid. If you bid 2♥ you get to play a level lower.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

I would bid 2H because maybe partner can bid 2S

See, my thinking is different. My instinct tells me that the agreement should cater to the three-level decision. If partner has 5-4, he may want to compete to the three-level. 1♣-2♦-X-P-2M-3♦-? or 1♣-2♦-X-P-2M-P-P-3♦-P-P-?

If Opener starts 2♥, Responder is OK with five hearts but has not flexibility with 5♠/4♥. If Opener starts 2♠, however, Responder has bo problem with five spades, plus he has flexibility with 4♠/5♥ (bids 3♥).

The explanation I heard for 2♥ with 3-3 was that it made 2♠ much more reliably 4-card. But, then preferencing 2♠ makes 2♥ more reliably 4-card. Seems to be a wash.

The 2M-X problem seems better if you bid 2♥, but that seems too remote.

I can understand the problem of Responder having 4♠/3♥ and no clear direction, with invitational only values, I suppose. Is that the situation you were considering? Because Opener could be 4-4?

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2008, 10:52 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 7 2008, 10:46 PM, said:

My instinct tells me that the agreement should cater to the three-level decision. If partner has 5-4, he may want to compete to the three-level.  1♣-2♦-X-P-2M-3♦-?[Snip]

lol, you need to cater to opponents who overcall 2D and then bid 3D? So many words...sigh

Quote

or 1♣-2♦-X-P-2M-P-P-3♦-P-P-?

This is at least possible, but it's also an unusual way to bid since raising directly is more preemptive and there's little chance the neg X is getting passed out if you raise directly.

I think you are trying to cater to something that will almost never happen.

Also, I am sure you have some views on what 2S over 2H should mean and what 3H over 2S should mean, and I am sure you are trying to draw me into that discussion, and arguing over things like that with you is a never ending loop so I won't even bother. It seems you want to make agreements that cater specifically to opener having bid 2S with 3-3 rather than agreements that cater to opener having bid 2H with 3-3.

So hostile!

Actually, that was not my intent at all. I have no agenda. I just still don't understand completely the reasoning or the unwind.

(As an aside, the issue struck me when RHO did overcall 2♦ and then rebid 3♦ and partner bid the major at the three-level with 4-5.)

If Responder must have 4-4, then it does not matter what Opener rebids. But, I'd assume that Responder must rebid 2NT over 2♥ if invitaional?

If Responder could have 4-3, I assume that he can bid 2♠ after 2♥. But then what if Responder has 5♠/4♥?

What if Responder has 3-4 and invitational, what is he supposed to do after 2♥? Bid 2NT in case Opener has 3-3? How is this unwound?

The bottom line reason for the question is that I do not understand this sequence and what to do. I have no secret plan to unleash some grand new theory. Rather, I have a big "duh" in a cloud over my head.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 7 2008, 11:23 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 7 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

(As an aside, the issue struck me when RHO did overcall 2♦ and then rebid 3♦ and partner bid the major at the three-level with 4-5.)

So you used a method called "resulting" in this case.

JC, man!

The auction made me think through the situation. It had nothing at all to do with "resulting."

If Opener has one major, there is not a problem.

If Opener has both (either 4-4 or 3-3), then 2♠ would enable 3♥ in this sequence but 2♥ would not enable 3♠ in this sequence. That seemed odd.

So, I then thought about all of the other problems that can develop, and I realized that I have no clue what is supposed to happen to unwind various 3-card suit possibilities when the auction stays competitive or when Responder has invitational values.

No master plan. No crazy theories. No resulting.

Just a damned question to which I have no answers.

Admittedly, I do have one theoretical willies reaction to a call that breaks with normal hgher-then-lower bidding theory. Approach bidding is usually up-the-line when bidding true suits (1♣-P-? or Stayman), but this is different because you might be bidding fake suits. It seems a lot like advancing Michaels or responding to a takeout double, also, where the approach is higher-then-lower typically.

Now I don't know what the heck is supposed to happen.

I mean, I understand that I might have an auction that is 1♣-P-1♠-P-2♠-P-2NT-P-3♣ to show 3145/3415. I know how my partner and I unwind this exception to our general rule of raising only with 4-card suits (too weak for what would be a proper pattern reverse). But, I don't know how to unwind this problem.

[EricK]

When you have this sort of hand (balanced minimum without genuine support), you generally don't want partner to compete to the 3-level, so I'm not sure you should construct your bidding strategy around making it easy for him to do it.

Now if you were 4-4 in the majors, then there is an obvious case for bidding the ♠ first. Because if the bidding comes back to you at 3♦, you can bid at the 3 level if you want and allow partner to choose his better suit.

[Flame]

You are too complex Ken, I just bid my lowest of short suits as they thought us in be the first bridge lesson, just like opening 1C with 3C 3D or respoding 2H to stayman with 4H4S.

[kenrexford]

How does this auction unwind?

Suppose best case. Responder has 4-4 in the majors. How does he confirm that the fit is real? What if Responder has 4-3 and Opener picks hearts -- bid 2♠ or cue?

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jun 8 2008, 12:00 AM, said:

Usually weak 2D overcallers don't bid 3D later in a live auction!

How about the reverse?

You open 1♦ next person says 2♣, partner doubles, and a pass.

You have Axx Axx KQxxx xx.

Now it's not unreasonable to expect a 3♣ call next: LHO is unlimited, you're short in clubs, partner's implied both majors, RHO passed even though for me it doesn't take much more than 3 clubs and 13 total cards for me to raise here.

So while certainly after a WJO you'd bid 1♥, how about now? Would you bid this one differently?

[gnasher]

How about with Axx Axx KQxx xxx then?

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Jun 8 2008, 10:08 PM, said:

How about with Axx Axx KQxx xxx then?

It makes me wince, but the systemic bid is 2NT: minimum hand, no 4-card major, no long diamonds, not promising a club stop.

The systemic bid is 2NT on a 3352 as well, but I'm allowed to look at my minor suit holdings first.

[han]

Systemic bid is 2NT? You play a different system than I do, I would bid 2D on Axx Axx KQxx xxx as well.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jun 8 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

I would bid 2D

Honestly, that didn't occur to me- I was so focused on the original problem...

Thanks.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jun 7 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 7 2008, 10:52 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 7 2008, 10:46 PM, said:

My instinct tells me that the agreement should cater to the three-level decision. If partner has 5-4, he may want to compete to the three-level.  1♣-2♦-X-P-2M-3♦-?[Snip]

lol, you need to cater to opponents who overcall 2D and then bid 3D? So many words...sigh

Quote

or 1♣-2♦-X-P-2M-P-P-3♦-P-P-?

This is at least possible, but it's also an unusual way to bid since raising directly is more preemptive and there's little chance the neg X is getting passed out if you raise directly.

I think you are trying to cater to something that will almost never happen.

Also, I am sure you have some views on what 2S over 2H should mean and what 3H over 2S should mean, and I am sure you are trying to draw me into that discussion, and arguing over things like that with you is a never ending loop so I won't even bother. It seems you want to make agreements that cater specifically to opener having bid 2S with 3-3 rather than agreements that cater to opener having bid 2H with 3-3.

So hostile!

Actually, that was not my intent at all. I have no agenda. I just still don't understand completely the reasoning or the unwind.

(As an aside, the issue struck me when RHO did overcall 2♦ and then rebid 3♦ and partner bid the major at the three-level with 4-5.)

If Responder must have 4-4, then it does not matter what Opener rebids. But, I'd assume that Responder must rebid 2NT over 2♥ if invitaional?

If Responder could have 4-3, I assume that he can bid 2♠ after 2♥. But then what if Responder has 5♠/4♥?

What if Responder has 3-4 and invitational, what is he supposed to do after 2♥? Bid 2NT in case Opener has 3-3? How is this unwound?

The bottom line reason for the question is that I do not understand this sequence and what to do. I have no secret plan to unleash some grand new theory. Rather, I have a big "duh" in a cloud over my head.

He's not being hostile, he's being accurate.

Ken, why are you worried about catering to auctions that never happen in real life against good players?

In real life, pard will hardly even bid 2♠, but once in awhile he will with a 6-4, Pard will NEVER bid 3♥ over 2♠ with a 4-6.