[Fluffy]

AKJ9xxx
xxx
Jx
A

1♠-1NT (forcing)
???

[whereagles]

4♠. I would have opened that the first place

[gwnn]

Now that I didn't open 4♠, I'm stuck with an inelegant 2♠ rebid. Over any further noise of partner's I need to jump to 4.

[pclayton]

Please don't suggest there is anyone with a bridge IQ north of 50 that suggests opening this 4♠.

2♠ isn't enough; 4♠ is too much (although perhaps the autosplinter shows the 4♠ moose); 3♠ seems just right.

[cherdano]

I would usually rebid 4♠ with this shape and these cards, but the singleton A makes me reconsider. I will go with 3♠.

[Walddk]

pclayton, on Mar 12 2007, 05:38 PM, said:

Please don't suggest there is anyone with a bridge IQ north of 50 that suggests opening this 4♠.

What he said.

3♠ next.

Roland

[skjaeran]

2♥'s with my regular partner, transfer showing a good 2♠ rebid (or better).

In standard methods I'd rebid 3♠ - nothing else make sense to me.

[pbleighton]

A 3S rebid seems clear.

I open 4M more frequently than most, but i wouldn't do so with this hand.

Peter

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

2S

4S is out, there are days I will bid 3S,
but 2S is certainly best, if we belong
into 4S partner will bid again.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Having read the answers, I will
add the following comment:
2S shows an opening and a 6 card
suit, and oppossite a 4-7 garbage raise
there is a chance that we will go down in
3S.

[Walddk]

P_Marlowe, on Mar 12 2007, 11:28 PM, said:

Hi,

2S

4S is out, there are days I will bid 3S,
but 2S is certainly best, if we belong
into 4S partner will bid again.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Having read the answers, I will
add the following comment:
2S shows a opening and a 6 card
suit, and oppossite a 4-7 garbage raise
there is a chance that we will go down in
3S.

Are you sure?

♠ Q
♥ AKxxx
♦ xxx
♣ xxxx

10 top tricks. Do you think partner will bid over 2♠?

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Walddk, on Mar 12 2007, 04:32 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Mar 12 2007, 11:28 PM, said:

Hi,

2S

4S is out, there are days I will bid 3S,
but 2S is certainly best, if we belong
into 4S partner will bid again.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Having read the answers, I will
add the following comment:
2S shows a opening and a 6 card
suit, and oppossite a 4-7 garbage raise
there is a chance that we will go down in
3S.

Are you sure?

♠ Q
♥ AKxxx
♦ xxx
♣ xxxx

10 top tricks. Do you think partner will bid over 2♠?

Roland

He will pass.

In my dreams being red vs. green he will raise,
giving me a hand to strong to open
a weak (a weak two promising max. -2 being red)
and he holding 3 tricks raises to 4S, but in
reality he will pass.

But of course he has a max. hand with no wastage.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

Of course it's fun to construct nice hands. Look at what I can come up with:

Qxx
KJx
Qx
KJxxx

After we show him a very solid all-round hand with long spades, pard will certainly shoot for slam. If we are very persuasive, we can stop on 4 level. Oops. 4♠ went also down.

Yes my example hand was not very fair. But in my humple opinion, neither was Roland's.

[Walddk]

gwnn, on Mar 13 2007, 12:14 AM, said:

Of course it's fun to construct nice hands. Look at what I can come up with:

Qxx
KJx
Qx
KJxxx

After we show him a very solid all-round hand with long spades, pard will certainly shoot for slam. If we are very persuasive, we can stop on 4 level. Oops. 4♠ went also down.

Yes my example hand was not very fair. But in my humple opinion, neither was Roland's.

Why are we necessarily down in 4♠ with your hand? And excuse me, anyone who bids anything but 4♠ over a 3♠ rebid needs to attend a course of hand evaluation.

Not a single first round control, no shortage. "Pard will certainly shoot for slam". You must be kidding.

Roland

[gwnn]

The point is, of course, what 2♠, 3♠ and 4♠ show.

2♠ should be a minimum-ish hand with 6 or more spades.
3♠ should be a non-minimum ish hand with 6 or more?
4♠ should be a namyats type hand with no namyats available.

The subtler requirements for the three bids are subject to partnership agreement. Now, if you raise 3♠ to game on most "bad 3 card support" type hands, you owe your partner a slam try on a limit raise.

[whereagles]

That's very easy:

2♠ = min 11-14, 6 cards
3♠ = med 15-17, 6 cards
4♠ = usually a min 1-suiter with a side feature, which seems to be what I have

[jdonn]

Either 3 or 4 are ok. I feel 3 is best since if partner passes it's unlikely we missed a game, but it's certainly possible (xx KQJ xxxx xxxx) which is why I have no major qualm with 4.

2 is hopeless.

[mikeh]

gwnn, on Mar 12 2007, 06:03 PM, said:

Now, if you raise 3♠ to game on most "bad 3 card support" type hands, you owe your partner a slam try on a limit raise.

I do not agree. Partner does not owe opener a slam try with all limit raises. Partner owes a slam try with GOOD limit raises, which will include controls and, probably, a suit that can provide some source of tricks.

Bear in mind that the bid of 3♠ invites game, it does not force game. And game is two tricks short of slam. Furthermore, opener is not announcing that game will be cold oppsoite all decent 8 counts.

Responder will accept the game try with a variety of hands, but (as a rule) they will be decent 8 counts or better.

Assume that a decent limit raise will value to about 11 hcp. Then 'a decent limit raise' will usually produce about a trick more than the minimum on which one raises to game: that is still a full trick short of slam. Thus responder needs better than an average limit raise.

The Aceless wonder 12 count posited earlier is a full-value, slam-try limit raise only to walter the walrus clones.

[HeartA]

Walddk, on Mar 12 2007, 05:53 PM, said:

Why are we necessarily down in 4♠ with your hand? And excuse me, anyone who bids anything but 4♠ over a 3♠ rebid needs to attend a course of hand evaluation.

Not a single first round control, no shortage. "Pard will certainly shoot for slam". You must be kidding.

Roland

Totally agree.

I would choose 3S. 4S is my second choice, betting pd could provide 2 tricks or opps have some kind of contract.

[Apollo81]

3♠

[Fluffy]

come on, nobody for 3NT?, did I say this was MP?