[aguahombre]

never mind.

[steve2005]

pigpenz, on 2013-January-28, 11:12, said:

I myself would still reverse with 2♠ dont like the quality of the suit
but want to show my shape and strength, I would bid 2♥ before I would bid 2NT

i would bid 2♠ only way to find 4-4 ♠ fit, but would rebid 3N over a raise.
The problem comes if partner doesnt raise. If he bids 2N raise to 3N. Over 3♦ i'm gonna bid 3♥ to show stoppers, so opener can bid 3N. Hopefully he has a ♠ stopper.

Im not convinced though, can easily be in 3N with 4♠ losers without 9 winners

[aguahombre]

steve2005, on 2013-January-28, 14:14, said:

i would bid 2♠ only way to find 4-4 ♠ fit, but would rebid 3N over a raise.

Do you notice your 19 count? Or maybe you are using 3NT as the dreaded "serious"? I think if partner is inconsiderate enough to raise 2S to 3, I will try 4H ---quite serious, and we don't even use the convention on this auction.

[PhilKing]

This hand worries me.

Bad things will often happen if we play in spades. What I really want to be able to do is relay with Two Hearts without denying a major.

[kenrexford]

I am not sure which is more absurd:

1. Playing without agreements sufficient to enable finding 4-4 major fits in a simple auction, or
2. Analyzing the bidding anyway.

I mean, if 2♦ denies a 4-card major, then 2♠ is an idiot bid. It does not show spades, it is a notrump probe and asks for help in hearts. That seems totally wrong.

Conversely, if 2♦ does not deny a 4-card major, then 2♠ surely shows four or the agreements are really obscure. If it shows four, it cannot possibly be a reverse, so I do not know what that nonsense was about. So, 2♠ seems obvious.

Now, it is possible that 2♦ does not deny a 4-card major and that 2♠ does not show a 4-card major, and this could be logical. I have played something similar (after a lot of discussion). In that event, IF Opener raises RESPONDER"s major, and if RESPONDER continues on in that strain, THEN the major is agreed. This is really tricky.


In that event, you probably have a converse, where perhaps you could have this auction:

1♦-2♣
2♦-2♥
2♠-3♠
4♠

In that plausible auction, 2♥ was not necessarily four hearts, and 2♠ not necessarily four spades. 3♠ agreed spades and is thus four-card, and Opener can confirm true spades then by bidding 4♥ or 4♠ (4♥ as a "GPS" Cuebid).

In that scenario, 2♥ seems plausibly right. Responder is not promising four hearts but is maintaining the ability to confirm a 4-4 spade fit. This has some mild risk if Opener can have 4-4-5-0 shape, perhaps, but maybe that is not possible, or maybe remote enough to not F with what feels right.

I like that last interpretatiopn enough to throw down. 2♥ is right, and all other bids are idiotic. (Just kidding with the hyperbole.)

[gnasher]

What Ken said. Or the first few paragraphs, anyway.

[ArtK78]

This hand is funny. I can fully understand why a player would not want to introduce 9xxx of spades on this auction, especially if partner could have bid spades naturally over 2♣ without showing extras (which is my preferred method). If one mentally moves one of the spades to diamonds and treats the hand as if it were 3325 then you have a balanced hand and 2NT would make sense....

EXCEPT for the fact that your spades are 9xx (mentally). You don't want to declare notrump from your side (or anything else, for that matter). So, since you can't raise diamonds and you can't rebid clubs and you don't want to bid notrump, you are left with 2 options - bidding your crappy 4 card spade suit naturally or bidding your AKT of hearts as if it were a 4 card suit.

While it is the overwhelming choice of the posters to bid the 9xxx of spades, I can see bidding 2♥ naturally over 2♦. I don't know that I would have the guts to do it at the table.

Having said all that, I am not sure if Ken and I are in agreement. I had trouble following the last few paragraphs of his post.

[steve2005]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-28, 15:07, said:

Do you notice your 19 count? Or maybe you are using 3NT as the dreaded "serious"? I think if partner is inconsiderate enough to raise 2S to 3, I will try 4H ---quite serious, and we don't even use the convention on this auction.

yes noticed 19, but you got no fit yet, with a spade fit easily having 2 losers, the minors having slow losers unless opener has semi-solid ♦ or can raise ♣(that would geet me excited) or has J♣
I think in ♠ your gonna need AK♠ for good chance. I guess with your controls can be safe at 5 level, so 4♥ or 4N keycard immidietely or delayed would be ok to find out

[PhilKing]

You could easily 7NT opposite weak spades and a minimum:

♠Axxx ♥xx ♦AQJxx ♣Jx.

This hand is not really about spades.

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2013-January-28, 18:12, said:

You could easily 7NT opposite weak spades and a minimum:

♠Axxx ♥xx ♦AQJxx ♣Jx.

This hand is not really about spades.

Amen.

2♠ is terrible in my opinion. It is not even close.
For 6♠ to be playable, opener spades need to be at least ♠AKxx or ♠KQJx and even then 6NT or a grand in diamonds or clubs (opposite ♠AKxx) might still be better.
Without specific agreements, I do not understand why a good player would prefer to rebid diamonds in a game forcing auction, when holding such a major side suit unless his diamonds are excellent, in which case I have no need for spades.
Over the years the principle of avoiding weak suits on good hands has served me well.
No matter what people claim, assuming you have a 4-4 fit in spades and rebid 2♠ now, I very much doubt you will later be able to make a rational decision, whether to bail out of spades or not.
You will end up in spades far more often when you belong somewhere else by bidding 2♠ than you will miss spades should you rebid something else.
Again this is not close. You are kidding yourself if you believe you can sort out strain (and level!) later after a 2♠ rebid.

The choice is between 2♥ (my preference, followed by 3♣ if opener bids 2♠, but I would rather agree diamonds than spades) and 2NT.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-January-28, 15:37, said:

This hand worries me.

Bad things will often happen if we play in spades. What I really want to be able to do is relay with Two Hearts without denying a major.

Suppose that your methods are that a reverse would have shown extras, and 2♥ is a relay. You relay, and partner shows four spades. Now what?

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2013-January-29, 05:16, said:

Suppose that your methods are that a reverse would have shown extras, and 2♥ is a relay. You relay, and partner shows four spades. Now what?

Give up on spades. 4-4 major suit fits are often best, but they are clearly overrated. Most players simply don't know when to avoid them.
Chances opener having 4 of the top 5 spade honors is 4%, chances of him having three of the top 4 honors is 16%.
These apriori percentages increase a bit since opener must have opening bid values but not by much.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-28, 00:19, said:

Operating means showing 3-3-2-5, when you have 4-3-1-5 in this case. In general, it means breaking system because we think we are smarter than our agreements. Operating is not always a bad thing; but you are maneuvering your partner instead of conducting a partnership auction.

I could not agree less.
Agreements cover the general case, not the specific and in Bridge there are plenty of exceptions.
I do not share the believe, we let our smart agreements run and out drops the right level and strain time and again.
If this were the case Bridge would be boring and we would act like robots.
By the way the fact that robots to date can not bid as well as experts, even though you can make agreements much more complex than suitable for human beings, shows that this is simply not true.

Quote

When the right hands come along, we find "operating" partner to be successful. I don't see this being one of those cases.

I do.
Though I would not call it "operating" partner, but using judgment, not on his hand but mine.
I do not make it a habit violating my own agreements and I do not even claim doing so is always successful, but judgement not agreements rules this game.

Rainer Herrmann

[TWO4BRIDGE]

2C = 4+♣, 2/1 GF values ; does not deny a 4 card Major.

2D = 1st obligation is to show 5+♦; does not deny a 4 card M .
Now the entire 2-level is still available to find a 4-4 Major fit.
So any 2-level Major bid next shows 4 cards - - NOT just values in the suit .

I'm ready to see Opener's hand .

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-January-29, 05:16, said:

Suppose that your methods are that a reverse would have shown extras, and 2♥ is a relay. You relay, and partner shows four spades. Now what?

It's an imaginary auction for me. If I did play relays here 2♥ would be a relay without diamonds and 2♠ would be a relay setting diamonds, 3♣ would show 4♠ and I would relay again rather than bid 3♠.

2M for me is potentially a three-card suit, and yes, partner can have a four-card major.

[rhm]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-January-29, 06:20, said:

2C = 4+♣, 2/1 GF values ; does not deny a 4 card Major.

2D = 1st obligation is to show 5+♦; does not deny a 4 card M .
Now the entire 2-level is still available to find a 4-4 Major fit.
So any 2-level Major bid next shows 4 cards - - NOT just values in the suit .

I'm ready to see Opener's hand .

This is one way of playing.
If you do the choice is between 3♣ (my preference) and 2NT.
2♠ is still terrible in my view.

Rainer Herrmann

[Free]

If you're afraid of losing a 4-4 ♠ fit after 1♦-2♣-2♦, then you should've considered responding 1♠ instead of 2♣.

I consider this a "1♦-2♣-2♦-2♠ WTP" auction.

[PhilKing]

Free, on 2013-January-29, 07:06, said:

If you're afraid of losing a 4-4 ♠ fit after 1♦-2♣-2♦, then you should've considered responding 1♠ instead of 2♣.

Oh my.

Some of us, ie those who would not bid 2♠, are afraid of finding a spade fit.

[Free]

PhilKing, on 2013-January-29, 07:12, said:

Oh my.

Some of us, ie those who would not bid 2♠, are afraid of finding a spade fit.

What's your point? Some say A, some say B, isn't that typical in a discussion? OP asked a question, I responded. Is that a reason to think you have an obligation to point out to me in a derogatory way what I already know by reading the other responses?

[PhilKing]

Free, on 2013-January-29, 08:59, said:

What's your point? Some say A, some say B, isn't that typical in a discussion? OP asked a question, I responded. Is that a reason to think you have an obligation to point out to me in a derogatory way what I already know by reading the other responses?

I don't know what you know, but you did use the dreaded "WTP," whilst suggesting the One Spade "solution" for what you correctly surmise to be a non-problem.

You probably would not bid One Spade in a million years on this hand. Am I wrong? So I don't really get why you are so bothered by an "oh my" for such a terrible bid.