[MrAce]

Whether this hand bids 3♣ or not is a matter of agreement. I am used to lighter style 3m bids, for example Ax Ax xx KQJTxxx is a 3♣ bid for me.

I remember me and Tez used to play

1♣--1♦
2♥(either real heart reverse or club hands stronger than direct 3♣)

over this responder asks via 2♠

3♣ = better than direct 3♣
Rest= ♥ reverse hands and whatever you want it to show besides ♣+♥

[mikeh]

No method deals well with all hands. Opener will hold a 6331 16 count far more often than a 7321 hand. Make opener Ax Ax Kxx KQJ10xx, which is in some ways a better hand than he had (picture you with a stiff club x), and you don't want to be in slam, especially after an auction that pinpoints the heart lead.

While it is good practice to rethink hands where your partnership got to a suboptimal spot, that doesn't mean doing mental contortions to create an auction that would invariably get you to the optimal spot.

Here, at mps, 3N would likely have got you a good result...average at least. Even in the Blue Ribbon pairs I would expect most non-big club bidders to have problems reaching slam.

BTW, Timo's notion of using a gadget makes a lot of sense, but of course one needs to have discussed it beforehand.

[kenrexford]

Well, now I see another unexpected benefit from Walsh. Not bidding 1D preserves Opener's option for a more convenient fake 2D reverse. Not that this deal proves that point, but 3C is a wide call. Enabling the 2D reverse allows 3C to be better defined.

[bdegrande]

North has a monster hand - lots of controls and point count undervalues aces and kings, and a seventh club. I think it's even too good for 3♣, but that bullet has been dodged. Once South cooperates enough to bid a game, North should bid (not invite) a slam. At IMPs I think 6♣ is an easy bid. At matchpoints, you would have to at least consider 6NT.

[helene_t]

jillybean, on 2014-September-17, 14:02, said:

Here's the full hand. Partner is showing 16-17, 7 clubs for his bid

If 3♣ shows 7, what would North have bid if we make one of the small clubs a small spade?

[bluechip10]

jillybean, on 2014-September-16, 23:53, said:

Matchpoints

---

3NT

[jillybean]

helene_t, on 2014-September-18, 05:07, said:

If 3♣ shows 7, what would North have bid if we make one of the small clubs a small spade?

oops 7 is what he had, he can have 6

[mike777]

JB you had a tough rebid.

As often, very often in the forums and in real life a jump rebid of a minor is a very large range.


If responder starts with 1h ...opener might rebid 2nt and end up in 3nt making 6 or more.

I can see missing slam often at MP.

[neilkaz]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-September-17, 14:18, said:

When you raise 4♣ to 5, partner might as well raise to 6, you're probably not getting a vast amount of MPs for 5♣=, it could be wrong, but I suspect the number of times you were making 5♣= and getting any kind of score is exceeded by the number of times 6♣ makes, partner only needs you to hold the pointy suit Ks, one of the Qs and ♣Jx in the probable knowledge that you don't have a heart stop of your own.

Kathryn....you like systems etc. Cyberyeti is correct here and the least you must be able to do is either to key card with 4♦ or have a way to invite slam.

[SimonFa]

mikeh, on 2014-September-17, 09:47, said:

By the way, JB: I really think that the 1♦ response was a poor choice, even if you don't like the walsh-style. The problem arises when LHO bids spades. 1♠ ought not to be a problem, but as soon as LHO bids 2♠ or 3♠, you run the risk of losing the heart suit. Assume partner passes: you can hardly afford to reopen with a reverse in hearts on Jxxx Axxx in the suits, and while you can always double, both partners are going to have difficulty getting to hearts.

when holding 4 diamonds and a 4 card major, I believe very strongly that one should respond the major. When the suits are the reds, I think it to be a very bad move, indeed, to bid diamonds first. At least if our major is spades there is less chance of the auction going badly for us after 1♦.

Put it another way: when was the last time that your side belonged in diamonds when you hold Axxx and partner opened 1♣? Compare that vanishingly low number to the times you belonged in a major and you held 4 cards in that major when partner opened 1♣.

Don't you have to be careful that partner doesn't take you for 5-4 and sets them as trumps with something like Kxx if you bid Hearts first or am I missing something? I suppose it comes down to agreements?

[mikeh]

SimonFa, on 2014-September-19, 11:03, said:

Don't you have to be careful that partner doesn't take you for 5-4 and sets them as trumps with something like Kxx if you bid Hearts first or am I missing something? I suppose it comes down to agreements?

Why would you ever introduce diamonds as a possible trump suit, having responded 1♥? Unless partner reverses into diamonds, they are never going to be trump. if you do bid them later, it is not going to be to show length.

For example, had you bid 1♥ and seen partner bid 3♣, you might, if you wanted to stall below 3N, bid 3♦ but no experienced player would ever take that as showing length or doing anything other than stalling. Which is, in fact, a feature not a bug.

I don't often agree with Ken Rexford, but he was spot-on in his post to the effect that a side-effect of responding 1♥ on this type of hand is that it enables partner, with a monster too good for 3♣ and wrong for other strong bids, to fake a reverse. The only point I would have made, were I responding directly to Ken, is that some of us have known of this feature for a very long time. It isn't 'why' we play the style, but it is a happy by-product of the style.

[SimonFa]

mikeh, on 2014-September-19, 14:33, said:

Why would you ever introduce diamonds as a possible trump suit, having responded 1♥? Unless partner reverses into diamonds, they are never going to be trump. if you do bid them later, it is not going to be to show length.

I wasn't thinking about setting Diamonds as trumps, I was trying to explore something you or someone else had as signature, the importance of showing shape.

[kenrexford]

Actually, Mike, you and I agree about much more than you think. I just usually don't add my 2 cents unless the discussion evokes more fringe issues, where I tend to some theory extreme.