[hamish32]

Nige 1 above has it exacly right.

[Caitlynne]

My opinion is that both are to blame.

Opener is to blame because he chose his opening bid without recognizing potential rebid problems. It is well known that a systemic problem exists in standard methods when holding an approximately 19 or 20 HCP hand featuring a single good, long, minor suit. These hands typically feature too many losers to open 2C, yet a jump rebid just isn't enough because that's non-forcing and suggesting a good to only fairly strong hand (i.e., "game invitational values"). The situation is especially bad on those hands, such as opener's actual hand, that feature shortness in the other minor and have no 4 card major suit. Manufacturing a reverse or jump shift rebid is a possibility, but it prohibited with a major suit and a poor idea with the other minor when there is shortness in the minor. You can't makes such bids because they undermine partner's ability to contribute to the dialogue in evaluating suit fit and the working fit of honor values.

Opener's hand represents a textbook example of a well known gap in standard, a gap so huge that some partnerships have been moved to address it by adopting a specialized conventional opening to cover it.

Regardless, opener chose the opening bid poorly since the jump rebid in diamonds is not enough over a 1-level response in either major (or 1NT, for that matter).

On the other hand, responder's decision to Pass at his/her second turn despite holding 9 HCP including both good support for opener's known 6 or 7 card suit and a side suit AJxx suit is hard to fathom when opener is known to have game invitational values seems very timid in the extreme. Virtually always, game should be bid when the partner is known to hold at least 25 HCP and a good fit in some long suit. To me, calling Pass would have been unthinkable. 3NT would be natural and strongly imply a club stopper since 3H often will be bid to show a heart value in the exploration for game in NT - and that would be my choice. You clearly don't have enough for 4C, but 4D is probably a reasonable though inferior alternative.

I have more sympathy for Opener than Responder here. Opener failed to consider the rebid problems; recognizing a rebid problem such as this requires bidding judgment and a nuanced understanding of standard bidding structure - the kind of sophistication that the lion's share of players lack. Passing 3D, however, reveals far more widespread and general failings in plain old valuation judgment and that is a far more serious weakness.

[Joe_Old]

miamijd, on 2018-December-13, 11:50, said:

I think others have provided the right answers, but in general, I think you both underbid your hand.

Partner's hand is too strong for 3D. With 20 HCP (yes, I know the stiff Kc isn't worth full value), he wants to be in game opposite even a minimum 1S response. So he needs to make a forcing bid, not a invitational bid like 3D. As others have pointed out, with three spades, a 2H reverse is the right call here. This might look odd, but it's actually a very standard treatment. If partner raises hearts, showing 4, that means he has at least 5 spades (with 4/4, he'd bid hearts first), so you just correct back to spades and reveal your little lie.

Your hand is too good to pass 3D, which shows about 16-18. Even opposite a minimum 3D bid, you should have excellent chances for game. There really isn't a good way to find out if partner has a H card, but with your club stop and Kd, 3NT ought to be a decent shot, so you should just take the bull by the horns and bid it.

Cheers,
mike

Of interest is that GIB has the 3♦ rebid as "6+ ♦, 17 - 20" HCP, which is an approach that I have not seen anywhere else. I wonder where BBO got it from and why they incorporated it into their system. If poster's partner got the idea for his bid from BBO, it certainly changes a lot of the analysis.

[mikeh]

I would fake the reverse as opener, but realize that this would likely not be something a novice would even think is possible. The logic, as others have observed, is that partner cannot have 4 hearts, and therefore be raising, unless he has at least 5 spades, and one therefore goes back to spades. However, if responder is also unfamiliar with this concept, then disaster lurks.

So I can understand why a beginner would not reverse.

I also understand why faking a strong jumpshift into clubs would seem bizarre to beginners....not that I would do it on this hand, because for me the 2H then spades route would be understood by the people with whom I play (plus, in my serious partnership, we have a gadget).

However, swap the clubs and hearts, and now one should prefer the club jumpshift over the fake reverse into what would be a stiff King.

As it is, while 3D is a massive underbid, I can see why a beginner would see it as the least of evils....the other evil possibility being 3S (but most beginners would no doubt shudder at the idea of a 3 card jump raise, and rightly so...it is not a good choice).

One might want to see this hand as demonstrating the wisdom of anticipating how an auction might go. As opener, one can readily imagine a 1M response....if LHO passes, the odds are probably well over 50% that partner will respond 1H or 1S. We have the same horrific rebid problem in either case. The way to deal with these hands, where no bid fits, is to think about the least distortion.

To me, that would be opening 2N. I have the hcp for it, and indeed my hand is arguably stronger in playing strength than most 2N openings. I wouldn't advise this except that, given that we are discussing a situation in which the partnership has no esoteric agreements, it seems to me to be the least bad distortion.

Btw, I don't play 3D as forcing (I find that weird) nor would I describe it as 'highly invitational'. It shows a good 6+ diamond suit and prototypically about a 16 count. AJx xx AKQxxx Qx would be sufficient.

Ok, back to the 3D call, which is understandable even tho a serious underbid. What should responder do?

I see the comments about bidding 3N, and shudder. What will partner do with, say, AQx x AQJxxx Kxx, a wonderful 3D call? He will or should pass. Good luck in 3N. Maybe hearts break 5-5 and you will win the last 8 tricks.

No: 3N promises at least a semblance of being able to stop the suit they are almost surely going to lead. We have xx in hearts. Partner usually won't have 4, since they could usually reverse if they did. Partner could have opened 1N or rebid 2N, so there is a huge likelihood of a heart lead. I would never gamble that partner has a heart stopper here.

3D is non-forcing, but I have enough to chirp out 4D. Now, in my serious partnership, we play that as forcing, but our game is aimed at imps and we have a myriad of special agreements to show various hand-types. In a standard method, 4D should be non-forcing. Whether this leads to the borderline slam is difficult to tell. It is on a spade finesse, so it not a terrible contract.

Sure, I play 5D (or 6) when the field is in an easy 3N with 10 tricks on the top. But this isn't about 'what is the best contract'. It's about how to bid these two hands in the context of a rudimentary bidding system.

I implore those who advocate bidding 3N with xx in hearts to consider the extent to which they may be subconsciously influenced by seeing that heart Ace, and in the meantime please stop advising beginners to bid 3N with xx in a suit that is almost surely going to be led...through partner's holding, just in case he has Kx!

When one is starting out, one needs to accept that one is NOT going to be able to bid hands with accuracy...one's methods often lack the ability to do that. That doesn't mean wild gambles. It means working with what you know, while trying to learn other and better methods. Teaching 3N on xx on this hand is appalling, imo.

[miamijd]

nige1, on 2018-December-12, 13:22, said:

Liversidge writes "Partner opened 1♦, I responded 1♠, partner rebid 3♦ and I passed. Should partner have opened 2NT? Or should she have opened 1♦ and rebid 3NT? We play weak 2's. Others playing Acol Strong 2's bid and made 3NT+3 or 5♦+1.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As opener, I rank
1. 2N = BAL 20-22. Singeton king is OK.
2. 1♦ = NAT. A bit strong.


After 1♦ - 1♠- ?, I rank
1. 2♥ = REV, Technical reverse OK because if partner has 4 ♥s, then he should have 5 ♠s.
2. 4♠ = NAT. But it might well be a 4-3 fit.
3. 2N = BAL, 17-19. An underbid.
4. 3N = NAT. Good ♦s. But you might lose a ♠ fit.
5. 3♦ = INV. You could make this bid with 5 fewer HCP. Might be OK if it were forcing or promised 3 ♠s.

After 1♦ - 1♠ - 3♦ - ?, I rank
1. 3N = NAT. A guess but the most likely game.
2. 4♦ = NAT. Works in this hand but minor games require 11 tricks.

---

I wouldn't open 2NT with this hand. It's pointless.

*If partner has a bad hand, you'd rather play 1D than 2NT.
*If partner has a minimum sort of responding hand, you'll get to the right game either way.
*If partner has a decent hand, you'll often miss a slam if you open 2NT. For example:

Kx xxxs QTx Axxx

This will make 6D easy-peasy, but not if you open 2NT.

Cheers,
mike

[GrahamJson]

I suggest that using modern methods the bidding would go:

1♦-1♠-2♥-3♦-3♠-3NT

This assumes that 3♦ is forcing, with weak hands using a 2NT relay. This forces 3♣ after which responder can sign off. It this is outside the scope of novices/beginners then I guess responder will bid 3NT over the 2♥ bid. One thing is for sure, the opening hand is far too good for a 3♦ rebid.