[mariaki50]

How to bid the following hands (both vulnerable):
N (dealer): ♣KT83♦AQJT62♥-♠AK8
S : ♣QJ8♦3♥AKJT♠Q9754

The bidding sequence 1♦-1-♠-3♦ led to disaster.

[ali quarg]

I use a variation of unbalanced Diamond which can be found via link under conventions. Not natural, but it works

The bidding would go:
1♦-1♠ GF
1NT (5431/6430) - 2♣ (2 under transfers showing 4+♥)
2♦ (short ♥) - 4♠ (5+♠ signoff)/2♥ (5+♠ shape query w. slam interest etc.)

[nullve]

Maybe:

---

3♣ = NAT, GF opposite a positive hand (and not a hand that just wanted to improve the contract (1♦) such as ♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦x ♣Jxxx)
3♥ = FSF
3♠ = 3 S
4♥ = cue agreeing S as trumps and showing slam interest. Does not promise a heart control if a jump to 4N would have been quantitative (and not RKC).
4♠ = MIN (in context)
4N = RKC(♠)
6♥ = odd # of key cards, heart void
6♠ = contract

[pescetom]

My auction would resemble that of nullve, but I wouldn't play 3♥ as FSF (3♣ was already unconditionally GF) and I prefer a more natural control-bid style.

So something like:

---

3♣ = NAT, GF
3♥ = NAT
3♠ = NAT (3 card fit)
4♦ = control of ♦, denies control of ♣, fixes trumps in ♠
4N = RKC(♠)
5♣ = 1 keycard
5♦ = ♠Q ?
5♥ = ♠Q, ♥K, denies ♦K
6♠ = contract

[fromageGB]

I am not happy with the bid of 3♣ being GF after a natural spade reply. Forgetting this hand, if 3♣ is GF, how does opener bid a weaker strong hand? I would prefer the start of nullve with South setting a GF with 3♥, and then North setting the suit with 3♠.
South is interested in slam, so skips 3NT non-serious. 4♦ would normally be a control, but not a good idea to do this in opener's suit, as he would expect A or K (a shortage often not helpful), so again nullve's 4♥ cue fits.

All now depends on partnership ace asking methods. With no special agreements pescetom's fit.

Natural methods are not best suited to unbalanced hands, and while my sequence to 6♠ might be interesting, I wouldn't think this is the forum.

[Laplace0]

Thanks for the comments concerning the use of unbalanced Diamond, which is efficient in this case. Also any kind of strong club (precision, super precision, etc.) could be effective. But what about the natural 2over1. The obvious 3♦ jump rebid leaves Responder without a logical forcing response, driving him to a 3NT underbid. Is there a natural solution in the context of 2over1?.

[smerriman]

Laplace0, on 2021-March-14, 11:40, said:

The obvious 3♦ jump rebid leaves Responder without a logical forcing response, driving him to a 3NT underbid. Is there a natural solution in the context of 2over1?.

I wouldn't say 3♦ is obvious at all; this seems too much of an underbid to me, so I'm with the 3♣ bidders.

But from responder's perspective, if opener did bid 3♦, you still have a natural, forcing 3♥ response.

[jillybean]

To be honest, I think my auction would start;
1♦ 1♠
4♠

[pescetom]

fromageGB, on 2021-March-14, 11:17, said:

I am not happy with the bid of 3♣ being GF after a natural spade reply. Forgetting this hand, if 3♣ is GF, how does opener bid a weaker strong hand? I would prefer the start of nullve with South setting a GF with 3♥, and then North setting the suit with 3♠.

Unless I am missing something, 3♠ in the nullve auction does not even guarantee an 8-card fit, unlike my auction.
It's 4♥ that sets the suit in spades.

[DavidKok]

Looks like the Gazzilli bidders take it again? I still don't play this structure, but a few more posts like this might just convince me to adopt it.
1♦¹-1♠;
1NT²-2♣³;
3♣-3♥⁴;
3♠⁵-4♥⁶;
???

¹'Unbalanced'
²Gazzilli - 16+ points (any shape) or weak with 6(+) diamonds
³8+ points any shape, any rebid by opener other than 2♦ is GF
⁴Natural
⁵Delayed support, most likely 3=1=5=4
⁶Control for spades

At this point I don't know what I would bid with opener's hand. Partner shows a forward-going hand with a fifth spade, so our 4-loser hand is worth a significant upgrade. On the other hand partner has just denied both the ♣A and the ♦K, and by implication holds wasted values in hearts. Also since our trumps are so strong ruffing hearts might lead to a loss of a trump trick down the line, along with the ♣A. I would support arguments for 6♠ (there are plenty of minimum hands on this auction where 12 tricks are easy, or at worst depend on the diamond finesse), though I'm not sure if partner would thank me for making that call. Maybe a strong partnership could investigate a possible 4-3 club fit for 6♣, ruffing the diamonds free in the short hand?

[helene_t]

fromageGB, on 2021-March-14, 11:17, said:

I am not happy with the bid of 3♣ being GF after a natural spade reply. Forgetting this hand, if 3♣ is GF, how does opener bid a weaker strong hand?

2♣, this is quite universal. Shows 11-17 points or so.

[Laplace0]

I wouldn't say 3♦ is obvious at all; this seems too much of an underbid to me, so I'm with the 3♣ bidders.
But from responder's perspective, if opener did bid 3♦, you still have a natural, forcing 3♥ response.
You believe (apparently strongly) that a GF jump shift describes the hand better than a jump rebid. There are a variety of weak hands with some HCP in hearts not suitable for game. But since I think that 3♥ after 3♦ is not a natural force (how to bid else weak major 5=4 hands), leaving responder without a forcing rebid, a jump shift (but only for the last reason) is perhaps a better (?) alternative.

[Laplace0]

smerriman, on 2021-March-14, 13:38, said:

I wouldn't say 3♦ is obvious at all; this seems too much of an underbid to me, so I'm with the 3♣ bidders.

But from responder's perspective, if opener did bid 3♦, you still have a natural, forcing 3♥ response.

You believe (apparently strongly) that a GF jump shift describes the hand better than a jump rebid. There are a variety of weak hands with some HCP in hearts not suitable for game. But since I think that 3♥after 3♦ is not a natural force (how to bid else weak major 5=4 hands), leaving responder without a forcing rebid, a jump shift (but only for the last reason) is perhaps a better (?) alternative.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

But since I think that 3♥after 3♦ is not a natural force (how to bid else weak major 5=4 hands), leaving responder without a forcing rebid

With weak major hands you pass 3♦. This is standard. It's foolish to cater to improving the partial over having more alternatives to exploring the best games/slams, especially when it's impossible to have 4-4 heart fit.

After jump minor rebids, all non-game bids are forcing. It is questionable whether 3♥ should be *natural* force though, it's probably just "semi-natural", as opener shouldn't be able to have 4 hearts.

If you want to cater specifically to weak 5-4 major hands, try reverse flannery responses by responder on round 1.

This hand is basically the "Bridge World Death Hand". It was a common theme in master solver's club hands to have this strong 6+minor 3M in partner's suit, there is no great solution in standard. It's better in unbalanced diamond systems where you can utilize 1nt/2nt rebids artificially, or in systems where 1d-1M-2c is used semi-artificial and F1 (ala Kaplan-Sheinwold), these leave more room to sort this hand out and cater to slightly weaker hands that aren't worth the slight stretch to GF.

Playing standard, I'd jump shift, but also I'd hugely prefer rebidding 2♣ not 3♦. 2♣ is wide ranging, partner should pass rarely, and just leaves so much more room. Yes it doesn't show the strength yet and might get passed when game is on, that's just an inherent weakness of wide-range opening systems. 3♦ can be passed also, but can bury 2 other suits. Over 2♣, at least you won't miss spades when partner is weak with 6 (partner can bid NF 2s over 2c, but not NF 3S over 3d), and you also make club contracts much easier to reach. Also you'll often be able to support spades after a weak diamond preference, finding some good 5-3 spade games; over 3♦ if partner has a weak diamond preference he just passes 3♦.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-March-14, 13:55, said:

To be honest, I think my auction would start;
1♦ 1♠
4♠

JB: I'm flattered by the quote from me that is part of your signature block, but a little worried that you may not be understanding what I mean.

The main reason for bidding shape 'properly' is so that you can be a reliable partner, and that in turn your partner is better positioned to make intelligent bidding decisions when you are consistent, and disciplined, in bidding shape.

All too often in these forums, or so it seems to me, we have posts on bidding that are (to me) based on the notion that we, the bidder, are in charge of the auction rather than, as is far more common in good partnerships, being involved in a collaborative process.

When thinking of a bid in a difficult situation, forget your actual hand for a moment and think about what your contemplated action will sound like to partner...after all, partner is going to be making a decision based on the description you have provided.

On this hand, what would you expect from a partner who opened 1D and then raised your 1M to 4M?

I suggest you'd expect a balanced or semi-balanced hand of about 18-19 hcp. No splinter, thus balanced or semi-balanced, and 4 card support.

How closely does this resemble your hand? Not much. As one example of possible consequences, how would you expect responder to bid with QJxx xxx x AQxxx? 1S is impeccable, but why would responder move over 4S....opposite Axxx Kx AQJx KJx slam in spades has no play yet 7C is almost laydown opposite your actual hand. That is understandable since you have distorted your hand so much, by the 4S bid, that poor partner has a mistaken impression of what you hold. When one misleads partner, one owns the bad outcomes.

So here, your choices appear to be jump rebid diamonds, raise spades in some manner, bid 2C or bid 3C, gf.

Nothing is perfect but we aim for the least distortion.

3D is woefully inadequate, and may lead to missed games or slams, as well as risking a pass when partner has Qxxx xxx x Axxxx, etc

No spade bid is right because while it is common to allow for 3 card single raises, it is extremely unusual to jump with 3...and look at that last example hand....partner will pass 3S and may fail in 4S with 5 or even 6C making

2C is tempting, since we normally need a good 18+ to jumpshift, and partner will usually strain to bid. But give him QJxxxx Qxx x QJx....why would he try to improve the partscore by bidding 2S, the suit where you will be short far more often than hearts?

3C is a stretch since we would normally have more hcp and/or better clubs, but the key factor is that we are 3=0=6=4 rather than 0=3=6=4. Give me void AKx AQJxxx Kxxx and I rebid 2C.

Put another way: I agree with your instinct that this hand is good enough to risk driving to game. However, I strongly disagree that we do so by distorting the nature of our hand.

1D 1S 3C will often fetch 3D (not here, of course, but partner will often 'punt' with 3D with say 5323 shape or the like), and now 3S describes 12 of our 13 cards...we may be 3=1=5=4..as well as a good approximation of our playing strength. Compare how better informed your partner is now compared to jumping to 4S.

This sort of bidding involves partner. Now, many of us are not perhaps as reliable as partners as we'd like to imagine we or they are, but one doesn't cater to that by masterminding, unless one is that kind of pro...who has no interest in the client getting better.

Bidding over jumpshifts by opener is a relatively undeveloped area of bridge theory, in part because these hands are rare and in part because bidding space is so compressed that there is little room for artificiality (altho 1H 1S, or 1H 1N/1S 1N, 3C is a fruitful area as is 1H 1N 2S)

Here, the usual 'punt' for responder, to allow opener to further describe his hand, is 3D, which is acceptable with xx. So 3H will rarely be bid in an attempt to find hearts, although it could be 5-5 6-5 etc. In any event, 3H has to deliver at least heart length, and almost always some semblance of a stopper...otherwise one's spades are a chunky 5+ (usually 6) suit, or one has a 3D stall or one has a club raise. 3H also suggests doubt, because no 3N, and so implies 5 spades.

So 3H for now. Opener's 3S is not necessarily 3 card support, but over 3S, responder has choices. 3N swinging low, or 4C catering to a club slam or even 4N (if understood to be quantitative...I'd not risk that with most partners). Fortunately either 3N or 4C will fetch 4S and now responder can move towards slam

[nige1]

Hands transposed, so that West opens.
Jasmine ♣ auction to 6♠ -- unconvincing
IMO 3NT and 4♠ are also sensible contracts

---

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2021-March-15, 11:58, said:

JB: I'm flattered by the quote from me that is part of your signature block, but a little worried that you may not be understanding what I mean.

Mike, I have included your quote in my signature block, not as a reflection of my bidding skills but rather, a reminder of what I should be striving for. I find myself on the slippery slope of either masterminding or compensating for partner. 1♦ 1♠ 4♠ is obviously a damn awful auction but as I said above, to be honest, that is an auction I would likely have with some partners. (That could well be a reflection of my trust in them rather than their bidding skills.) The other thread, 'good enough' where I rebid a 4 card spade suit is a last attempt at a spade game/slam because I know partner is reluctant to bid a 4cM in this sort of auction.
Not everyone is enthusiastic to go over hands after a game, and would rather dismiss poor results as bad luck or our opponents doing everything right.
I will make a concerted effort to bid my hands properly and let the chips, or partnerships, fall where they may.

[Cyberyeti]

How good a slam is this really ? Seems to need trumps 3-2 clubs 4-2 but there are entry issues, you need to ruff a heart and pitch the other on the 4th club, which means you need 2 entries to hand to ruff the heart and draw trumps, AND have an entry to dummy to cash the 4th club if they duck twice, so a diamond lead is really awkward.

We would start 1♦-1♠-2N(GF unbal)-3♣(semi forced)-3♠(6+♦/exactly 3♠) and now I think you're struggling to stay out of it

If we decided it wasn't worth that, we'd probably bid 1♦-1♠-2♣-3N-4♠ and now E has a tricky decision.

[Douglas43]

Agree with Cyberyeti, it's not a huge slam by any means. 3♣ looks a mild overbid, but reasonable.

I realise this is a 2 over 1 topic, but playing Acol, I would expect:

1♦ - 1♠
2♣ - 2♥ (FSF)
3♠ - 3NT / 4♠

East's KJ10 of hearts depreciates in value as West shows 3-1-5-4 or 3-0-6-4.

Alternatively:
1♦ - 1♠
3♣ - 3♥
3♠ - 4♥ (cue - no ♣A or ♦K, I don't cue bid singletons in partner's suit at this stage of the auction)
4♠ - ? East has a difficult choice because West could have more. It would take a lot of discipline to pass.