[jillybean]

std methods, 15-17 nt if it matters

---

What's your call? I know the full hand so can't make an impartial call.

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2025-January-22, 09:50, said:

std methods, 15-17 nt if it matters

---

What's your call? I know the full hand so can't make an impartial call.

2 clubs, not 2spades please on only 3 card support, enough. smile

[jillybean]

 mike777, on 2025-January-22, 10:13, said:

2 clubs, not 2spades please on only 3 card support, enough. smile

I have a stiff ♥?

I can live with 2♣, I'm guessing players jumped in clubs.

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2025-January-22, 10:23, said:

I have a stiff ♥?

Watching on BBO, coming back to bridge, I see this is an infection/addiction on BBO. Spiral or whatever versions you prefer are called, I see so many names, are the fix players love.

Michael Rosenberg has written eloquently on his many years addiction. He is clean now.

[pescetom]

No brainer 2♣.
Maybe he has six spades and can repeat his suit.
If not, you haven't excluded 4 card hearts, so if he can respond 2♥ now it has to be a real 5=4.
If he responds 2NT then it depends upon your agreements about 3R, but a simple raise to 3NT is rarely a disaster.

[jdiana]

As usual, I think it's a matter of partnership style & agreements. I haven't played in a while; when I was playing, we basically never raised with 3 cards. If I went back to it, I think I'd be more nuanced and want to have some discussions about when we would raise with 3. I don't in general like conventions with a bunch of artificial steps so I don't love spiral raises.

Anyway, on this hand I think the possibilities are 2♣ and 2♠. I don't know why anyone would jump to 3♣. There are several factors that would support 2♠:

1. Suit quality. If spades were xxx, I'd bid 2♣.
2. The singleton.
3. The fact that the auction is 1♣ - 1♠. The fact that responder didn't bid a red suit or NT makes it more likely that they have five spades.

On the other hand, our clubs are very good also. In today's game, I think many people would bid 2♠. I'll be interested to read other opinions.

P.S. pescetom and I must have been typing simultaneously. I hadn't seen his "no brainer" comment.

EDIT #2: Upon reflection, I guess jumping to 3♣ isn't crazy. I can see why East would upgrade their hand for their own suit quality as well as fitting honors in partner's suit. I would still lean toward 2♠.

[Cyberyeti]

This is a powerful hand in spades, your methods matter. Do you bid diamonds if you have them in front of 4M ? we do, so 1♠ is only 4 if 4333.

opposite even K10xxx, xxxx, Kx, xx this has play for game (although you won't be bidding it) and you will play 2♣. You will also lose out for being in the wrong partscore.

We only raise on 3 if we have a side singleton, so this hand is 2♠.

[mw64ahw]

My natural inclination would be 2♠ with the ♥ singleton and QJ♠. Responder can always ask about length/strength/raise to 3♠ (5+♠) with an invitational hand. This also hampers South from doubling with 44 in the Reds
I also have a 2N bid available which can show 3 types of hands, but this hand is perhaps a touch too weak for that. Responder now bids 3♣ if min. and 3♦ if max. with 3♣ being passable.

[bluenikki]

 jillybean, on 2025-January-22, 09:50, said:

std methods, 15-17 nt if it matters

---

What's your call? I know the full hand so can't make an impartial call.

I wish I was playing K-S so I could bid 2♦. 2♣ is excluded. The published notes say explicitly that "if 14, not a good 6+."

[mike777]

 pescetom, on 2025-January-22, 10:46, said:

No brainer 2♣.
Maybe he has six spades and can repeat his suit.
If not, you haven't excluded 4 card hearts, so if he can respond 2♥ now it has to be a real 5=4.
If he responds 2NT then it depends upon your agreements about 3R, but a simple raise to 3NT is rarely a disaster.

Very well said thank you.

[DavidKok]

Methods and partnership agreements matter a lot here. Whether or not you play a Walsh style is quite relevant, and to a lesser degree the meaning of your jump responses. It also matters what your agreements are for the BW Death Hand, and whether or not you think this one is worth including in that range.

 mike777, on 2025-January-22, 10:29, said:

Watching on BBO, coming back to bridge, I see this is an infection/addiction on BBO. Spiral or whatever versions you prefer are called, I see so many names, are the fix players love.

Michael Rosenberg has written eloquently on his many years addiction. He is clean now.

You cited this a while back as well. Personally I think the three questions should be treated independently: 1. Do you allow 3-card raises here; 2. Does this hand qualify for one; 3. Do you want to play a flavour of Spiral. Personally I think 3-card raises have a lot of merits regardless of the answer to the third question, but I would upgrade this hand into a BW Death Hand because of the excellent controls. In my partnership the systemic rebid is therefore 3♣, showing 15-17 with 6(+)♣ and 3♠ exactly. Other partnerships have different solutions for this hand type, though without agreements it is a common system gap.
If you treat the hand as too weak for my 15-17 range I prefer 2♠ to 2♣, and in general I think 3-card raises here gain more than they lose. It's not without tradeoffs, but all I need is a profit on average. You could play some Spiral version over this if desired, but it's really not that vital.

[mike777]

 DavidKok, on 2025-January-22, 15:39, said:

Methods and partnership agreements matter a lot here. Whether or not you play a Walsh style is quite relevant, and to a lesser degree the meaning of your jump responses. It also matters what your agreements are for the BW Death Hand, and whether or not you think this one is worth including in that range.

You cited this a while back as well. Personally I think the three questions should be treated independently: 1. Do you allow 3-card raises here; 2. Does this hand qualify for one; 3. Do you want to play a flavour of Spiral. Personally I think 3-card raises have a lot of merits regardless of the answer to the third question, but I would upgrade this hand into a BW Death Hand because of the excellent controls. In my partnership the systemic rebid is therefore 3♣, showing 15-17 with 6(+)♣ and 3♠ exactly. Other partnerships have different solutions for this hand type, though without agreements it is a common system gap.
If you treat the hand as too weak for my 15-17 range I prefer 2♠ to 2♣, and in general I think 3-card raises here gain more than they lose. It's not without tradeoffs, but all I need is a profit on average. You could play some Spiral version over this if desired, but it's really not that vital.

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

You raise a second issue I see very often on BBO. I notice this as I try and come back to playing bridge, I am looking for what is new or different. This discussion of upgrading, something that was always around but seems dominant today. Three card raises were always around, just dominant today.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-January-22, 10:29, said:

Watching on BBO, coming back to bridge, I see this is an infection/addiction on BBO. Spiral or whatever versions you prefer are called, I see so many names, are the fix players love.

Michael Rosenberg has written eloquently on his many years addiction. He is clean now.

I very much like 3 card raises on hands with shortage and a rebid problem. I don't have a name for it. We don't have a method to check if it 3 or 4 card raise which seems as unnecessary as 2 way drury.

On this hand, raising spades is just a passing thought, 2 ♣ is clear.

[jillybean]

---

Happily, partner puts you out of your misery.
This hand was played at 18 tables with only 5 pairs in 4♠, the others in some number of clubs or deafending after NS got in with their hearts.

[mike777]

Rebid problem? On BBO it seems every hand is a rebid problem or they are just playing raise on 3 almost always.

In your example opponents are NV with ten great hearts, yet silent?

Thought the problem was should opp bid 5H

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2025-January-22, 21:36, said:

---

Happily, partner puts you out of your misery. This hand was played at 18 tables with only 5 pairs in 4♠, the others in some number of clubs or deafending after NS got in with their hearts.

With only 5 pairs in 4♠ doesn't this suggest 2♠ is clear rather than 2♣? I'd be tempted to bid 2♥ with South's hand; 5♥4♠. With partner's hand they'd know I'm weak.

[Cyberyeti]

We'd get away with this even if we bid 2♣ as we play 2♦ as art inv+ over this and use it here.

I suppose the 4 card spade suit put some souths off 2♥, but opposite a passed partner it wouldn't put me off.

Not sure what 2♦ shows in your system, if it can be 4360 5 count I have a problem.

[smerriman]

With that hand as West it seems like all roads would lead to 4♠. Probably was more to do with the opponents at other tables.

[jillybean]

mw64ahw, on 2025-January-23, 00:44, said:

With only 5 pairs in 4♠ doesn't this suggest 2♠ is clear rather than 2♣? I'd be tempted to bid 2♥ with South's hand; 5♥4♠. With partner's hand they'd know I'm weak.

Or perhaps only 5players sitting West were able to handle the auction after 1C 1S 2C?
Raising spades isn't horrible with QJx and a stiff heart, however I think 2C with AQJxxx is a better description of your hand.

Some NS got their heart suit into the auction.

[mycroft]

There's a reason this is called the Bridge World Death Hand (6-card opening, 3-card support, no natural forcing rebid).

You solve it the way you solve it; some have agreements, most guess and hope.

I wish I had a clean answer; I must admit we guess-and-hope. I'm in a worse case than most, actually; 1♣-1x; 2♣ is our "overstrength preempt-17" 6-club unbalanced hand, and our rebids after 1♣-1M; 2M have no real way to say "I'm on three-and-a-singleton". I'd like to fix this, but we're still working on the last two things we've added, so I eat it when it comes up.

But, heh, other partnership: 2♣-2♦ (INV+ inquiry); 2♠ (no 4cM, extras)-3♠ (GF 5 exactly spades. A little aggressive, but the married honours in long suits...); 4♦ (4♣ would look like no support)-4♠. Again, no heart interference, but we didn't get it in the standard auction, and they have to bid 2♥ (non-jump, so not clearly WJO) here...