A stronger in-between hand

[jcreech]

Also in a spur teams match, I picked up A K92 AKQJ A9852.  Although the LTC is only 4, I usually evaluate these hands based on winners not losing trick count.  Despite 21 HCPs, this just did not rate a 2 opening for me.  Without club support, I am reluctant to rate the club suit as much as 3.  So I would have to round up to get myself to the 8.5 tricks I want for my non-NT 2 openers.  For the minors, I like to increase the requirements a bit because it is an extra trick to make game.

I ended up opening 1 , reversing into 2 when partner bid the expected 1 .  Then we floundered a bit into 3NT.   Partner held QT64, Q86 93 KQJT.  Six clubs is icy with two pitches on the diamonds.

Of course the other table opened 2 and rebid 3 , and their partner jammed this into the club slam.

My other thought was to follow the suggestion that came out of Wackojack's posting, bid 2NT to show a 21 point version of the 15 point hand where 1NT was such a popular alternative (from Todd's poll results).  With my luck, if I opened 2NT, partner would raise to 6NT and a spade would knock out my ace at trick 1 and effectively set me on the go.

[kenberg]

I heartily agree with the opening instead of either 2 or 2NT. If partner cannot respond to 1 I see 6 tricks in my own hand and I doubt a passing partner would be supplying 3 more. Or 2 more if the contract is 2NT.

And it looks like it should have gone well, assuming you had some sort of Leb agreement over a reverse. After 1 - 1 - 2 partner has a clear 3 call, assuming that this is a forcing call showing values and a fit.  Maybe opener cannot yet count 12 tricks but he knows his partner has and some values, that's a pretty good start. It seems to me that opener could now bid 3 and, when his partner does not bid 3 , opener could next bid 6 . If there were some sort of key card ask, then opener could find pard had the k and Q of , that would be nice but after the positive response to the reverse I think 6 is pretty reasonable on it's own merits.

At any rate, I definitely like opening this 1 .

[Masse24]

Yup.

Agree with 1 . 2NT would be a distant second choice.

2 ? Nope. Never. No way.

[kenberg]

A pretty much unavoidable aspect of Spur matches is that on all but the most straightforward hands there is a substantial danger of mis-communication.  After 1 - 1 - 2 , what means what to whom? Suppose that our pre-match discussion has included "Leb pard?" - "OK". Uh huh. There is Leb over NT interference, Leb over weak 2-X-Pass, there is Leb over a reverse. Did we just agree to play all of them? And we have seen in an earlier thread that if we have agreed to play Leb over weak 2-X-Pass then the details of this are understood in different ways by different people. And in the auction here, suppose responder wishes to make a relay to 3 with a weak hand (not the case here) then is the done with 2 or with 2NT? I prefer 2 , but with a pick-up I would have no idea. If partner does bid 3 over 2 , and if I understand that to mean a fit with values, then what next?  As mentioned, I like 3 after which I assume 3 would show the A, and 3NT would deny the A. After which then? I think 4 would show an A and announce that we are playing this in at least 5 , after which responder, with KQJT could reasonably say "If pard is inviting, I'm accepting", and bid 6 . But maybe he would be worried about losing 2 tricks in . Which is why I was thinking maybe opener just goes to 6 after responder does not show the A. Pard has values, they have to be somewhere.

I suppose this could be argued in various ways. It would be good to know what a pair with detailed agreements would do.

or maybe over opener's 3 a 3 bid by resonder is right. A couple of major suit Qs don't really suffice for NT.  Then it should be easy for opener to figure responder for quite good . What else?

[jcreech]

Several of the players that I have partnered with in spur teams have had leb on their profile.  I have never asked in which situations they included leb as a option.  yleexotee is the only one that I have specifically discussed using leb over reverses. 

At the table, I bid 3 over 3 to finish showing my shape, but whether I continue over 3NT depends a lot on partnership confidence.  With experienced partnerships, I would not hesitate to bid 4 , knowing that they would take the bid as mildly slammish.  But with the casual partnerships of the spur teams, I thought about moving, but was also afraid of creating a bidding disaster (not to mention breaking Joe's rule) by being dropped there.  If we had leb in place there, the 3 bid would clearly be forward going, but without, it could just be a preference.

Oh well, there is always a risk in playing in casual partnerships; if I were looking for perfection, I'd only play with those I have hammered out detailed agreements.

[kenberg]

Yes, even I agree that after the positive response to a reverse, given that it is known to be a positive response, then 4 is not passable. But, imo, even of 3 was not a positive response then, after 3 -3 -3NT, if that's how it went, then 4 should be forcing.  If, after 3 , I was going to pull a 3NT response to 3 , the I would not bid 3 in the first place unless I was making a slam try. As  general agreement it seems that if you make a bid at the 3 level that suggests to partner that he might want to bid 3NT, and then when he does bid 3NT, you pull it, I think partner needs to re-evaluate the meaning of that 3 level bid you made. It may have sounded at first like a try for 3NT, but when he accepted and then you pulled, it hardly could have been a try to get to 3NT.

If the 3 over the 2 could have been on a  6 count then I think a direct raise to 4 should indeed be passable.but 3 - 3NT - 4 should not be passable. With the hand you have, you probably are up for game against almost any hand that could scrape up a response to 1 . But with a lesser hand, and if 3 does not show, or deny, extra values, I can imagine that an invitational 4 , bid directly over 3 ,  might be just what the doctor ordered. Best to be playing Leb!

I am not sure how many agree with this, and of course maybe there could somewhere be an exception, but generally this seems logical.

But, playing without detailed agreements, I completely understand the problem. It's frequent.

[wackojack]

I have not seen responder's hand so as an excercise I will say what I think each bid is showing in Ken's auction.
1C                                                        1S 
2D    5+C, 4+D longer clubs strong         3C      3+ clubs, 4+spades, game force so 8+HCP
3H    Tell me more                                 3NT     Didnt bid 3N over 2D so has a shortage.  5314 looks most likely. 
??
So I would guess something like at QJxxx, Axx, x, J10xx. So I would reasonbly confidently bid 6C.

Now looking back into jcreech's post I see    Partner held QT64, Q86 93 KQJT.  Ah yes I see that qxx in hearts is also possible. 

So I agree with Ken's suggestion that 3H is the best bid to get you to the correct contract