Awkward hand to bid

[wackojack]

  97
  A976
  A4
  98532

  J
  KQJ
  KQ8752
  AK4

This tricky hand to bid came up in iac.  I am going to post some possible auctions with my comments.   Then over to you comments welcome.

1. 
1  - 1 
3  (i) - 3  (ii)
3NT (iii) -  pass

(i) In my book a jump rebid of a minor shows a 6 card suit with stuffing and 17+HCP or a 7-8 playing trick hand. So although the diamond suit lacks a bit of stuffing the 19HCP makes up for this.  So it qualifies.  However, is it the best bid?
(ii) There are 2 unbid suits and so the BWS rule says that a bid of either unbid suits is a stopper  "tell" not an "ask"  Or does this apply only when both the unbid suits can be bid below  level of 3NT?  Instinct tells me that 3  should be an ask because a 4 "tell" is above the level of 3NT.
(iii)  If 3  is an ask then opener should definitely bid 4  .  If it is construed as a "tell", then there is still a strong argument for opener to bid 4  .

2.
1  - 1 
3    (i) - 3  (ii)
4  (iii)  - pass

(i) Partner would normally bid this to show a 4-5 card  suit.  However, it prepares the ground better for bidding (or avoiding) 3NT.  One would not expect partner to insist on a club contract without 5 card support for clubs. 
(ii) Now 3  has to be saying bid 3NT if you have a spade stop. So 4  is the obvious bid.

3.
1  - 1 
3    (i) - 4    (ii)
4  (iii)  - pass (or 5  ?)

North is more likely to respond a forcing 4  with 5 card club support.  Now surely opener's 4  bid is showing 3 card support.  The question now which is safer?  Pass in the known Moysian?  Or go for the better fit in 5 ?  Seeing both hands which is safer?  4  or  5  ?

4.
1   1 
4    pass

Short and sweet?

[Masse24]

I agree, Jack, a tricky hand.

My criteria for a jump-rebid in opener’s suit is maybe a bit different. A strict HCP guideline, for me, is approximately 15-17, which is slightly lower than the 16-18 Standard-American and SAYC point count I first learned. Note each range has an upper limit, rather than just a minimum. Since the jump-rebid of opener’s suit is not forcing it absolutely must have an upper limit.

But I don’t use strictly HCP. Shape is part of the equation. Therefore, with the right hand I will make a jump-rebid with as few as 14 HCP. I recall a forum post about 18 months ago where (if I recall correctly) opener had 14 HCP but also had the requisite shape. Both Ken and I chose the jump-rebid as best, believing that it “valued-up” to a jump.

[ADDED] This is the hand from over a year ago discussed above:  Qx Qxx AKQJxxx x
 
Here, I believe the South hand to be too strong for a jump-rebid, which is not forcing. I would jump-shift to 3 and force game. The support is just too good. A good partner will know this has potential to be somewhat artificial, not necessarily showing 4+ in the suit. Yes, even with a “pickup” advanced partner.

Alternatively, rather than the jump-shift, a mildly risky—and non-forcing—rebid of 2 is possible. Remember, this does not deny values, it is wide-ranging with an upper range of just below what you would jump-shift with. I think a lot of people, for some reason, get hung up on the “that shows a minimum” range for a new suit. Of course—importantly—it does not. Whatever partner does after this 2 , assuming she bids, I would intend to jump to 3 to show an absolute max non-forcing hand with three good .

The jump-rebid of 3 , which is not horrible, would be my third choice.

But as I wrote above, for me it’s worth the jump-shift.

More thoughts later, but I am at work.

[kenberg]

I agree it's a tough hand to bid. An early thought was "Well, we won't reach 6 ". This was  followed by "And that might be just as well". If come in it looks like 0+4+6!2=12 but it's an illusion since transportation sucks. Still, there is a fair chance. If are 3-3 or if the long are with the 3+   then all is well, and of course when !h are 4-2 there might be a !h Tx. But all in all, 6 is a stretch.

After 1 - 1 I think I might well decide that we will play this in game. 3 will get us to game. I suppose 1 - 1 - 3 - 4 -4 would be nice, and I would like partner to think I have three decent hearts. Will he? I'm not really positive.

4 is a decent contract. They start with a and maybe they think to play another. Declarer ruffs, cashes two , goes to the board in and plays the top . I suppose they don't slit so now he just runs , which I suppose run, so on reasonable splits, he loses a at T1 and an eventual .  If partner, over 4 , bids 5 I think I just leave it be.

It's a tough hand and of course few have the sort of detailed agreements where the bidding will go confidently.

Any slam requires luck, almost all reasonable games make.



Just out of curiosity, do break 5-5?

I also have to run, back later.

[jcreech]

When opening this hand, I would have downgraded this hand to 17 - treating it as x KQx KQxxxx AKx.  With partner's heart bid, it came up to 18 (willing to give full weight to the J, but not the spade singleton because I would be ruffing with honors not small cards).  So I would be more willing to make this a slightly heavy 3 than manufacturing a slightly light jump shift into clubs.

I also gave some mild thought to auctions such as 1 - 1!H; 4 (showing 6 good diamonds and 4 hearts) and 1 - 1 ; 3 (splinter in support of hearts), but both of those auctions are based on the possibility of a Moysian fit, and I would prefer the hearts to be more like Axx or Kxx for a Moysian.  And for the good diamonds, I would prefer AKJxxx or AKQxxx.

So my preference for a rebid is 3 , with eager cooperation if partner makes a strong move.

[kenberg]

I thought a bit more about this hand. Partner has two aces, he doesn't need them for his 1 bid, but of course he needs something so after 1 - 1 there should be a reasonable play for game somewhere. But there is also the problem that if I bid this too strongly he might look at his two aces and decide maybe we have a slam.

And of course maybe we do have a slam. But I wouldn't bet on it.

I would not do anything that suggests i have four hearts.  If partner believes that I have a strong hand, a good suit, four and a stiff . he may well check on keycards and put us in 6 . Of course it might make. They start with a and then, if someone has four to the T, they can beat it by leading another forcing the ruff with the J. But maybe the T comes down anyway, or maybe this defense does not occur to them.

Still, I don't want to be in 6 and really I don't want to be in 6 either. 

But 4 seems safe, as does 5 and, for that matter, 5 .

Here is a question: Does 1 - 1 - 3 - 4 - 4 show something like this hand? That is, is the 4 call natural with a strongish three card suit. Kxx would be enough to make 4 a very reasonable contract opposite the given respnder's hand. We ruff a , draw two rounds of trump leaving the other two trumps out, we plan to lose to them. And, of course, responder might have five hearts.

I am pretty sure that it once was the case that the above auction was considered natural with declarer showing the three bid suits including three and a stiff .  Basically a natural sequence. Times change, but it does not seem like a crazy approach.

Suppose we change the A in responder's hand to a spot, so he has xxxx.Over 4 he converts to 5 .  I pass 5 , I lose a , a and a . Ok, that's off 1. But that's when respnder has four points. If a spot is  changed to a Q I should have a play for 5 .

So, all in all, I am making the game forcing 3 call. A judgment call.  But I think the issue of whether  1 - 1 - 3 - 4 - 4 is a natural passable sequence is of some importance.

Ah, one more thought: If it begins 1 - 1 - 3 then I think 3 shows a spade stop. With a stop but no spade stop responder might opt for 3NT if he has a bit of something, maybe Qxx pr even Jzx. There is no way to sort out all possible situations pf no stop, both stops, a spade stop w/o a club stop, a club stop w/o a spade stop, so we just accept that as a fact of life.

[Masse24]

Here is a question: Does 1 - 1 - 3 - 4 - 4 show something like this hand?   

I think the issue of whether  1 - 1 - 3 - 4 - 4 is a natural passable sequence is of some importance.

Ken, I think it must. Since was bid naturally, in this sequence where responder was put under a lot of pressure quickly, any bid of his first bid suit should be natural and passable by default.

Opener has other bids available to make a slam move.

This bidding by the way, which I believe Jack also proposed as possible, is how I see the auction progressing.

[kenberg]

It would be good to have some general principles, such as "If it is reasonable to think that this undiscussed sequence might reasonably be played as natural, then it is natural".  Still, examples such as this are useful to give it meat. 
And bidding three suits naturally, with a jump included somewhere, should  show a stiff in the remaining suit.

If responder can safely assume that the 3 call was a natural call, showing three hearts and promises a stiff in , then he knows that opener has nine cards in the minors and hence more diamonds than clubs. This should give him decent guidance as to what to do. Here, passing 4 should be fine. But if his holding makes that this seem unwise it will be safe to bid 5 with a three card holding. If he has only two he might have a problem but, as here, he might well go with 5 . There are many more hand combinations than there are sequences t handle them so sometimes a bit of inspiration is useful.

Basically, the sequence says "I have these three suits, do your best to choose a game contract in  one of them

[wackojack]

Ah, one more thought: If it begins 1 - 1 - 3 then I think 3 shows a spade stop. With a stop but no spade stop responder might opt for 3NT if he has a bit of something, maybe Qxx pr even Jzx. There is no way to sort out all possible situations pf no stop, both stops, a spade stop w/o a club stop, a club stop w/o a spade stop, so we just accept that as a fact of life.
[/quote

When you are looking to bid 3 no trumps and there remains 2 unbidden suits, it makes sense to bid the suit you have stopped, rather than the suit you do not have stopped. I think there should be an exception to this rule.  That is when one of the unbid suits is above the level of 3 no trumps then a bid of the unbid suit below the level of 3 no trumps should be a stopper ask. So if you happen to have spades stopped but do not have clubs stopped you can go ahead and bid 3 no trumps.

[kenberg]

I tried a quick thought experiment. Suppose responder has the hand he has, except with spades and clubs interchanged. So he is 5=4=2=2. Then it goes 1 - 1 - 3 . Responder is comfortable with his !h stop but worried about . What to do? Well, when openers has AKx bidding 3NT will work out well. Otoh, sometimes opener will have three spades and lack a club stop, in which case bidding 3 to show a stop will allow them to find the spade fit.

I have no idea whether one agreement would, over time, work better than the other.  It seems to be something of a toss-up.

I think, but I am not sure, that the literature supports my approach. I have some vague memory or Terrence Reese writing that bridge is easier if you bid what you have instead of what you don't have. But Reese has been dead for quite a while.

I doubt that a conclusive case can be made for either approach but here is one more thought. Suppose, after 1 - 1 - 3 , that responder has a big hand, some support, and the A. He bids 3 over 3 , then  maybe opener with his stop bids 3NT, and now responder bids 4 .  This is a slam try in with the A. Or perhaps with the K but the lead is coming through the holding so the A would be nice. It is, perhaps, harder to show this if 3 is taken as an asking bid.

But really, I think it's simply a matter of choice. The problem being that pick-up partnerships will surely not have discussed it, so no one will know which they are doing. The bridge literature is vast and it's not so easy to find specifics, but I might check around a bit.

[wackojack]

Swap  and  in responders hand and the bidding would go 1 1!S 3 3 3NT  pass. Give responder as you suggested Ken:  A xx,  KQJ  KQ8752  4, then the bidding would go 1 1 3   3 4 pass.

Yes I agree "bid what you have "  is generally right. However, we do make many exceptions.and these exceptions are called relays, transfers, asking bids and we recognise them because we have made them excetions. Sorry on at let so not very coherent.

[jcreech]

Heck, why don't we reshuffle, then maybe we can get a hand we can bid.

[kenberg]

I am curious both as to where it was played and, perhaps more interesting. how many tricks were available in which strain. If you change the 9 to the T there is a decent play for 6 . Without changing anything there is a good play for game in any of the three obvious strains. And, as we have seen, there is the issue of what sequences mean what to whom.

[kenberg]

This being a free robot day I decided, for whatever interest it might be,  to see how they would bid it: 

1 - 1 - 3 - 4 - 5 .

The free ones are the less savvy ones of course, I have not tried it with the upscale bots.

I then tried it again, imposing the 3 jump shift on the robots and then letting them continue as they chose:

1 - 1 - 3 (now back to the bots) - 4 - 4 All Pass.

Either contract is pretty secure if can be run without loss, both contracts are apt to fail if split badly.