Rebid problem

June 11, 2009 at 12:12 pm 10 comments

Sitting South, with your partner first to speak, you hold this at IMPs:


and the auction progresses:


I thought this was difficult, but maybe somebody else has a clear idea of what the right thing to do is. Comments suppressed for a while.


Entry filed under: bidding.

Four spades play problem continued Rebid problem continued.

10 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Jonathan  |  June 11, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    I’ll bid 5D. If it’s wrong I’ll claim I wouldn’t have done it if I’d been told the vulnerability…

  • 2. Ron Lel  |  June 11, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    3NT. I suppose it depends with whom I am playing and what agreements we have. Some would take 4D to be a cue agreeing S. I we have this agreement, 3N is obvious. If we don’t, I will still probably bid 3NT, but it is much closer and i would certainly not complain about bidding 4D. How is that for sitting on the fence?

    Reminds me of Hugh Kelsey, who wanted to use a nom de plume of Osbert Sitting so he could call his book “Sitting on Defence.”

  • 3. sartaj  |  June 11, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    4S. What else ? Considered pass for a second or two, but those nine points in red suits are going to fit very well with partner’s side suit lengths.

  • 4. david appleton  |  June 11, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    As usual, there are several questions to ask:
    a) Do we play strong jumps? If so, why should this or should it not qualify?
    b) Was 2D game forcing? (Most do this now, so we assume that, I suppose.)
    c) Did partner’s 3S just show 6 reasonable spades? This, in my not so humble opinion is a poor arrangement.
    d) Did partner’s 3S deny 3 diamonds? Did it promise or deny diamond shortage (ok, so this point might belong in c)).

    The real problem comes later on the hand I suspect, as it seems clear to bid 4D now. NT is not something to do with a broken suit and void in pard’s. I’d like to think we had an arrangement to show near solid S suits here. I think undiscussed I’ll try 4D then 5D, but be willing to apologise.


  • 5. khokan  |  June 11, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    No problem for me – 4D, not really caring on this hand whether partner thinks it’s forcing or not.

    However, good partnerships should have an agreement on whether 3S is forcing, and whether 4D is forcing.

    For me, both 3S and 4D would be forcing as it can very difficult, otherwise. I would play 4S over 3D as showing a minimum, but with an excellent suit. 3S is ambiguous as to suit quality/strength. It could show:




    • 6. Chris Mulley  |  June 12, 2009 at 10:18 am

      My solution is to double on hands like your second example hand – values for game but no clear direction. Partner’s “default” response is 3S. I think this is a much more useful treatment than simply a “pure” takeout double on these auctions. Of course, many people call me a lunatic.

      • 7. khokan  |  June 12, 2009 at 11:23 am

        The double solution you suggest with 1-suited hands only works on this hand because you have spades and you can always convert at the same level – much harder to play if you’ve opened 1C/D/H. As for having 3S as the default response, I’m not sure how that’s helpful – surely it’s better for partner’s continuation to mean something.

        On the actual hand, north can bid 4H in comfort over 4D, which makes the good diamond slam easy to reach.

      • 8. Chris Mulley  |  June 12, 2009 at 12:53 pm

        I agree it is a bit more difficult if I don’t have spades. However, the double sets up a GF auction which does simplify things.

        When I said “default response”, I meant that responder bid it where (s)he did not have anything else more sensible to bid. That doesn’t preclude partner from making other sensible bids which are more descriptive.

        I should also admit that I play 2/1 GF, so I don’t have to deal with this problem much (only an auction like 1S – (2C) – 2D – (3C)) and hence don’t have much experience with my methods. I also play Good/Bad 2NT at lower levels, so it is not a problem there either.

      • 9. Khokan Bagchi  |  June 14, 2009 at 12:56 pm

        On second thoughts, Chris, I agree that it’s not optimal to play the double here as strictly takeout and it should just establish a game force, assuming that 2D didn’t necessarily promise game values. Playing this way, you can bid 3S with minimum hands and a not-so-great suit – great idea.

  • 10. Chris Mulley  |  June 11, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    Firstly, I don’t believe that 3S can be 100% forcing on the auction – I would expect partner to do something else with a hand which wanted to drive to game opposite a minimum 2D response. However, I do think that it should be viewed as an encouraging move.

    I’m going to bid 4D and respect partner’s next decision about where to play (which might be passing 4D).

    Partner has not expressed a desire to play 3NT, so I am not going to bid that without anything that looks like a clear path to 9 tricks before the opponents get their clubs going. In fact, partner’s 3s rebid (rather than double) expresses a very clear desire for spades.

    My hand is definitely not good enough for a “choice of game” 4C bid, not to mention the fact that I wouldn’t know if I should be pulling a 4S bid if partner makes it.

    3S could be the limit on the hand (or already be too high), but we are making 5D too often for me to pass 3S. The 4D bid will hopefully encourage partner to raise diamonds and discourage them from bidding 4S without very good spades of his/her own.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

June 2009
« May   Jul »

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: