Re: I'll take "reconstruct the hands" for $1 million, Alex!

On Apr 27, 4:10 pm, "John R. Mayne" <jrma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Well, but 2S is pretty awful even with your agreements (and worse with
> sensible ones). 3C is robustly standout.

On Apr 27, 1:46 pm, Bob Lipton <boblip...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> I approve o opener's bidding, but not responder's.   Over 2D responder
> should just bid 3 Clubs.

To Henry:

No need to apologize; I'm quite confident that you will receive
multiple interpretations of pretty much ANY bidding sequence that you
post for comment on RGB....

Of course, I could have "corrected" to 5C.  However, the reason that I
didn't is that I envisioned our two hands to be something such as:

     AQ                 KJ9xx
     xx                  xx
     KQJx              xx
     AKQJx            10xxx

This hand would have been entirely consistent with your bidding, but
at 5C we have 3 losers off the top.  At least we have a chance in 4S.
I passed 4S because I thought that you chose that contract because you
could count 3 losers in the red suits.

As it is, with the hands as they were:

     Ax                    KJ9xx
     xx                     xx
     AQxx                xx
     AKQxx              10xxx

I think that you should place the contract at 5C rather than bidding
4S to "give me the choice of contracts" because you know that it
likely that we have at least 1 trump loser at 4S, and maybe 2.  As it
happens, though, on this hand there is no game anywhere as the cards
lay (except at the other table, where our counterparts bid to 3NT and
made it after our teammates played 2 rounds of hearts and then
switched to a diamond, LOL).

To John and Bob:

You'll have to take your objections to the 2S rebid over 2D up with
Granovetter and other experts, who proclaim that responder's FIRST
RESPONSIBILITY OVER A REVERSE IS TO REBID A 5-CARD MAJOR.  I quote
from Granovetter's book, "Bridge Conventions In Depth":

     "Ch. 4: Reverses -- The Rest Of the Story

     ...

     "2. RESPONDER'S FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO REBID A FIVE-CARD MAJOR.
Opener's reverse might have been made on a three-card suit because he
has strong three-card sup****t for responder, but is stuck for a bid.
For example: opener holds

               [S] AK5   [H] 86  [D] A52  [C] AK963

"The bidding goes:

              Opener         Responder
                  1C                1S
                   ?

      "Opener cannot jump to 3S or 4S with only three spades.  The
right contract might be notrump or clubs, and it is foolish to blast
into a spade game, possibly playing in a 4-3 fit, going down, when
other contracts are superior.

      "What about a 2NT rebid, certainly the value bid?  Opener hates
to rebid two notrump with two small hearts.  If notrump is the right
game, it should be played from the other side: opener has no tenaces
and no stopper in hearts.

      "Suppose you do rebid 2NT, and partner raises to 3NT.  They lead
the HQ and dummy arrives with something like:

                  [S] QJ76  [H] K42  [D] 743  [C] Q84

      "You are going to feel ridiculous going down in three notrump
from your side, when ten tricks are odds-on from partner's side.

      "Let's go back to opener's rebid problem.

               [S] AK5   [H] 86  [D] A52  [C] AK963

     "The bidding goes:

              Opener         Responder
                  1C                1S
                   ?

     "What opener want to know is: (a) Does partner have five spades?
(b) If not, does partner have a heart stopper?

     "Opener can discover this information by bidding 2D, a reverse,
which is forcing for one round.  Responder must, therefore, go out of
his way to rebid his five-card spade suit (there's one exception to
this, which we'll get to in just a moment).  Bidding notrump, or
sup****ting opener's first suit, can wait."

The moral of this, John and Bob, is that you should not confuse your
own personal stylistic preferences with what is the BETTER bid to
make.  And you certainly should NOT be commenting that the preferred
experts' rebid on responder's hand in this case is "pretty awful."
You are only displaying your own lack of knowledge.

Steve Sun