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

StevieTee wrote:
> 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.

> 


Citing authority on RGB is a waste of time.   But even if Granovetter is 
an authority, he is wrong in bidding theory here, particularly at IMPs. 
  The matter in the hand you cite can be handled b s opener rebidding 
2NT and responder bidding 3D, NMF.  If you wish to cite 'authority"  I 
will cite Jeff Rubens, who notes that the time to bid a three card suit 
is never.  Even if you are playing K-S.


Bob