[helene_t]

steve2005, on 2014-May-08, 08:30, said:

this hand makes game with 3 small spades and 2 Q's or Qx ♠ and another Q, amongst other hands where you could be playing in 1♠

It might. Give p ♠Qx and another queen and we still need a finese. Give p xxx of spades, ♣Q and ♥Q and we need spades to break. And with such a hand p might not pass 1♠. I think that if it goes 1♠-p-p-p, on balance I will be happy that I didn't open 2♣. Give p ♠Jx and one outside jack and I make 7 or 8 tricks.

[kenrexford]

Since we are getting into non-standard treatments, my personal preference (which is relevant to solving the problem) is as follows:

1. 1♠-P-1NT-P-3new = 5-5 hand with 5 losers, typically lower in HCP than a jump shift (obviously) and non-forcing

2. 1♠-P-1NT-P-3♠ = long, strong, non-forcing

3. 1♠-P-1NT-P-2NT = game forcing soft relay to 3♣. Responder can break the relay, but after the relay (if his choice), I bid a new suit naturally, or 3NT if I had clubs, or repeat spades as long (6+) and forcing.

4. 1♠-P-1NT-P-2♣ = semi-forcing, possibly with clubs possibly with a problem hand. The problem hands might be some player 6-4 hands or might be the 18-count balanced hand with five spades.

5. 1♠-P-1NT-P-3NT = "gambling" style, meaning as solid spade suit

Using this approach, opening One Spade works fine. I rebid 2NT and then 3♠. The 2NT rebid gets out of the way if partner wants to act, as does a forcing 3♠.

[gwnn]

Yes yes but did I remember correctly about your 6-5 fit in 3NT??

[GBinUS]

kenrexford, on 2014-May-08, 07:24, said:

I am dealt a balanced 20-count with six spades. I have a lot of controls, and my spade trick source is great. My Qx in diamonds is the only real deduction. Thus, I value the hand as worth about 22 as a balanced hand. Expressing that with a 1♠ opening and 3NT rebid is, IMO, sick.

On top of that, the 1♠...3NT sequence essentially eliminates partner from the auction, as he likely will have no way to show anything useful.

Contrast this with a 3♣ rebid. That sequence at least allows partner to say something in a red suit or even show something in spades low enough to make some noise of some variety.

A 2NT opening sounds somewhat acceptable, except that the hand seems too strong for that. If I was going in that direction, I would start with 2♣ and then show the 22+ balanced hand, perhaps by way of Kokish.

My personal preference is 1♠...3♣.

I agree with your theory. The problem is that when I bid this way, my ox opposite bids 3NT and I have reduced my RHO's possible wrong leads by 33%!

So if I bid 1♠ -1NT-3NT, I'm slightly disgusted by my bidding, but I have allowed the opponents to lead from three suits rather than two. Leaving my opponents an extra wrong option looks OK.

[gwnn]

Even if you assume that your opponent will lead literally face down (1/13 for any card), their odds of leading a spade are greatly reduced when we have 6 of them. Imagine if they are even allowed to look at their cards then?

[Zelandakh]

It is not only that we have 6 spades in our hand, it is also that we told OLer about them during the auction. Of course if we forget to tell the opps about that it might help a little bit...

[gwnn]

Zelandakh, on 2014-May-13, 08:58, said:

It is not only that we have 6 spades in our hand, it is also that we told OLer about them during the auction. Of course if we forget to tell the opps about that it might help a little bit...

My point was this: the chance of getting a spade lead after, say, 2NT-3NT is not 25%, not even if we assume LHO leads a random card. So opening with 1♠ will not reduce their margin for error that much. Admittedly, there are some cases like where RHO gets in and leads up to dummy's weakness but it still shouldn't happen that much, assuming opps also look at their hands and their partners' signals...

[aguahombre]

The "leakage prevention" motive is certainly stylish in BBF. Maybe one player of a partnership should just open the bidding with the final contract based on his a-priori guess. It would save a lot of effort making up system cards and eliminate disclosure.

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on 2014-May-07, 07:35, said:

As Roth famously said, if I survive this bid...

Famous last words?

[kenrexford]

GBinUS, on 2014-May-13, 07:59, said:

I agree with your theory. The problem is that when I bid this way, my ox opposite bids 3NT and I have reduced my RHO's possible wrong leads by 33%!

So if I bid 1♠ -1NT-3NT, I'm slightly disgusted by my bidding, but I have allowed the opponents to lead from three suits rather than two. Leaving my opponents an extra wrong option looks OK.

Despite a lot of talk about reducing by 1/4 and not 1/3, which is bizarre, your comment seems to suggest that I have dissuaded a club lead.

On that theory, I love a 3♣ call when I don't want a club lead.

But, I think you are missing something. If partner correctly explains that 3♣ is often a manufactured jump shift and thus says nothing about clubs necessarily, not lead a club against MY 3♣ is surely not a 33% proposition, eh?