[pclayton]

IMPs, all Vul

Scoring: IMP

---

Here's a hilarious auction that was generated between me and my pard (playing generic 2/1):

1♥ - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠
3♦ - 3N
4♥ - 5♣
5♥ - Pass

Down 3 on a diamond lead. 6♣ rolls with the stiff K♣ onside.

Please comments on each of the horrible bids here (yes, there are a few).

[mike777]

pclayton, on Oct 17 2005, 06:00 PM, said:

IMPs, all Vul

<!-- EASTWEST begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> East </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AKJTxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> Axxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> x </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AJ8x </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> x </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AQJTxxxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- EASTWEST end -->

Here's a hilarious auction that was generated between me and my pard (playing generic 2/1):

1♥ - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠
3♦ - 3N
4♥ - 5♣
5♥ - Pass

Down 3 on a diamond lead. 6♣ rolls with the stiff K♣ onside.

Please comments on each of the horrible bids here (yes, there are a few).

1h= not sure this is best but ok
2c=risky but I agree, I guess Mike Lawrence is not vanilla/generic 2/1?
2h=why are you making this rebid on this poor suit quality?
2s=perfect, need to tell partner where my strong suit is.
3d=ahh another confusing 4th suit bid
3nt=perfect showing my balanced hand
4h=was not 3nt game?
5c=not sure why we do not want to play in our void
5H=ok this one must be ok
pass=well partner plays the hand well and my club suit is not that hot.

[cherdano]

I am glad to see that responder started with 2♣ and not 1♠ However, rebidding an 8-card suit only at your fourth turn is asking for troubles, and I blame it all on the 3NT bid. I even have some sympathy for 5♥, how could partner want to play 5♣ if he couldn't rebid the suit?

[mikeh]

1♥: risky but reasonable. We might go down, but if so, the opps can probably make something. And they do say that it is a bidder's game

2♣: very safe. A good use of negative free bids. I often complain about them, but here, it is pefect. You rate to make 2♣ opposite a void in ♣ and a yarborough

2♥: understandable. Partner's 2♣ call did not improve the hand, but we do have the ♥10. Besides, we play the hand better than our partners.

2♠: I can't bid notrump yet: my ♦ spot is not big enough. I'd need at least the 10. This is the most questionable bid of the sequence. 3♣ is a logical alternative, but I do have a 2-suiter.

3♦: here is the onset of panic. It is clear that partner has no intention of letting us declare ♥. Maybe we should grab 3N instead. After all, we play the hands better than partner (see above).

3N: got there 1st! Someone has to bid notrump, and partner refused. Besides, partner is always claiming that he plays the hands better and we want to prove him wrong.

4♥: damn, he got to 3N first. I can't let him play (see above). ♣ are out: he only bid the suit once so probably doesn't have 8 of them.

5♣: Oh, I have 8 of them: bet he bid ♥ because he thought I had fewer ♣

5♥: Maybe he didn't hear my 4♥ bid. Besides, he can't have as many as 8 ♣. Plus I still play the hands so much better than he does.

Pass: why do I think that we had a better spot? But if I bid 6♣, that should show 9 of them. Oh well, maybe he does play the hands better than me. And I have a stiff ♦! That's a second round control. If I had a trump, I could raise to 6♥.

[luke warm]

1♥ - ok, since you don't play canape
2♣ - obvious
2♥ - understandable, but leads to trouble (read mike's 4th suit comment)
2♠ - can live with it, but prefer 3♣... also allows partner to bid the dreaded 4th suit
3♦ - hmmm... suit? must be, no need for fsf.. but does it ask? tell?
3NT - no no no.. i have no interest in nt, i'm still looking for a slam
4♥ - why not? surely partner is at *least* semi-balanced for his 3nt.. maybe 4216
5♣ - hmmm... this shows the error of 3nt
5♥ - heart bully, heart bully *grin*

[Double !]

Jlall, on Oct 17 2005, 06:09 PM, said:

1H-good start

2C-excellent bid

2H-fine...6-4 usually bid 2D but your hearts are really good.

2S-hmm.. If east's plan was to bid spades once then clubs up the wazoo so partner knows about your side suit, I kind of like it. Bidding 3C first then 3S later is ok too, but I can live with this.

3D-excellent bid, describing your hand allowing partner a 3H preference, etc.

Please permit me to inquire about this 3 diamond bid and why you endorse it.

Does 3 diamonds definitely show a 6-4? Does it show a stopper (or 2) in diamonds, or does it deny the ability to stop diamonds? Is it a mark-time bid to be clarified by further bids?
Why not simply rebid 2NT to slow the bidding down, show a diamond stopper or two, and slow the bidding down.


Question/ point #2: Bidding 6-4 hands as opener:

At some point I read that Bergen advocated bidding all 6-4 hands by bidding the six, rebidding the 4, and then bidding the 6 again (aka 6-4-6)

Fred Stewart, if my memory serves me decently, made a distinction in one of his books (I can't recall which) between bidding 6-6-4 and bidding 6-4-6. As I understood it, he suggested bidding 6-6-4 with minimum opening hands, and bidding 6-4-6 with extra values (like 15+ or a king above minumum, however you wish to evaluate it).

Assuming that the honor holdings in the two suits are not significantly skewed (such AKQ in one and a lone honor in the other), what are people's positions on this issue?

[mikeh]

I learned many years ago, and have never seen a reason to change, that weak 6-4 hands are shown 6-6-4 while strong ones are 6-4-6.

Thus AKJxxx x AQxx Qx

1♠    1N (forcing)
2♦    2N
3♠    

shows 6-4 and the values to go to game


AQxxxx x AQxx xx

1♠    1N
2♠    2N
3♦

shows a weak 6-4. With this hand, you do NOT want to play in notrump and you would prefer to play a 4-4 ♦ fit in 3♦ or a 6-2♠ fit in 3♠

Obviously, when partner holds 1=5=3=4, you want to go home

But you'd have the same problem over 1♠ 1N 2♦ 2N (assuming that partner would logically bid 2N with say 11 hcp and 1=5=3=4 shape)

and you would not get to the 4=4 ♦ partscore if you went 6-4-6 with the weak hand.

There is more, as there usually is in sequences conveying nuances.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I dont like 3D, it is 4th suit forcing for me,
and looking at my hand, I am not sure,
what I am interested in.

If 2H showed a 6 card suit already =>
bid 2NT / 3NT, what ever is showing a minimum
opening, you have a diamond stopper,
if 2H did not show a 6 card suit, 3H.

The 3D bid gets topped by the 3NT bid,
any sensible person would bid clubs, I would
bid 5C, ... people who like to look for slam all
the time 4C (assuming 4C is forcing).

You may not reach 6C, but 5C is perfect.
Marlowe

[the hog]

I would of course bid 1S first playing Mafia style, but as even many so called "advanced" players don't understand this method, 2C is fine.
The auction up to and including 3D is ok. 3NT is ridiculous. I would just bid 5C at this stage

[FrancesHinden]

Bidding 64s

It's not nearly as simple as saying bid 664 with a weak hand and 646 with a strong hand. It depends on the auction.

a) If partner responds at the 1-level in a suit (1H- 1S, 1D - 1H, 1D - 1S), 'standard' practice is to rebid in the 6-card suit on a weak hand before bidding the 4-card suit. While this does give better definition in later auction, the main reason is that a 6-1 fit will usually play better than a 4-3 fit, and a 6-2 fit might easily play better than a 4-4 fit if you don't have extra values. So you bid the contract you'd like to play in if it ends the auction.

In a 2/1 auction there's no reason to bid the 6-card suit before the 4-card suit in case partner passes, so in general you should bid the 4-card suit if available. On the auction that started this thread, I would usually rebid 2D - though I agree the suit disparity arguably makes this hand an exception. If partner is, say, 2146, then a diamond slam is much easier to reach after 1H - 2C - 2D - 3D than 1H - 2C - 2H - 3D as you have gained a level. You can find the fit, and then reject it for a major or NT if you wish, rather than not find it at all.

c) After a 1NT response it's debatable. If 1NT is non-forcing (Acol or basic SA style) there's a lot to be said for rebidding the 6-card suit first on a minimum, as you are less likely to miss game. In a forcing NT structure I would always bid hearts with 6-4 in the majors as we could miss a 9 (10?) -card heart fit. I prefer to bid my minor also, as again we could have a huge fit.

[whereagles]

My comment:

Up to 3NT: fine, though East might have tried 4♣ (instead of 3NT) if feeling lucky.

4♥: this is nonsense. Pard's 3NT is a misfit warning. It does not show a balanced hand.

5♣: ok, but might also have passed 4♥, since opener should be showing 7+ hearts (which he doesn't have, but that's HIS problem).

5♥: hum.. no comment

[pclayton]

In hindsight, 3N looks really bad. I'm going to play Johnny Cochran and defend this villain however.

Lets say among 2/1 players that 3♣ unndiscussed with such a hand might be ambiguous and possibly NF, as it would be in Lawrence partnership.

Lets also say 3♦ confirms a weak 6-4 a la Mike. I think this is a reasonable treatment.

Where do you want to play the 4=0=1=8 hand opposite a weak 6-4 like:

1. Qx, AJTxxx, KQxx, x?
2. xx, KQJxxx, Axxx, x?
3. x, KQJxxx, Axxx, xx?

These are all hands all of us would open. Where is the optimal spot?

1. I like 3N. Its frigid on a spade lead and only the A♦ offside makes it awkward.

2. No game is appealing, although at least 3N has a chance with lucky clubs. 5♣ is hopeless.

3. Here's the type of nice minimum that gives 5♣ a good play.

If we could with 100% confidence bid a forcing 3♣, then 3N after the start of 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♦... looks automatic. But if 3♣ can't be bid, as it can't in my regular partnership (note: this hand didn't come up in my regular partnership), then 2♠ looks indicated. Not that best description, but its forced on us if we want to stay below 3N. Otherwise, 4♣ looks good and I thinks a reasonable alternative.

But why are we completely giving up on 3N because we have skewed distribution? Can't we reevaluate once pard shows us a minimum misfit? 3N is a stab, but its as good as a stab as 5♣, albeit much less descriptive.

The actual West hand IMO is too good for the weakish 1♥ /2♥ /3♦ sequence, but I'm concerned about Frances' comment that 3♦ is patterning out than showing strength. I honestly don't know if Mike's or Frances' treatment is more commonplace. Topis to discuss.

As far as the other calls:

Once West shows a weak 6-4, whats the point of 4♥? I think its bidding the hand twice.

5♣ is an obvious attempt to rescue the contract. I suppose the 4=0=1=8 could pass, but 4♥ isn't really playable. Yes I know that East has gotten the auction off course with 3N, so its hard to recover with a descriptive call now. 5♣ can't be a cue bid - c'mon.

5♥ is beyond words.

[Al_U_Card]

pclayton, on Oct 17 2005, 06:00 PM, said:

IMPs, all Vul

Scoring: IMP

---

Here's a hilarious auction that was generated between me and my pard (playing generic 2/1):

1♥ - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠
3♦ - 3N
4♥ - 5♣
5♥ - Pass

btw, if it was hilarious, who was laughing? Hope it wasn't the 3NT bidder, as 5C is the only contract he should contemplate at Imps. 4C over 3D whb okay, but 5C would have said it all.......

[junyi_zhu]

pclayton, on Oct 17 2005, 11:00 PM, said:

IMPs, all Vul

Scoring: IMP

---

Here's a hilarious auction that was generated between me and my pard (playing generic 2/1):

1♥ - 2♣
2♥ - 2♠
3♦ - 3N
4♥ - 5♣
5♥ - Pass

Down 3 on a diamond lead. 6♣ rolls with the stiff K♣ onside.

Please comments on each of the horrible bids here (yes, there are a few).

When you hold a 8 card suit, forget about your side suit, just bid your main suit again
and again and again. When you hold one singleton and one void in your hand, best not to rebid 3nt. Now you get the point. The responder has misbid the hand twice. The right sequence is:
1H 2C
2D 3C
3H 4C(now this bid set up C as trumps and show that C suit isn't solid)
5C pass.

Some may rebid 2H here, but that's another issue.

[Al_U_Card]

Even 1H-2C-2H-3C-3D-3S..would be acceptable, as it tends to show the shape, minimum hcp nature of the hand and denies interest in either red suit or in NT. After a 3NT call by pard (at least now its his fault......NMF convention, remember?...lol) a 5C bid would definitely be to play.

[whereagles]

junyi_zhu, on Oct 18 2005, 04:32 PM, said:

When you hold a 8 card suit, forget about your side suit, just bid your main suit again and again and again.

There is some truth to this, but when the hand is plentiful of entries (as this one) to play in the side suit comes to mind. Give opener

KQTx
xxxxxx
xx
x

and even on a forcing defense 6♠ rolls home on 3-2 black breaks, whereas 6♣ requires much more luck.

[Trpltrbl]

I would have bid 3♣ after 2♥, now I will bid 5♣ after 3♦.

GBB