[luke warm]

in my 2/1 FD file the bidding would go

1d : 2c
3d : 4nt
5h : 5nt
6h : 7d

3d=16+ playing points, 6+ card suit

i don't see a convincing auction playing 2/1.. some type of relay always seems better for these hands

1h is ok, i just prefer (if i have to lie) setting the gf immediately... i don't like 2c by opener, prefer 3d... what was 5nt? and pass over 7c looks clear, but 7c itself doesn't

[han]

I don't like 1H, especially in a partnership without agreements it seems much better to bid the straightforward 2C.

I like 2C, although it's probably the call that was responsible for the bad result.

I don't care for 2S, but you didn't ask for a comment. (I'd bid 4C)

5NT (pick a slam) seems a good idea. I'm not sure how else you can rescue yourself from this mess.

If this is a somewhat serious team match then I don't like 7C. You have a messy auction and no agreements, I would refrain from bidding the grand. However, if this was a fairly random BBO team match then I'm all for 7C!

Nice line in 7C. 6C looks interesting after you discover the 5-1 club break. It seems like you need to cash 1 diamond and 3 rounds of hearts before you play a diamond to the king. If west started with 4-3-1-5 distribution you still make because RHO ends up ruffing a loser (of course you also makes if west has 2 diamonds).

[han]

Jimmy, you try for 7 missing the diamond queen??

[han]

That's funny, Jimmy likes 1H and dislikes 2C, I'm just the other way around.

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Mar 12 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

That's funny, Jimmy likes 1H and dislikes 2C, I'm just the other way around.

actually i said the opposite... i'd said 1h was ok but i prefer 2c.. as for 7d missing the queen (given opener's 3d bid over 2c), it looks like a decent shot to me though it could be wrong... barry crane rule # 205: don't bid a grand at teams

[Kalvan14]

1♥ is clearly masterminding. Why bid a 3-card suit with such a strong hand, and with the obvious 2♣ bid available? The obvious answer is that advancer is looking for 3N, and is trying to interdict a heart lead; IMHO, this means go out of your way to look for trouble.

2♣ is ok with me, since I have a good fit in hearts.

I'd not bid 7 withjout the ♦Q

[FrancesHinden]

I don't play any sort of ace-asking in minor suit auctions, so I admit I'd just bid

1D - 2C
3D - 4D
4NT (discouraging, nothing to cue bid) - 5NT (GSF)
6NT (2 of the top 3 honours) - Pass

OK, I admit I sneaked in special responses to GSF instead.

I hate the 1H response.
I'm not fond of the 2C rebid, though I had it less (I would just rebid 3D over 1H if I wasn't playing a bid to show a 3-6).

[awm]

I think 1♥ was really a terrible call. Why distort your hand when you have a natural 2♣ available? If partner raises hearts, you're likely to end in an awful strain (4-3 doesn't play so well when the 3 hand is flat).

Opener's 2♣ rebid is unclear of course, but this is a real problem hand. Bid 3♦ and you miss the hearts, bid 2♦ or 2♥ and you miss game. I think 2♣ was the least of evils.

Note that this grand is pretty good if responder holds:

Ax
Axxx
xx
AKxxx

or even

AKx
Axxx
xx
AKxx

On the other hand, if we give opener something more like the expected hand:

Q
KQx
AKxxx
QJxx

There is still a serious problem with the third diamond...

[hrothgar]

Few comments here:

I really dislike the 2♣ rebid. I think that its wrong on both shape and strength.
Playing in a pick up partnership, I prefer to be able to limit my hand as quickly as possible. Accordingly, I would probably open a slight heavy 1NT in order to get the hand off my chest. I think that this bid positions me better than the probable
1♦ - 1♠ auction.

I'm also not especially fond of the 1♥ advance. While 1♥ is a nice cheap bid, this usually isn't a bid where I like to distort my shape. I reluctantly need to bid 2♣ here.

[han]

hrothgar, on Mar 13 2006, 03:27 PM, said:

Accordingly, I would probably open a slight heavy 1NT in order to get the hand off my chest. I think that this bid positions me bext over the probable 1♠ advance.

On the contrary Richard, you'd be very badly positioned. Also, if you think that 1♠ is probable over 1NT then you are playing with the wrong partners.

Seriously now, I think that 1NT is too much of a distortion on this hand.

[Gerben42]

1♦: Flawless.
1♥: Wouldn't do so myself, instead an unimaginative 2♣. Isn't the worst bid of the auction by far though.
2♣: Sorry can't like that. Prefer 3♦ myself. It's that Bridge World Death hand again, but I still prefer bidding something I have over something don't have.
2♠: 4th suit forcing. Okay.
3♥: Secondary ♥ support. Okay.
4♣: Partner bid my longest suit naturally, time to support it.
4♦: I don't want to play ♣ - taken as cuebid no doubt.
4♠: Cuebid - does not want to play 4♥
5NT: This is an overbid. I prefer 5♦ and hope partner will figure out that I have the BWD hand. Remember that according to partner I have already made a cue bid.
7♣: 4 - 4 fits are great.
Pass: Endplayed.

[Kalvan14]

Sorry, guys, I've to disagree. Allowing for 1♥ being a normal bid [and pard being not high on something], the 2♣ rebid by opener is the most flexible and practical bid, IMHO. 3♦ would crowd the bidding, and reduce the chances to discover the [likely] 5-3 fit in hearts.

[hrothgar]

Hannie, on Mar 14 2006, 08:52 AM, said:

On the contrary Richard, you'd be very badly positioned. Also, if you think that 1♠ is probable over 1NT then you are playing with the wrong partners.

I was referring to a 1♠ response over a 1♦ opening...

[awm]

I'm not a real fan of a 1NT opening on this hand. In fact I don't think you have a real rebid problem over 1♠ (either of 3♦ or 2NT seems okay to me). Opening 1NT simultaneously distorts strength and shape. For example:

JTxx
Jxx
Qxx
Kxx

It would never occur to me to invite on this hand, but it seems like 3NT is excellent.

xxxxx
Ax
xxxx
Kx

I'd probably transfer and pass on this hand, but 5♦ requires only diamonds 2-1 while 2♠ will go down if spades are 5-2. Perhaps some folks who don't transfer as automatically as I do would pass this hand and play 1NT (making if spades 5-2, with an overtrick if spades 4-3). In any case you're not likely to get to the top spot of 5♦ after a 1NT open.

xxxx
Axx
Qxx
AKx

Nice hand, but not a slam try over 15-17 balanced. I'd bid 3NT (the only other option being stayman followed by 3NT). In any case, 3NT goes down if spades are lead and break 5-3, whereas 6♦ is a virtual lock.

I just don't see a lot of hands where you win by opening 1NT here. Any time partner transfers to spades you're likely to be in the wrong spot, and you can easily miss games or slams. I can understand opening 1NT on a three-suited pattern short in spades (avoid rebid problems) or with a really yucky six card suit and points in the short suits, but not with a long rebiddable suit like this.

[kenberg]

I'm not sure what the extent of "no agreements" is, but the hand might be fairly easy in SAYC. Over 1D the bid is 2NT. This is forcing and usually 13-15 but it could also, as here, be a balanced hand that is too strong for 1D-3NT (16-17) i.e about what the hand is.

So the auction begins 1D-2NT-3D to show the unbalanced hand.

A reasonable continuation would be

1D-2NT
3D-3S
3NT-4D

Over 3S opener relaxes about spades and bids NT, expecting to play. When 3NT is pulled to diamonds opener realizes that responder has the strong version (suggesting NT then pulling the NT is strong in anyone's system). It's hardly certain this hand belongs in 7 of anything, but they should now be able to judge about where they are and either settle for six or take a somewhat informed gamble at seven.

Many bad things are said about SAYC, probably with some logic. But if two players are going to sit down and play "without agreements", agreeing SAYC, as written, has its merits.

Ken

[Fluffy]

I like their bidding a lot, I doubt I could do it any better.

[Gerben42]

Playing SAYC or 2/1 thingies without this forcing 2NT that no one knows about you start with

1♦ 2♣
3♦ 4♦

and you'll find your way somewhere good. On the other hand if everyone keeps bidding 3-card suits you should not be surprised you end up playing in one.