[jdeegan]

Scoring: IMP

2♣-Pass-????

---

Playing opposite a competent pick-up partner in a BBO pairs tournament. You have agreed to play SAYC with Capp and RKC0314. What is your call?

[Gerben42]

I guess everyone will respond 2♦, if only because we want to stay on the main road rather take the exit into Misunderstanding Alley. And partner bids?

[pigpenz]

2♦ waiting to let parnter describe his hand first no need to hurry this one.

[Fluffy]

its close, I would bid 2♠ with ♠10, but not now.

[whereagles]

Simple problem. Bid 2♦ and hog the hand in 3NT after pard's 3♣ rebid

[pbleighton]

"Simple problem. Bid 2D and hog the hand in 3NT after pard's 3♣ rebid"

Major suit fits are overrated, anyway

Peter

[david_c]

2♠. Dead minimum, but there's no rebid from partner which can cause any problems so a "waiting" 2♦ seems unnecessary. Better to tell partner about the 5-card suit and decent values.

[whereagles]

pbleighton, on Mar 14 2006, 06:32 PM, said:

"Simple problem. Bid 2D and hog the hand in 3NT after pard's 3♣ rebid"

Major suit fits are overrated, anyway

I want opps to lead into my KJ tenaces

[mikeh]

I rarely make a positive suit response to 2♣: only if I have a simple, one-dimensional hand. Otherwise, with game force values, I bid 2♦ and await developments. Now, style influences this choice: in my partnerships one strains to open 1♣ or 1♦ with minor suit oriented hands, so I have a greater than perhaps standard expectation of a major rebid or a notrump rebid: over either of these, I will be superbly placed.

[HeartA]

mikeh, on Mar 14 2006, 03:12 PM, said:

I rarely make a positive suit response to 2♣: only if I have a simple, one-dimensional hand. Otherwise, with game force values, I bid 2♦ and await developments. Now, style influences this choice: in my partnerships one strains to open 1♣ or 1♦ with minor suit oriented hands, so I have a greater than perhaps standard expectation of a major rebid or a notrump rebid: over either of these, I will be superbly placed.

same here.

[P_Marlowe]

2D, waiting.

That will give you the chance to learn more
about partners hand.
Make the spade suit stronger, and 2D is
still your best bid, you want to survive
a 2C auction.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jdeegan]

Here's to hogs! Ya gotta love'em. Partner's hand:

Scoring: IMP

2♣-Pass-2♦-Pass-3♣-Pass-3NT-Pass-?????

---

Knowing from the 3NT bid that partner has two or three high cards of some description makes bidding some kind of slam clearcut. What do you bid now? How do you see the auction developing?

My agenda here is to test sentiment for easing the strict requirements of 2 of the top three honors for 2♥, 2♠, 3♣ and 3♦ responses to the 2♣ opener. If so, then how much? Also, what do you think of reserving 2♥ for a real bust-less than two queens.

[pclayton]

There are some very good players that use "Goren" responses to 2♣ where suit quality doesn't matter.

Another idea is to invert 3♦ and 3N over 3♣, so that 3♦ is basically a stayman bid. Rosencranz has a lot of tweaks like that in Romex. Strong Club players use similar structures.

Still, what are you missing here? Looks like a great 6♦ an OK 6♣ but I dont see how a 2♠ call gets you any closer to the promised land.

[Kalvan14]

2♦ as first bid, no doubt; over 3♣ (and assuming no special agreements), 3♠. 6♦ is an ok slam, same as 6N. 6♣ is a bit worse.

I do believe you should be in slam, and it is quite likely you'll get there (S has a huge hand)

[jdeegan]

pclayton, on Mar 14 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

Still, what are you missing here? Looks like a great 6♦ an OK 6♣ but I dont see how a 2♠ call gets you any closer to the promised land.

My problem arose after partner first bid 2♦ (over my 2♣ bid) followed by 3♠ (over my 3♣ bid) and then bid 4♥ after my 4♦ rebid. From my point of view (with the big hand) partner's high card strength is entirely unknown (it could be zero) and we have a probable misfit. My hand has three+ potential losers: one spade, one diamond and one+ club. My next bid will set the contract, and it is a pure crapshoot relying on whether pard has the spade king, the club queen or the diamond jack (or four small).

Partner has made three bids, yet I don't have a clue what his hand will produce (granted, playing an initial 2♥ reponse as negative would help a lot, but we weren't playing that highly useful convention). It boiled down to bidding 6♣ or 5♣. As you can see, 6♣ is the winning call. My probability space ranged from 4♣ all the way up to 7♣.

An initial response of 2♠ or 2♦ followed by 3NT promises some high cards. Now my probability space is more restricted, 5♣ up to 7♣, and I'm more likely to guess right. This hand is telling me to get a new system. Either a strong forcing one club opener or a relay system over a strong 2♣.

[Kalvan14]

2♣-2♦-3♣-3♠-4♦: the last bid N should make is 4♥ [which cannot be natural: is it last train, or a cue-bid in support of diamonds? or what?].

IMO, N should re-bid 4N, quantitative (he holds 2 potentially useful cards, the major kings; and S has shown a very strong hand).

As usual, system is not a problem: players might be, though.

[P_Marlowe]

jdeegan, on Mar 15 2006, 12:18 PM, said:

pclayton, on Mar 14 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

Still, what are you missing here? Looks like a great 6♦ an OK 6♣ but I dont see how a 2♠ call gets you any closer to the promised land.

My problem arose after partner first bid 2♦ (over my 2♣ bid) followed by 3♠ (over my 3♣ bid) and then bid 4♥ after my 4♦ rebid. From my point of view (with the big hand) partner's high card strength is entirely unknown (it could be zero) and we have a probable misfit. My hand has three+ potential losers: one spade, one diamond and one+ club. My next bid will set the contract, and it is a pure crapshoot relying on whether pard has the spade king, the club queen or the diamond jack (or four small).

Partner has made three bids, yet I don't have a clue what his hand will produce (granted, playing an initial 2♥ reponse as negative would help a lot, but we weren't playing that highly useful convention). It boiled down to bidding 6♣ or 5♣. As you can see, 6♣ is the winning call. My probability space ranged from 4♣ all the way up to 7♣.

An initial response of 2♠ or 2♦ followed by 3NT promises some high cards. Now my probability space is more restricted, 5♣ up to 7♣, and I'm more likely to guess right. This hand is telling me to get a new system. Either a strong forcing one club opener or a relay system over a strong 2♣.

Hi,

since 2C does not force to game,
he could have passed 3C, i.e. 3S
shows some values.

4D over 3S is problematic, since no one
knows, how an unknown partner treats
such a bid, it could be a cue bid, it could
be natural.

Not Reaching 6D, a minor suit slam with a
4-3 fit, or 6NT with 32HCP is nothing to worry
about if you are playing with a pick up, I am
not even sure a fixed partnership, will reach
those slams unless playing some highly artificial
response structures after a 2C opening.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

jdeegan, on Mar 15 2006, 08:18 PM, said:

An initial response of 2♠ or 2♦ followed by 3NT promises some high cards. Now my probability space is more restricted, 5♣ up to 7♣, and I'm more likely to guess right. This hand is telling me to get a new system. Either a strong forcing one club opener or a relay system over a strong 2♣.

Evaluating bidding systems based on your experience playing with random pickup partner's seems questionable...

[luke warm]

i play 2d is 5-7/8 with 2h 0-4, and all 8+ bids are transfers.. this looks like an easy 2d to me, and partner knows my range immediately.. he doesn't know my great shape yet.. i'd probably have bid 3s over 3c also, then 4h.. then probably 6nt over 4nt, 5 (or 6)D over 5 (or 6)C

[kenberg]

Requiring 2 of the top 3 for a major response may or may not be a good idea, but the conditions of the problem do not stipulate it. Of course some feel it is the default, but I don't agree. Playing that way, you need some way to show your hand after the required 2C-2D. Such ways can be developed but they are hardly clear with a pick-up partnership.

With the current hand I bid 2S, expecting 3C or maybe 2NT from partner, after which I bid 3H. Partner can now do as he pleases.


Whatever the merits of requiring 2 of the top 3, there will be hands when you wish you were not playing that, and I think this is one of them. If partner said we are playing SAYC, I get to bid 2S and I do so.

In many of these discussions it seems as if "playing SAYC" means "playing SAYC but not really". That may be OK, but it takes a little mind reading. SAYC says (see http://web2.acbl.org.../sayc_book.pdf) the 2S response shows a five card suit and 8 pts. True I am a point shy, but with 5-4 in the majors, all 7 hcps in the long suits, and two tens I think I'll be forgiven.