[mike777]

Scoring: MP

---

Matchpoints.

This hand was very tough for me at the table and resulted in a poor score. It caused some consternation on my partners part with me.

Please explain your choices, thanks in advance.

Suggested 2/1 auction?

[Gerben42]

7 - 5 hands are very tough! A reasonable sequence would be:

North: 1♥ (don't open 2♣ on a 2-suiter, even if it is this good)

South: 1♠ (natural)

North: 6♣ (might not work but is practical)

South: 6♥

North: Pass

[pclayton]

Two ways:

Intergalactic pairs:

4♣- 4♥
5♣ - 5♦
6♣ - 6♥
Pass

4♣ - Namyats
4♥ - (Yawn)
5♣ - massive two suiter
5♦ - Last Train - V. 348.4. Can't be natural; possibly a cue bid, but should be general slam interest opposite a 2 suiter with 2-2.5 losers. Q♥ is big; so's the ♣10x
6♣ - Dying to hear a cue bid of the A♦
6♥ - Nope.

______________________

Earthbound auction:

1♥ - 1♠
3♣ - 3♠
4♣ - 4♥
5♣ - ......maybe 6♥; maybe 5♥.....dunno.

Somehow the 1st auction doesn't seem that whacked.

[jdonn]

I recommend

1♥ 1♠
3♣ 3♠
4♥ 5♥
6♣ 6♥

The questionable looking bid is 5♥ but I think if south visualizes hands for partner, assuming partner isn't the type to jump shift holding a random 17 count, he will realize slam could easily be there and the five level isn't too risky.

[FrancesHinden]

I think most sane auctions start

1H - 1S
3C - 3S
4C - 4H

You might continue...

5H - 6H

but you might not

It's not the end of the world if you don't bid slam. It's not totally cold, even if the ace of diamonds is onside. Let's try the ace of diamonds lead and a trump switch. You now need the clubs to come in with one ruff, which is not much better odds than 50% (I'd need to work it out, but with this suit combination I remember it's very close between simply taking the club finesse and taking one ruff).

[FrancesHinden]

In both this thread and the other one on this hand, I've seen the suggestion that

4C (NAMYATS) - 4H
5C

should show a big heart-club two-suiter.

That's probably true.

However, I strongly advise you never, ever, ever (and I mean never) to follow this sequence with anyone other than a well-established regular partner. There is a 99.9999999% probability that they will assume you opened 4C with a club pre-empt.

[mikeh]

My auction definitely begins

1♥   1♠
3♣

But, while I understand the attraction of 3♠, and would probably choose it at the table, I am concerned that opener cannot ever thereafter be comfortable that we have this degree of ♥ support.

Auctions that continue:

       3♠
4♣   4♥

and still get to slam lack any credibility

How would responder bid with:

KQxxxx x Qxxx xx?

I am not suggesting that a preference to 3♥ will work out better (nor do I suggest that 'better' means we must reach this borderline slam), but I do think that an immediate 3♥ at least leaves open the possibility that we have real trump support, while the delayed preference makes it impossible for opener to cater to that.

Bear in mind that giving the preference at the 3-level is not abandoning ♠ for all time: if opener has a common jumpshift pattern involving 3 card ♠ support, we will find it easily enough, and if partner is 2=5 in the majors, the odds are that ♥ will play just as well, given the Q10 holding.

As it is, I don't think that I would reach slam:

1♥   1♠
3♣   3♥
4♣   ?

Responder has no side Aces and no ♣ filler and may only be ruffing 1 ♣, and/or creating a trump loser by ruffing twice.

If responder stretches via a last train 4♦, then opener will probe for grand (after all, responder is unlimited) and settle for small, while if responder bids a quiet 4♥, opener may well be done.

[FrancesHinden]

I have been persauded by Mike's argument that 3H is better after 1H - 1S - 3C, though I think it's very close. You are basically having to guess whether slam is more likely in hearts or in a 6-2 spade fit. Suppose the hands were

KQ8xxx
Q10
Kxx
10x

opposite

Ax
KJxxx
A
AKxxx

and I bet we'd be constructing auctions that start 1H - 1S - 3C - 3S - 4D (cue) etc
that's the problem with knowing the hands before you write the auction.
(I know you can get the 6S after 1H - 1S - 3C - 3H, but it's toughter, particularly if yuo say that 3S now would show 3-card support)


If the suits were a different way round (e.g. 1D - 1S - 2H) I would always rebid spades first (if 2S were forcing) because it's cheap.

[mike777]

Thanks for the comments so far and please keep them coming.

As I mentioned this was a tough hand for me at the table. I did get alot of grief on this one as it cost us a bunch. My pard argued and still does that I should just open 2Clubs with this type of hand. In any event I see alot of auctions here even without opening 2Clubs and it seems tough to me. Thanks.

[whereagles]

My auction:

2♣ 2♠
3♥ 3♠
4♣ 4NT
5♥ pass

4NT = natural, misfit
5♥ = natural, good 6-5 or 7-5.
pass = playing safe. Would bid 6 with diamond ace instead of the king.

[foo]

♠♥AK98752♦T♣AKJ96

♠KQ8643♥QT♦K86♣T3

I hate opening 2 suiters 2C, but N's hand needs desperately to tell a certain kind of story.

Assuming 2D Waiting, and nothing else:
2C-2D; {S's hand is too good for 2S}
3H-4H;
5C-??

Just on general values and the presence of the HQ, S should now bid 6H To Play.

If Responder doesn't have H support but does have C's:
2C-2D;3H-3N;4C-etc
should get Us to at least 5C

I'll note that although I've chosen a different sequence from many, I find most of the other posts, particularly mikeh's, to be thoughtful.

[jdonn]

foo, on May 16 2006, 01:36 PM, said:

♠♥AK98752♦T♣AKJ96

♠KQ8643♥QT♦K86♣T3

I hate opening 2 suiters 2C, but N's hand needs desperately to tell a certain kind of story.

Assuming 2D Waiting, and nothing else:
2C-2D; {S's hand is too good for 2S}
3H-4H;
5C-??

Just on general values and the presence of the HQ, S should now bid 6H To Play.

If Responder doesn't have H support but does have C's:
2C-2D;3H-3N;4C-etc
should get Us to at least 5C

I'll note that although I've chosen a different sequence from many, I find most of the other posts, particularly mikeh's, to be thoughtful.

The debate about whether to open hands like that 2♣ has been done to death, so I won't enter into it though I disagree. However, given a 2♣ opening can you explain your comment about the responding hand being too good for 2♠? Am I the only one who has never heard or thought that positive responses to a 2♣ opening have some kind of upper limit?

[foo]

Playing 2D Waiting, the only hands that do not respond 2D are those that have a specific story to tell. HCP has nothing to do with it.

The logic is that Opening 2C is space consuming enough that We should strain to keep the bidding low whenever possible after Opening 2C.

Therefore sequences like 2C-2M should show a hand with say at least 2/3 top honors in a 6+M and =nothing= outside. Thus making it clear that this hand is only suitable for a M or NT contract.

Eric Kokish has written some thoughtful stuff on this (and for players like you Josh, I'd think playing Kokish after 2C to be a useful part of your arsenal.)

...and let me reiterate that I am =not= happy to feel like I should open N's hand 2C. It just seems the least evil.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on May 16 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

However, given a 2♣ opening can you explain your comment about the responding hand being too good for 2♠? Am I the only one who has never heard or thought that positive responses to a 2♣ opening have some kind of upper limit?

While I have no 'upper limit' for a positive suit response to 2♣, and would certainly make such a response on this hand were partner to inflict a 2♣ [mis]bid on me, I do strongly believe that complex hands should respond 2♦ (which I play as positive, gf) even if they hold a suit otherwise suitable for a positive suit response.

One of the corollaries of tending to open 2- and 3- suited hands at the one level is that almost all 2♣ opening bids are based on simple hand-types: powerful balanced hands or good one-suiters.

When responder holds a complex hand.. that is a hand with high cards in 3 or 4 suits and some degree of shape (5431 or 5422 are common examples) it usually pays (in my experience) to keep out of opener's way.

If opener rebids to show a balanced hand, we invoke our strong notrump response structure: all serious partnerships will have a good structure over 2N rebids by opener, whether prefaced by such adjuncts as the kokish relay or not.

So long as opener is on the same page, this approach works extremely well should opener show the balanced hand: usually better than if responder had made a suit positive response, particularly if the true fit is in responder's side suit.

When opener has a one-suiter, the auction also usually develops reasonably well: responder, with any kind of a fit, can usually take charge at some point. If responder lacks a fit, then there will be some hands on which the immediate suit positive would have been better: such as if opener has 3 card support for responder's main suit. But on most hands, with no fit by responder for opener, the auction will proceed with equal effectiveness, or inefectiveness, regardless of responder's initial bid.

So while I do not agree with foo on this specific hand (with respect to the opening or to the response) I do tend to have an 'upper limit' on my responses: where the upper limit refers to hand type more than specific strength.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on May 16 2006, 06:43 PM, said:

The debate about whether to open hands like that 2♣ has been done to death

Never. This debate will rage on for generations to come!

(Though I agree the topic is like spanking a dead horse.. lol.)

[mike777]

Here is my Partner's argument for opening 2Clubs, I opened 1H at the table.


"Any time partner could pass and we miss a game, you should think about it....

But when partner could pass and we miss a slam, it is automatic to open 2C or perhaps a very large bid in your best suit.

xxx xxx xxxx Qxx, For example.....



You also hold 4 quick tricks.....I believe the guidelines are:


balanced hand of 22 or more....

OR

9+ playing tricks in a major.......and 4+ quick tricks (and some hands can be slightly less than 9 PTs)
10+ playing tricks in a minor.....and 4+ quick tricks (and some hands can be slightly less than 10 PTs)


Sure, with 2 suited hands...we shy away from the 2 bid when its a borderline decision....had you held:

x
AKJ87
Tx
AKJ96

i'd open one heart.....but give me:

x
AKQJx
Tx
AKJTx

This hand has all the requirements of a strong two...with a heavy 9 playing tricks...I think i have to open it 2 clubs.

But the hand you had (at 7-5) was only a semi-two suited hand....and had playing tricks out your ears....."

[mikeh]

Your partner's arguments leave me completely unmoved.

I don't know what game he plays in, but to think that the auction will ever go 1♥ p p p is delusional.

And to think that opposite xxx xxx xxxx Qxx, opening 2♣ solves his problems is equally, if not more, delusional.

Do you have opponents where you play? Are they allowed to bid?

Let's change responder's hand to xx x xxxxx xxxxx

Now let's see him get to 6♣ after:

2♣ [4♠].......

Heck, let's see him get to ♣ at all!

1♥ [4♠] p p 5♣ at least gets you to the correct suit.

I am not suggesting that this argument should clinch the case: only trying to show that his examples are what we lawyers call 'special pleading'.

As for opening 2♣ on x AKQJx xx AKJxx... once again, I can only imagine that he must play against corpses..... and remarkably silent ones at that.


Edit: I did not mean to impugn your partner's sanity or ability or character: I got a little carried away However, I do think that your partner, through the examples he gave you, reveals that he has a blind spot on this particular hand. It may be possible to construct hands on which opening 2♣ would position you well in future auctions, but none of his examples seem to do that.

[foo]

Here's where I agree with Mikeh in the specific while disagreeing with him in the general and at the same time agree with the OP's pard in the general while disagreeing with that player in the specific...
(I hope The Reader's head hurts less than mine when purusing this...)

IMHO the OP's pard made a decent argument on general principle (and it is that principle that made me change my mind from Opening 1H to Opening 2C as the least of evils here).

OTOH, I completely agree with mikeh that the examples he used to try and make his point are unconvincing. And I agree with mikeh as to why.

EDIT: mikeh is a lawyer? That is... ...fascinating.

[mike777]

As this is the forum for new and newer players, I keep posting my emails here in the hope that other newish players such as myself gain some insight into the thought process on this hand. I hope the newer player are learning something as I am from this thoughtful discussion of this hand by all, thanks.

Here was another response.

"I do play against corpses, by the way....people that I can never depend upon to reliably rescue me when I'm grossly underbidding....

Remember I played a system for many many years where we couldn't open a strong 2 clubs at all. And I agree with the lawyer that
for a vast majority of hands near that range, you can get away with opening a 1 bid and surviving.

For your 7-5 hand where you had the AK of both your suits, its not easy constructing hands where you get passed out at the one level:

Qxxxx x xxxx Qxx

ATxx........................KJxx
Qx...........................Jxx
AQxx.......................KJxx
xxx..........................xx

comes to mind.....maybe an opponent will make a call...mayble not.......I conceed that the odds of it going swish are extrememely remote.

I do agree that the advantage of bidding your suits quickly is important when the opps make wild pre-empts on you...Maybe the vulnerability should
be a factor in judging rather or not to open 2 clubs.

But my point remains is that when you open on the one level partner will have difficultly believing that almost anything he might hold can produce a slam...which is why we were discussing the hand in the first place....we languished in 4 hearts because I didn't think i could move over it.

Now with the other hand the lawyer objects to opening 2C on, there are many more situations where you can get passed out at the 1 level. Now there is only 22 HCPs to distribute around the table (and "only" 12 spades)."

[mikeh]

mike777, on May 17 2006, 03:32 PM, said:

But my point remains is that when you open on the one level partner will have difficultly believing that almost anything he might hold can produce a slam...which is why we were discussing the hand in the first place....we languished in 4 hearts because I didn't think i could move over it.

Two points:

Firstly, the argument that partner will never believe that a modest but fitting hand can make slam is circular. In essence, you are arguing that all such opening hands must be opened 2♣ because NO SUCH HAND CAN BE OPENED AT THE 1-LEVEL.

I counter by stating that in many good partnerships (as evidenced by the strong expert vote on this thread), this hand type is opened 1♥. Thus, by partnership agreement, responder can allow for this hand type. Now, whether and when responder can sufficiently upgrade his weak but fitting hand in order to bid slam is an interesting question.

One of the hallmarks of the better player is the ability to LISTEN to an auction, to have confidence in the interpretation he places on the bids, especially those made by partner, and to act accordingly. Good players learn to value weak, but fitting hands, and to devalue strong but misfitting hands.

Part of the problem (if I may extrapolate from my own experiences especially when I was a player who thought (mistakenly) that he was already very good) is that the extent to which hands need to be revalued is almost always underestimated by most players... but they refuse to acknowledge that fact..

My partners (in my best partnerships) DO bid this way. Do we get it right all the time? No...but we do better with this style than by opening 2♣ on such hands.

Secondly. I fail to see why anyone thinks that the partnership belongs in slam on this hand. As Frances wrote early in the thread, imagine a ♦ lead (and if you get to slam, you will have pinpointed that lead most of the time): even if the A is onside, you still have to bring in the ♣ for no losers.

So it is not as if, opposite a nice 10 count, slam is a bargain. Obviously it made, and your partner, as partners tend to do (but should learn not to do) began casting around for a reason to blame opener.

This is yet another in a long series of hands in which a dubious high-level contract was missed and someone claims they should have got there.