[jdeegan]

Scoring: IMP

1♥-P-???

---

We bid these hands to a good 6♥ using 2/1, but was it sound bidding? How SHOULD one do this?

After pard opened 1♥, I couldn't think of anything better than to temporize with 2♦. Partner raised to 3♦. Ooops, time to set trumps (I hoped) with 3♥. Pard now gets aggressive with 3♠.

What do you bid now?

I almost gave up and bid 4♥ considering the obvious duplication, but 15 HCP and three quick tricks is well over a minimum, so I bid 3NT. Was this correct? What did 3NT mean? Was it a "serious" 3NT acting essentially as a relay? Or, did is imply spade and club cards? Pard took it as the latter (I assume) and jumped to 6♥.

What is the best 2/1 auction for these two hands?

[helene_t]

This is difficult since it starts
1♥-2♣
3♠-?
and now South doesn't have a forcing way to set ♥ as trump. I guess he bids either 4♥ or 5♥ and then North must bid on.

Alternatively, South could cooperate with ♣ for a while:
1♥-2♣
3♠-4♣
4♦-4NT
6♣*-6♥
pass

*odd number of keycards for ♣ and a void.

Edit: now I read my own post it's silly to play a fuzzy 2♣ response and the splinter with 4-card support. Please forget what I wrote, I'll have to make my mind up as to 2/1 style. Another issue is how to avoid the ♦ slam.

[whereagles]

I would bid it:

1♥ 2♦
3♦ 3♥
4♠ 4NT
5♠ 6♥
pass

3♦ = nat, but not a min
3♥ = honest 3 card support
4♠ = shortness
6♥ = lucky: the more natural 6♦ in the 44 fit doesn't make

[kenrexford]

Life would be great if one auction occurs:

1♥
2♣ ("fuzzy" 2♣, hoping for a "fuzzy" 2♦)
2♦ ("fuzzy" 2♦ -- can show clubs later and have pattern better known; hate void splinters, and not right for a splinter the way I play anyway)
2♥ (everyone is happy now)
2♠ (control in spades)
2NT (not two top hearts)
3♣ (one of the top three clubs, not hopeless in hearts)
3♦ (one of the top three diamonds)
3♠ (not two top clubs, spades well controlled)
3NT ("Serious" in the sense of something held but incapable of showing; not two top diamonds or clubs, probably)
4♣ (a second top club)
5♦ (RKCB for diamonds)
5NT (two without the queen)
6♥.

Other auctions are possible without so much fuzziness, but I'm busy right now -- back later.

[kenberg]

W/o, I hope, putting words into Helene's mouth I agree with her implicit statement that it all depends on the style of 2/1 that is being used.

Quite a few folks insist that most 2/1 calls require five cards. Of course something has to give, hence the fuzzy 2C call. Helene is certainly right that playing a fuzzy 2C should rule out a splinter response to 2C. So 1H-2C-3C-3H is one way to start. Or, somewhere, I have a Mike Lawrence comment about hands like this where he points out that resurrecting the old fashioned 1H-2N as 13-15 balanced (not Jacoby) has merit. The auction begins 1H-2N-3D-3H. Or you can scrap the idea that 1H-2D promises five cards and begin 1H-2D-3D, where the raise to 3D maybe promises four. Or maybe doesn't.

So I suppose the spirit of the question is "Suppose that you pick up a partner and agree to play 2/1, not delving further into what this means. How should the hands be bid?" . This often leads to some exciting guesswork and I would hope to do as well as they did. However 6N also has 12 tricks with the hearts splitting and doesn't have the danger of an opening diamond lead, the ace of hearts, a diamond ruff.

Btw, if diamonds at some point appear to be trump, and then rkc discloses the lack of the Q, it may be that S will choose 6NT on the grounds that in 6N it may not be necessary to develop diamond tricks and it is likely that there will be as many tricks in NT as there will be in hearts.

[ohioply]

Bidding for me would probably go 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♦ - 3♥ - 4s - 4NT - 5♠ - 6NT

2♦ forces game
3♦ agrees diamonds
3♥ says never mind diamonds I like hearts
4♠ says i have 1st round in spades
4NT RKCB
6NT - I have these nice two spades you must have something nice in clubs lets play here

[kenrexford]

Now -- a moment.

There may be some objection to the "double fuzzy" start. However, I am more-and-more convinced that major auctions should start with the double-fuzzy auction often, because of the net effect shown by a hand like this.

First, look at it from Responder's standpoint. If the partnership accepts that 2♣ can be fuzzy, Responder can expect that 2♣ will be taken with a grain of salt. Splinter rebids will only occur when specific parameters are met (Picture Splinters -- but see some objections from prior posting and now understand perhaps why I tailor these so much). The strong sugestion of reciprocation with a fuzzy 2♦ should and will often be accepted, saving a whole level of bidding. If this is accepted, Responder can check on diamonds as an alternative strain because Opener will bid 2♦ whenever he holds four of them (see next paragraph).

Second, look at the fuzzy 2♦. Opener will and should stretch to "accept" the "relay" to 2♦ after a possible "fuzzy" 2♣ with any good cause, for the same reasons. When Opener holds four diasmonds (4-4 fit exists), he will either have a 5440 hand (and will not Splinter because of the void) or will have 5431 pattern (and will not splinter because clubs are only a fragment), unless the Picture Splinter precisely describes the hand, in which case Responder should know a ton as to what to do. Even with specifically 4540, Opener will bid 2♦ first. With 4504, 2♠ is bid, but little is lost.

Thus, "double fuzzy" 2♣-2♦ auctions are so often hugely valuable that I strongly endorse them. This hand is a prime example of the effectiveness.

Contrast the "double fuzzy" auction with an auction that starts 2♦ from Responder, or a raise of club raise/Splinter from Opener, and the mayhem that initiates, and you get headaches.

The Gitelman 2NT solution is equally difficult. Again, a level of cuebidding is lost.

Finally, note the use of the 5♦ RKCB call. Had Opener held two keys and the diamond Queen, Responder could place the contract at 6♦ instead, hoping that a fourth club from Opener might allow a heart pitch from dummy, which would have worked here if Opener had held, say, ♠-- ♥Qxxxx ♦AQxx ♣AKJx. Sure, diamond probably need to be 3-2, but a 4-1 is not hopeless.

1♥-2♦-3♦, 1♥-2♦-3♠, 1♥-2♣-3♣, and 1♥-2♣-3♠ are all messes and guesses.

[david_c]

The original auction 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♦ - 3♥ - 3♠ - 3NT - 6♥ is fine in my opinion. North has a really pretty hand: I imagine that if North shows shortage in spades and South doesn't immediately try to sign off then North will go to slam. If your style is not to show shortage with the North hand then you'll probably get to slam regardless, since both players have extras and the fit is quite good. But there are so many things which depend on style here that it's difficult to say how the auction should go.

Anyway, it would be very understandable to miss slam on this hand. It's a very borderline slam in the sense that if you take away any of the high cards then it's no longer good. It's just a matter of luck I think whether your preferred style happens to propel you there.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Jan 26 2007, 09:27 AM, said:

Now -- a moment.

There may be some objection to the "double fuzzy" start.  However, I am more-and-more convinced that major auctions should start with the double-fuzzy auction often, because of the net effect shown by a hand like this.

First, look at it from Responder's standpoint.  If the partnership accepts that 2♣ can be fuzzy, Responder can expect that 2♣ will be taken with a grain of salt.  Splinter rebids will only occur when specific parameters are met (Picture Splinters -- but see some objections from prior posting and now understand perhaps why I tailor these so much).  The strong sugestion of reciprocation with a fuzzy 2♦ should and will often be accepted, saving a whole level of bidding.  If this is accepted, Responder can check on diamonds as an alternative strain because Opener will bid 2♦ whenever he holds four of them (see next paragraph).

Second, look at the fuzzy 2♦.  Opener will and should stretch to "accept" the "relay" to 2♦ after a possible "fuzzy" 2♣ with any good cause, for the same reasons.  When Opener holds four diasmonds (4-4 fit exists), he will either have a 5440 hand (and will not Splinter because of the void) or will have 5431 pattern (and will not splinter because clubs are only a fragment), unless the Picture Splinter precisely describes the hand, in which case Responder should know a ton as to what to do.  Even with specifically 4540, Opener will bid 2♦ first.  With 4504, 2♠ is bid, but little is lost.

Thus, "double fuzzy" 2♣-2♦ auctions are so often hugely valuable that I strongly endorse them.  This hand is a prime example of the effectiveness.

Contrast the "double fuzzy" auction with an auction that starts 2♦ from Responder, or a raise of club raise/Splinter from Opener, and the mayhem that initiates, and you get headaches.

The Gitelman 2NT solution is equally difficult.  Again, a level of cuebidding is lost.

Finally, note the use of the 5♦ RKCB call.  Had Opener held two keys and the diamond Queen, Responder could place the contract at 6♦ instead, hoping that a fourth club from Opener might allow a heart pitch from dummy, which would have worked here if Opener had held, say, ♠-- ♥Qxxxx ♦AQxx ♣AKJx.  Sure, diamond probably need to be 3-2, but a 4-1 is not hopeless.

1♥-2♦-3♦, 1♥-2♦-3♠, 1♥-2♣-3♣, and 1♥-2♣-3♠ are all messes and guesses.

This entire post, and its predecessor, is silly.

It is not at all clear how this hand should and would be bid by most competent but not finely-tuned 2/1 partnerships, but incorporating propositions such as 'double fuzzy' into constructive, unimpeded auctions, and then having specific meanings to natural rebids (ie 2N denies 2 heart honours) is ludicrous.

I think that many would respond 2♣ on this hand because:

1) we are probably headed for ♥s or notrump. We are not looking to play 5♦. If we play in ♦s, it will be in slam, and our ♦ suit is too weak for us to offer it up as trump.

2) Analogous to the first: 2♥ promises 5, 2♦ suggests 5 and 2♣ could easily be on 3, so 2♣ is not a distortion at this point.

Over 2♣, bidding 2♦ is really silly: it is going to be IMPOSSIBLE to show AKJx in ♣s later on, and partner will never think that an unsupported Qxxx is adequate for slam purposes.

Yet, opener has to respect that 2♣ may not be 'real'. Further, splintering on voids should be a-voided... as a number of posters have noted over the years.

Fortunately, 3♣ is available.

Now responder shows the ♥ support via 3♥. Opener loves his entire hand, outside of trump, but has a difficult choice: 1st round control in all side suits.... but still not at all sure whether slam is playable, and it is still entirely possible that 6♣ is the better slam.

I suspect that most would bid 3♠, fetching a natural 3N followed by 4♣ 4♦ and on to slam.. several routes present themselves, including the occasional pessimistic 4 or 5♥ contracts.

If my suggested auction does not sound entirely convincing, or convinced, well.. this is not an easy hand to bid, unless we are making up the meanings of our bids to suit the hand.. which is what Ken appears to be doing... heck, if we were all allowed to do that in real life, think how good we'd be... at least in the auction.

[whereagles]

Well, I don't splinter because I prefer that to show a slam-bound hand.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Jan 26 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

I'm sure I personally would splinter with the north hand over 2 of either minor, and am curious why everyone (except helene) seems to be rejecting it. Is the hand too good, or is it because it's a void and you'll have to guess over 3N? That seems reasonable to me, but I still feel like a splinter is the best start to describing a very awkward hand and just raising the minor doesn't really solve the problems of having to guess later.

It's for two reasons: one is the guess over 3N.. my hand is on the cusp of bidding, but with the bad ♥ suit, I'd probably be passing opposite ♠ wastage... altho a lot depends on the style for the splinter: is it a bid you'd make with a minimum 1=5=3=4 as an example? Or does it show real slam interest... at least the equivalent of a K over a minimum opening? If the latter, then pass is easier than if the former.

The second is more fundamental to the void issue. Partner will tend to think of Axx as an ideal holding, when it is not. Sure, the A is a pitch, but what am I pitching? Neither the 5th ♥ nor the 4th ♦ are likely to be useful discards... in the meantime, I'd far, far rather have him with xxx Kx in the pointed suits than Axx Qx... and the splinter will make him value the second at least as highly as the first.. which is wrong for slam purposes.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm fairly certain my auction would get out of hand, because I would respond 2 of a minor and opener would splinter. I'm with Justin: it looks like a slam bound hand from opener's pov.

6H is OK but not cold. It goes off if East has either A10xx in hearts, or a singleton diamond and West has the HA.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jan 26 2007, 11:31 AM, said:

This entire post, and its predecessor, is silly.

It is not at all clear how this hand should and would be bid by most competent but not finely-tuned 2/1 partnerships, but incorporating propositions such as 'double fuzzy' into constructive, unimpeded auctions, and then having specific meanings to natural rebids (ie 2N denies 2 heart honours) is ludicrous.

The proposed auction is "silly" and "ludicrous" only if the cuebidding style and agreements are apparently the cuebidding style and agreements that you have. Of course this auction is implausible and absurd unless you employ an entire approach that is consistent with the calls suggested.

A simple example. You claim that "having specific meanings to natural rebids (ie 2N denies 2 heart honours) is ludicrous." When 2NT is defined as a cuebid denying two top trump honors and saying nothing about shape, it is not a "natural rebid." You may believe it to be "ludicrous," but this specific agreement is part of the Italian Cuebidding style of old as described by Georgio Belladonna. GB may be "ludicrous" to you, but some of us think he had some intelligence to him.

The "double fuzzy" idea is also not so unusual. If you open a short club, and if 1D is often waiting, you use "double fuzzy" bidding. If you use a strong 2C opening, and a waiting 2D response, you use "double fuzzy" bidding. If you use Stayman, you use "double fuzzy" bidding.

There may be some perceived problems with finding a club slam after a "fuzzy" 2♦. This is illusory. If Responder does not next bid 2♥, clubs were real. If Responder does not bid 2♠, he lacks four spades, giving him 4-4 in the minors, or a fifth club. With 4-4 in the minors, he would presumably raise diamonds, which is not a problem. With 5-3 in the minors, he will/should bid 2/3NT, and you are well-placed or as well-placed as any other auction.

All alternative auctions posted so far have yielded weird high-level decisions/guesses without much exchange of information. In my auction, almost every critical card is shown/known, and you have an intelligent manner to decide between hearts or diamonds as trumps (or can opt 6NT if you want, but after gaining a world of information). SO, I suppose I'll stick with my silly and ludicrous methods.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jan 26 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

I'm sure I personally would splinter with the north hand over 2 of either minor, and am curious why everyone (except helene) seems to be rejecting it. Is the hand too good, or is it because it's a void and you'll have to guess over 3N? That seems reasonable to me, but I still feel like a splinter is the best start to describing a very awkward hand and just raising the minor doesn't really solve the problems of having to guess later.

Hmmmm...my memory may be muddled, but don't you bid 2♦ over 1♥ with 5 diamonds and 4 spades?

The bidding goes 1♥-2♦-3♠-3NT. Partner could have a huge variety of hands, including ones where 7♦ is cold and ones where 3NT is the last makable contract. I don't think it being a singleton would make any difference, except that now it's 6♦ vs. 3NT.

I don't think you can afford to use up all that bidding space until the suit is set.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jan 26 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

What about a 3N bid?

I would expect, after 1♥-2♦-3♠, the two most common rebids would be
3NT and 4♥. I'd like to know what you plan to do over these bids, so I can decide whether I want to use a 3♠ bid in the future on this auction. I do end up playing 2/1 on occassion, particularly when I sub, so I'd like to know how to bid this hand.

[mike777]

jdeegan, on Jan 26 2007, 06:05 AM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> QJ873 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> A1097 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AKJ3 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AK5 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> K96 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> K542 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Q76 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td> 1♥-P-??? </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->

We bid these hands to a good 6♥ using 2/1, but was it sound bidding?  How SHOULD one do this?

After pard opened 1♥, I couldn't think of anything better than to temporize with 2♦.  Partner raised to 3♦.  Ooops, time to set trumps (I hoped) with 3♥.  Pard now gets aggressive with 3♠. 

What do you bid now?

I almost gave up and bid 4♥ considering the obvious duplication, but 15 HCP and three quick tricks is well over a minimum, so I bid 3NT.  Was this correct?  What did 3NT mean?  Was it a "serious" 3NT acting essentially as a relay?  Or, did is imply spade and club cards?  Pard took it as the latter (I assume) and jumped to 6♥. 

What is the best 2/1 auction for these two hands?

3nt no problem yet.

3nt=14-16 bal. 4333 dist. 3 card support and stoppers in unbid suits.

now just cue your way to slam.

[the hog]

Ken Rexford actually has the seed of an interesting idea. A concept that has increasingly crept into the bidding styles of the top Polish players is the following.
Over 1S, 2D/H are GOOD 5 card suits, also 1H - 2D
The 2C bid may or may not be a C suit. It can also be as few as 3 cards in C with a g/f hand and no 5 card suit to bid. Now it is incumbent on opener to bid as descriptively as possible.
With a min, (12-a poor 14 or so), opener just rebids his M. Responder then can bid 2S or 2NT, whichever is the cheaper to force to game and ask for further description.

1H 2C
2H 2S
3C
Would show something like xx AJxxx Kx Axxx

On the posted hand the bidding might be
1H 2C
2D 2S
3C 3H
Here opener has shown better than a min, and resp has shown a flat hand, with no real C suit, but H support and also better than min. (3H rather than 4).