[Wackojack]

Scoring: IMP

---

This hand came up in a f2f team of 4 club league match. We were playing a 15-17 5 card major system with no check back agreement. The bidding with opps silent me sitting east went:
1♣- 1♦-1♠-2♠
Trumps broke 3-3 and I made 10 tricks but lost 6 imp as opps playing Acol bid 3NT making an overtrick. I was not very happy with my partner bidding 2♠, but can see that she certainly had a problem with her next bid. We are a fairly regular partnership and I did have in mind introducing the idea of a check-back arrangement but decided to defer this until something went wrong with our present up-the-line method and could demonstrate why a check-back system was superior.

However, as far as I can see, the only system that easily reaches 3NT is Acol. 1♣-1♦-1♠-3♣-3NT. In Acol a 1NT response is 6-9, 10 points being too strong and since a 1♣ opening bid guarantees 4 card, west with 10 points and 8 losers can raise to 3♣; thus setting up the 3NT bid from east.

Looking at all other systems in the BBO FD files, I cannot legitimaely get to 3NT.
1♣-1NT- pass or 1♣-1♦-1♠- ? . I would like to have been able to argue that if you rebid all balanced 12-14 hands with 1NT, then 1♣-1♦-1♠ has to be unbalanced with at least 5♣+4♠. Unfortunately this is not the case (or at least not spelt out). The rebid of 1♠ in:

BBO Adv = non forcing 4+♠
BBOITA = 3+♣ 4♠
Bridge base basic = 4♠
majeur 5 ieme = no 4 cards in ♥

It looks like that if you cannot respond 1♦ because you are balanced with no 4 card major, then you have to respond 1NT 6-10. Thus making any bid except pass highly speculative. If the system allows you to respond 1♦, then is a rebid of 1♠ unbalanced? If it can be taken to be so then balanced hands rebid 1NT.
The problem here is that 1♣-1♦-1NT-2♣ is natural in BBOAdv and Bridgebase basic. BBOITA says 2♣ is forcing, majeur 5ieme says natural (or check-back if playing Walsh).

OK I can recommend a simple check-back 2♣ to my partner after 1♣-1♦-1NT. This begs the question of what to recommend after 1♣-1♥-1NT or 1♣-1♠-1NT. I like 2-way check-back but hesitate to introduce the memory load after having already introduced quite a few gadgets. My partner is a good player but seems to prefer creative bidding in problem situations rather than formal artificial bids. So I think I am leaning to a simple 2♣ in all situations. Viva Italia!

BTW My partner said that she could not respond 3♣ with her 2nd bid since I might only have 3♣, which of course is true with up-the-line bidding.

[hrothgar]

I suspect that one would would get to game playing any number of systems.

For example, some strong club systems will be able to start 1♣ - Game force

If I were playing 2/1, I'd open 1NT with the East hand and would soon rest in 3N

Simply put, I don't think that this is a question of system, but rather one of hand evaluation and judgement.

[Gerben42]

Vulnerable at IMPs you may not pass after the obvious start 1♣ - 1NT.

1♣ - 1NT - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3NT will work well (2♠ showed a maximum 1NT and values in ♠ but not ♥). This is also the recommended Polish ♣ sequence.

I don't see the point of responding 1♦ on this hand. As for 2♠, yuck.

[Codo]

1. in this hands, all your honours fitted extremly well together. Ak opps. the shortness, the jack of H guarded by the AQ etc. These things happen.

2. In a std system you have some possiblilites to find 3 NT anyway, even if you don´t open 1 NT with a weak singelton like richard or have so nice agreements like Gerben.
But what about
A) 1♣ 1 NT 2 NT 3 NT?

1 ♣ 1 ♦ 1 ♠ 3 ♣ 3 NT?

C) 1 ♣ 1 ♦ 1 ♠ 1 NT 2 NT 3 NT?

Okay in A, you do not bid the 4 card minor, but is this more a downside then your partners approach?
In B you must know that pd is unbalanced, quite a common agreement if you rebid 1 M after 1 ♣ 1 ♦. Then 3 Club shows your strength more or less exactly.

In C If you do not know whether or not pd is balanced , but even so 1NT looks like a resonable call even with a shortness in their suit.

With your bidding, I like 1 Club and 1 Spade.
1. I had prefered 1 NT to 1 Diamond. This bid is the perfect describtion of the hand: No 4+ card major, no long minor, 8-10 HCPS, there is no need to bid the diamonds. If pd has long diamonds, he has even longer clubs, so you surely have a fit there.

2. 2 ♠ wasa nono bid. I had bid 3 Club. If I really feared a 3 card suit, I had bid 1 NT. Even without a stopper this may make.

3. I had never passed 2 Spade with your hand. You have 17 HCPs, a shortness. This is closer to 4 Spade then to pass, but any invitation would be the best desribtion of this hand.

[brianshark]

Basically opener or responder needs to treat his hand as invite rather than minimum. Responder can at his second bid, or opener can at his third. But either way, it makes no difference what system you are playing, it's all about judging whether your hand is invite or not, and if so, finding an invite bid, of which there are plenty.

In my opinion, opener should bid 2NT after whatever responder chooses to rebid (1NT/2♣/2♠).

[hotShot]

Playing ACOL west knows about a ♣ fit from the opening 1♣ bid on. Having a fit they can concentrate on finding the best spot to play.
This is indeed easier than using a system where the ♣ fit is unknown.

But why would you want to show the ♦? If opener had ♦, he would have opend 1♦ using SAYC or SEF or opener is strong enough to reverse over responders 1NT bid. If opener can't reverse or can't repeat his ♣ suit, 1NT should have some play.

I know of partnerships who use the 1♦ answer to 1♣ as artificial weak response showing 6-7(8) HCP (no 4card major) to make the 1NT stronger (8)9-10.

[helene_t]

W's 2♠ and E's pass on 2♠ were both borderline decisions. I think it's mainly a question of partnership fine-tuning. Who's allowed to be conservative when? When both are conservative, you may end up in a too low contract.

W could bid 3♣ (I strongly prefer the 1♠ rebid to promise at least four clubs, as to whether it should promise 5 I'm more agnostic).

[ArtK78]

The so-called Acol auction is a perfectly reasonable auction in any Standard system.

I realize that many players like to have more than xxxx for their 3♣ bid, but it is the best call available - right on values and right on shape (assuming that partner has real clubs, which he should for his 1♠ rebid).

[Wackojack]

Codo, on Nov 16 2007, 09:14 AM, said:

3. I had never passed 2 Spade with your hand. You have 17 HCPs, a shortness. This is closer to 4 Spade then to pass, but any invitation would be the best desribtion of this hand.

Actually the hand shows 15HCP. Thus I maintain that making a try after 1c-1nt or indeed 1c-1d-1s-2s is highly speculative. If partner has min 6HCP and I make a try with 2NT we have 21. 1c-1nt-2c needs a gadget to get to 3NT and is still more speculative than the natural Acol auction.

[helene_t]

But with 6 HCPs, p would have passed 1♠, wouldn't s/he ?

[hotShot]

helene_t, on Nov 16 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

But with 6 HCPs, p would have passed 1♠, wouldn't s/he ?

No, passing a new suit bid from an unlimited hand can hardly be a good thing.

E.g. playing SAYC opener could hold up to 21 HCP in an unbalanced hand.

[Gerben42]

Quote

3. I had never passed 2 Spade with your hand. You have 17 HCPs, a shortness. This is closer to 4 Spade then to pass, but any invitation would be the best desribtion of this hand.

I agree with the idea but I always shiver when I count apples (HCP) and eggs (distribution) together. I'd say "15 HCP + a singleton in partner's suit".

I wouldn't have passed 2♠ either, instead I'd have tried 3♣ after that, letting partner know my ♣ are very good ONLY if partner is not short there.

[awm]

It seems like both players made very conservative decisions and they missed game.

Most people play that 1♣-1♦-1♠ promises some clubs. The Walsh crowd has it showing five clubs. Without Walsh, a lot of us will still rebid 1nt with 4333 on this auction, so it still shows four clubs. It's reasonable for responder to raise the clubs to the three-level here.

After 1♣-1♦-1♠-2♠, a hand like Axxx xx Axxx xxx makes game excellent. The heart holding is even protected from the lead -- you make 4♠ any time spades are 3-2 and have some chances if they go 4-1 as well. This is certainly within the range of 2♠ bids (okay it's a good 2♠ bid, but not ridiculously so). In fact partner might pass with some random six-count, making a "good 2♠ bid" less farfetched. Even something like QJxx xxx KQxx xx offers play for game; it seems wimpy to pass 2♠.

If responder bids 1NT, it seems obvious for opener to rebid 2♣. You pretty much always have a club fit on this auction; the 1NT response will not have a 4-card major and with 5♦ responder might've bid them, making the most likely patterns 3343, 3334, and (32)44. With a good club fit and the best possible 1NT response, it seems obvious to make some forward-going move (a simple 3♣ is fine if not playing Gerben's treatment -- although Gerben's method seems very natural and I'm not sure what else 2M would mean by a responder who has denied a 4cM).

[jtfanclub]

hotShot, on Nov 16 2007, 10:52 AM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 16 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

But with 6 HCPs, p would have passed 1♠, wouldn't s/he ?

No, passing a new suit bid from an unlimited hand can hardly be a good thing.

E.g. playing SAYC opener could hold up to 21 HCP in an unbalanced hand.

Really? I find something else to bid with 18+, in this case 2♠ (jump shift by opener). I usually play that by definition, 6 counts can pass 1 over 1 by opener and cannot pass a reverse or jump shift by opener.

I like the 1♦ bid. Shows where I live, lets partner be the NT hand, (West is clearly more suited to be dummy with most of his points being in an AK set, and NT looks like it will be the eventual contract). But I think my willingness to bid 1♦ followed by my unforced raise of 1♠ does imply a hand of the strength shown.

I think a 2NT bid by East is obvious, and I think the 1♠ call followed by bidding 2NT over 2♠ shows this hand to a T and protects the hearts. At this point, both have done a great job of describing their hands and you get to the right contract played by the right side.

But then, maybe that's why I'm not an expert.

[mikeh]

In the context of the agreed-upon methods, I see nothing wrong with the result.

Of course, I don't like those methods, and I don't see why Acol is the only way to reach game.

Playing a pretty standard form of 2/1 (altho the 'strong walsh') method, the bidding is simple:

1♣   1♦
1♠   3♣
3N

I have posted several times about the benefits of strong walsh and this hand is a classic example. Of course, I recognize there are downsides, so nobody should jump on board the bandwagon merely based on this hand.

But, 1♠ promises 9+ black cards.

This makes West's hand pretty good: at least a 9 card trump fit, and great cards: that spade Q is a nice card and AK of ♦s can't be all bad. So West is clearly worth a natural invite and opener has a choice of bids: 3N seems to stand out.

FWIW, I despise a 1N opening. Those who choose it deserve the frequent bad results they will get. They should stick to solitaire, where they don't have a partner who will be basing his or her bids on their calls. It's not as if a 4=3=1=5 hand has a rebid problem! And playing that 1♠ is forcing is contrary to normal expert treatment: have you seen what most may have when they bid over 1♣?

[matmat]

I am a little bit confused here.
2♠ raise ought to promise 4 card support, unless there is a partnership agreement to open 55 blacks 1♣.
were you bidding up the line? or would you have bypassed a 4 card ♦ suit in favor of spades? if the latter then 2♠ should have inv+ better values and east takes another action.

[skjaeran]

In my methods we'd start 1♣-1NT (10-12), thus reaching game shortly. We play T-Walsh with a 2-way 1♠ response; 6-9 bal or unlimited with ♦.

[jdonn]

Missing this game was not exactly a crime. 3NT on a diamond lead (or even a heart lead from Kxxxx) is no bargain by any means.

As the auction went, 2♠ was a little odd, responder is inbetween 2♣ and 3♣ at that point. But over 2♠ opener should clearly take another call, most likely 3♥, then responder would bid 3NT.

[foo]

I strongly agree with mikeh on most points here.

Playing either SA or 2/1 GF the normal auction holding these cards and with Responder simply trusting HCP (the normal thing to do when holding a flat hand) is

1C-1D;1S-3C;3N

Anyone opening 1N with the E cards is grossly distorting their hand.

My only differences in PoV with mikeh are that,
a= for me and most experts I play with as partners, Opener bidding 2 suits "up the line" only promises 8+ cards in the two suits. (For one thing 4441's become hard to bid otherwise...). Thus 1C-1D;1N is a 4333.

b= I play that Responder must have Invite+, not GF+, values for 1C-1D when holding 4+D and a 4cM (I will bypass even a normal 7 card D suit to bid my 4cM when holding a minimum response. Judgment still matters here. (14)62 is less often a minimum than (24)61. Having a stiff rather than 2 card tolerance for Opener's minor is a downgrade.)
I find this gives pretty much the same benefits as playing the "classic" GF Walsh style while being less constrictive.

[foo]

jdonn, on Nov 16 2007, 06:53 PM, said:

Missing this game was not exactly a crime. 3NT on a diamond lead (or even a heart lead from Kxxxx) is no bargain by any means.

♠Q54 ♥J9 ♦AK76 ♣7653
+
♠K932 ♥AQ7 ♦8 ♣KQJ84

The man has a point.

You only have 3 top tricks unless they lead ♥'s to give you 4 top tricks.
Dx lead. CH won by their CA. Dx return by them.
You now have 7 tricks established and must take 2 more without Them getting in again with a ♦ unless ♦'s broke 44 (unlikely).

A Hx opening lead from Kxxxx allows you to have 8 tricks before you are endplayed.

So how did the Acol declarer make 10 tricks in NT? Surely the defense did not lead a Black suit? Or did ♦'s break 44?