Help
I wasn't present for this hand but I'd like your expert opinions on the 2 views those who actually played the hand assumed during the auction. The system is vanilla 2/1 with quite sound openings in 1st and 2nd seat:
Dealer opens 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♣-3♥-4♠
IMO the actual hands they held are irrelevant. I'd like to hear whatever interpretations you would have for this auction, presuming it even seems possible to you. I can think of reasons why it wouldn't but the person with whom I discussed it were in complete agreement as to the type of hand 4♠ in particular would most likely show.
Hopefully, no one will mind if i wait for some replies before posting the interpretations of the individuals who actually played it.
TIA
Page 1 of 1
What do you make of this auction? Unopposed at MP
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 518
- Joined: 2004-July-25
Posted 2008-February-16, 20:30
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy - but it might improve my bridge.
#2 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2008-February-16, 20:44
Should not exist imo. I don't think any hand with 3 spades should ever bid 3C, hands with 2 spades should bid 3S, "exclusion" is just way too dangerous if they haven't agreed here, etc.
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,727
- Joined: 2006-June-05
- Location:Oslo, Norway
- Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy
Posted 2008-February-17, 02:46
Basically agree with Justin.
However, if playing with someone I know I can trust, this would be Exclusion, even undiscussed.
However, if playing with someone I know I can trust, this would be Exclusion, even undiscussed.
Kind regards,
Harald
Harald
#4
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2008-February-17, 09:15
partner has only 2 spades and thinks this is the only makeable game.
#5
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2008-February-17, 11:00
Exclusion would make the most sense here I think, but I doubt I will ever be in a partnership serious enough to play that convention. So far it has cost much more IMPs due to misunderstandings than it has gained due to accurate slam bidding.
I do recall one funny missed opportunity, though. P bid 5♦ opposite my ♦AKQxxxx. I replied zero keycards and so we went down in 6♣ while 5♦ would just have made. P suggested that I passed 5♦. Not sure if I agree with that. Maybe.
I do recall one funny missed opportunity, though. P bid 5♦ opposite my ♦AKQxxxx. I replied zero keycards and so we went down in 6♣ while 5♦ would just have made. P suggested that I passed 5♦. Not sure if I agree with that. Maybe.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#6
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2008-February-17, 11:29
Screams Exclusion.
I'd be sad if I were in a partnership that was unable to field this sequence.
I'd be sad if I were in a partnership that was unable to field this sequence.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#7
- Limit bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,483
- Joined: 2004-November-02
- Gender:Female
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those
Posted 2008-February-17, 14:32
This is just why I never play exclusion.
I'm not sure the sequence really exists, to be honest, because opener is unlimited. But it definitely sounds as if responder is expecting 4S to end the auction.
I'm not sure the sequence really exists, to be honest, because opener is unlimited. But it definitely sounds as if responder is expecting 4S to end the auction.
#8
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 518
- Joined: 2004-July-25
Posted 2008-February-17, 16:00
Thanks for the comments. Now, supposing for the moment we agree that, essentially, the auction should not exist. Could you imagine any sort of extremely difficult to describe hand such that partner is trying to send a message by bidding in such an odd manner? If so, what? Here's a hint: After 1♠-2♦-2♥, 2♠ would sound like some sort of forced preference. Why at that time 3♠ is not an option if he has good spade support is beyond me.
I don't think any of the above holds any water either, but that seems to have been the thinking in this case. I'm just wondering if anyone could possibly expect to decipher the message he was attempting to convey.
Indicentally, my regular partner, in this case, opener, and I agreed that in the extremely unlikely event this auction were to come up, it would indicate some sort of hand with 2 spades or 3 small that probably shouldn't have made a 2/1 call in the first place that was now trying to sign off.
I don't think any of the above holds any water either, but that seems to have been the thinking in this case. I'm just wondering if anyone could possibly expect to decipher the message he was attempting to convey.
Indicentally, my regular partner, in this case, opener, and I agreed that in the extremely unlikely event this auction were to come up, it would indicate some sort of hand with 2 spades or 3 small that probably shouldn't have made a 2/1 call in the first place that was now trying to sign off.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy - but it might improve my bridge.
Page 1 of 1