[kenrexford]

First question:

♠KQJxx ♥Jx ♦QJ10xx ♣x

You are in second seat. Dealer passes. All red.

[Mr. Dodgy]

1♠

[the hog]

2S, S+ a minor. If not playing two suited conventions, then pass, planning to bid later.

[skjaeran]

If playing 2-suited openings at the 2-level (I don't), this is a maximum 2♠.

Else I'm opening this 1♠.

[655321]

1♠

[benlessard]

Pass for me. 60% of the time i make a doubled contract its because the opener make no trick despite his opening.

[mike777]

kenrexford, on Jul 17 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

First question:

♠KQJxx ♥Jx ♦QJ10xx ♣x

You are in second seat. Dealer passes. All red.

1) 1s if partner knows i open this
2) pass otherwise

[kenrexford]

OK. For the 1♠ bidders (check -- me too).

LHO overcalls 2♣, partner responds 2♥ (not a negative free bid -- full strength), pass, to you.

[ArcLight]

Since 2♥ is forcing for one round and pard did not support spades (he could have cue bid ♣) I assume he has hearts and something else. 2=5=3=3 ?

I see no choice other than 3♦. I'm not feeling so good now

Playing in spades in a 5-2/1 fit, and getting tapped with Clubs doesnt sound fun.


On the other hand, I hope that 3♦ in this sequence doesnt show a huge hand.
If it does, then I guess 2♠ is the only possibility.

[Codo]

I would open 1 Spade, when I play two sutier openings they are always weaker then this nice hand.

Now I rebid 2 Spade to show my weak opener. 3 Diamonds shows extras I don't have.

And I have no idea why pd should not have 2614 or 1705 or a million other shapes. I agree that a priori 2533 sound very reasonable, but there is more then this.

[kenrexford]

So far, so horrible.

I had this same sequence and thought process. 3♦ sounds too bid; 2♠ sounds longer; this is not looking good.

I decided upon 2♠ because it has the added benefit of partner being able to punt out a 3♣ call.

So, if you bid 2♠, partner's next call is 3NT. Same over 3♦.

Now what?

[FrancesHinden]

I don't understand all the soul-searching on this hand.

Either it's systemically a 1S opening or it isn't (I don't feel very strongly, I know that one of my partners would pass and the other would open).

If it's a 1S opener, you open 1S, LHO bids 2C, partner bids 2H.

Unless you have some very unusual agreements, your only possible rebid is 2S as 3D would be game forcing, so you bid 2S. No problem. It doesn't "sound longer" it sounds like a minimum opening bid without heart support.

Partner bids 3NT. Still no problem, we pass. Partner had lots of other forcing bids available (most obviously 3C) and chose to miss out a few rounds of bidding to set the final contract. I'd need a much much much stranger hand to pull this.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 18 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

I don't understand all the soul-searching on this hand.

Either it's systemically a 1S opening or it isn't (I don't feel very strongly, I know that one of my partners would pass and the other would open).

If it's a 1S opener, you open 1S, LHO bids 2C, partner bids 2H.

Unless you have some very unusual agreements, your only possible rebid is 2S as 3D would be game forcing, so you bid 2S. No problem. It doesn't "sound longer" it sounds like a minimum opening bid without heart support.

Partner bids 3NT. Still no problem, we pass. Partner had lots of other forcing bids available (most obviously 3C) and chose to miss out a few rounds of bidding to set the final contract. I'd need a much much much stranger hand to pull this.

That's what I did. 3NT failed miserably, -400. No one else in the room was anywhere near this result.

I wondered if perhaps I should have corrected to 4♥, which happens to be a disaster as well (5-1 stack) or 4♦, which also fails. I understand that this may well have been a fluke deal, but I wondered if I should make each move that I made or not.

The full auction, again:

P-1♠-2♣-2♥
P-2♠-P-3NT-all pass

As an aside, my LHO squirmed for a second after 2♠. Should I perhaps have used "table feel" here? Or, is -400 "good bridge?"

[FrancesHinden]

You haven't told us what partner's hand was. How do we know if -400 was 'good bridge' without seeing it?

[kenrexford]

Good point. Trying to reconstruct. I was dummy.

Partner definitely had five hearts to the AK10, a stiff spade, and no diamond honors.

Maybe ♠x ♥AK10xx ♦xxx ♣AJxx?

That does seem a little light, if that is what he held. Tough to downgrade AK-A, but maybe he should. I didn't think through his hand that much.

Maybe:

P-1♠-2♣-2♥
P-2♠-P-2NT
P-3♦-all pass?

2NT passed is still -300, but better.

I'm not sure what happens to 3♦.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on Jul 18 2008, 06:33 PM, said:

Good point. Trying to reconstruct. I was dummy.

Partner definitely had five hearts to the AK10, a stiff spade, and no diamond honors.

Maybe ♠x ♥AK10xx ♦xxx ♣AJxx?

That does seem a little light, if that is what he held. Tough to downgrade AK-A, but maybe he should. I didn't think through his hand that much.

Maybe:

P-1♠-2♣-2♥
P-2♠-P-2NT
P-3♦-all pass?

2NT passed is still -300, but better.

I'm not sure what happens to 3♦.

Your suggested auction seems sensible if you open the 5-5.

It's not that hard to downgrade AKA with singleton in partner's suit, no fit for the long suit, and the other high cards in RHO's suit. Particularly if we play this style of opening bid.

[NickRW]

Well, I'd open this 2♠ showing this sort of 2 suited hand.

Without that gadget, I pass. This look like a nice hand - until you notice that the pictures are nearly all quacks.

Nick

[jdonn]

I would pass as dealer, prefer 2♠ (not 2-suited) to 1♠, it really is not worth an opening.

After opening, rebidding 2♠ and passing 3NT are both obvious.

[Gerben42]

That is the domain of the Wilkosz convention and "Polish style" 2-suiters that promise 5-5. If you open these 5-5 hands on the 2-level where many players (not in your game apparently, but otherwise) would push to the 1-level and you hit a misfitting opening hand like your partner's, you gain big time.

[kenrexford]

Yeah, yeah. I know about all of these two-suited openings. I even tried a couple of times to convince various partners to try them. The only marginal success was convincing a few people to use 2♦ as an intermediate two-suiter in the minors.

Solves a problem, leaves a problem.

Loved 'em in a canape structure, BTW.