[awm]

Here's a hand where we didn't reach a very good spot. We were playing 2/1 GF. Our auction:

1♦ - 2♣ (GF)
2♦ (5+) - 3♣
3♠ - 4♣
6♣ - Pass

Scoring: IMP

---

[655321]

A 7-4 with a void opposite partner's 8 card suit is not easy to bid.

But even with that caveat I really dislike South's bidding.

South has a very strong hand with 7 diamonds and 4 spades. But he suppressed his spades and his strength in order unilaterally place the contract after a couple of bids from partner. And, unilaterally placed the contract in his void.

Looking at both hands (I admit this might influence me), one plausible auction might be:

1♦ 2♣
2♠ 3♣
3♦ 4♣
4♦ 5♦
6♦

[effervesce]

Opener should bid 4♦ over 4♣. 6♣ is simply too unilateral with the void.

[peachy]

Bidding was fine until 3S. I agree with South's 2D, the first priority in 2/1 where 2C is 100% GF is for opener to show if he holds 5+ diamonds. 3C was fine. 3S was fine. Over 3S responder could bid 4S and opener should know it is only three cards and obvious dislike of NT. Difficult hand but the 6C bid was badly judged.

[whereagles]

655321, on Sep 11 2008, 05:46 AM, said:

1♦ 2♣
2♠ 3♣
3♦ 4♣
4♦ 5♦
6♦

I might have not reproduced this auction, but it seems good to me. (Perhaps I'd have tried 3NT instead of 4♣)

The actual auction seems:

- Bad choice of system. A system that forces you to bid a min 2362 in the same way as this 74 monster cannot convince me.

- Bad strategy. Hiding spades seems bad when you can make 7♠ opposite a min 2♣ GF such as:

Qxxx
Ax
xx
AQxxx

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I think the bidding was ok upto 3S, you may
or may not bid 2S instead of 2D, 2S should
also promise 5+ D, but would show also 4+S,
but repeating your 7 card suit cant be wrong.
Now the 3S bid just showes a stopper, i.e. may
just be a 3 card suit.

As it is, I dont like 4C, I would assume, that 3C
did not limit responders hand, in which case 4C
is certainly a forward going bid, and this cant be
right, ... at some point in time, someone should
say, I have a min. hand for my bidding.
I prefer 5C instead of 4C, and opener will pass 5C.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[MFA]

6♣ is a poor choice when we haven't yet really shown our good ♦ suit.

[helene_t]

Swans are one-suiters so South should somehow have emphasized his diamonds more. My choice would be a 3♦ rebid instead of 2♦.

For his bidding he might as well have been 4252.

[benlessard]

Bidding club 3 times show much better clubs than KJ8x.xxxx

Im repeating myself but 5Nt as P-A-S is IMO a mandatory tool. Its a bid that is at least 5 times more frequent than Josephine.

Since 2D show a 5 card suit then south can affort to rebid 3D to show 6 or 7 D after its tough not to reach 6D.

Quote

- Bad strategy. Hiding spades seems bad when you can make 7♠ opposite a min 2♣ GF such as:

Opener doesnt need to show his spades, responder will bid them if hes got 4 of them.

[TimG]

benlessard, on Sep 11 2008, 09:07 AM, said:

Bidding club 3 times show much better clubs than KJ8xxxxx

I would have thought that if they were good enough to be trumps at the six-level opposite a void, responder would have bid 4C at his second turn. Surely there are hands where responder would want to bid his clubs three times on KJ-8th.

I agree with Helene, opener should bid 3D at his second turn. But, I expect some would consider that to show a solid suit.

[y66]

Good problem.

What did 4C mean there vs 1D 2C : 2D 4C or 1D 2C : 2D 3C : 3S 5C?

Why not 4D over 4C? Even if 4C showed a suit that can play for 1 loser opposite a void, don't you want to confirm that pard has the HA?

[pclayton]

As I read the auction, I found myself agreeing with every call. Until 6♣.

Over 4♣, 4♦ is obvious.

[jdonn]

6♣ was nuts. There were other questionable choices earlier but that is more a matter of style than what really led to the problem. It's not only that partner didn't bid 2♣ 4♣, but also if south bids 5NT instead does he really think partner won't select clubs when they are best?

Your opponent did well not to double with AQT9 of clubs (I was watching).

[rbforster]

I didn't like 3♠. After

1♦-2♣
2♦-?

responder has shown a GF with long clubs. If he had a 4 card major (or even a major stopper), isn't he usually bidding it over 2♦? So when he bids 3♣ instead it sure sounds like 1-suited clubs to me.

This inference leads me to think that 3♠ was a wasted call by South, who probably should have emphasized his diamonds anyway but certainly should have if North denied interest in playing in a major. South does have both major stops so 3N isnt awful but with such nice diamonds I think 3♦ is much better.

[Apollo81]

6♣ was the worst bid by a mile. Responder didn't know opener had 7 diamonds!

[han]

Agree with everybody, 6C was very strange.

[tomcat777]

2♦ wasn't a good bid, with 17 hp and 7 cards ♦ he made a bid like he have 12 hp and 5 cards ♦. Better 3 ♦, this bid looks like an invitation to slam with a good 6 cards ♦ suit, in my opinion.

[pclayton]

tomcat777, on Sep 11 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

2♦ wasn't a good bid, with 17 hp and 7 cards ♦ he made a bid like he have 12 hp and 5 cards ♦. Better 3 ♦, this bid looks like an invitation to slam with a good 6 cards ♦ suit, in my opinion.

Many play this as solid or at least semi-solid diamonds in a 2/1 sequence.

welcome to the forums by the way

[kfay]

A tad surprised N didn't bid 7♣ over 6♣

[Flameous]

There are many things in this auction that should happen differently I think.

After 2♦ I think north should jump to 4♣ to show a suit like this. Now that he doesn't, south has no need to bring those spades on the table as he has semisolid diamonds, so 3♦ instead of 3♠ should be obvious. Now again I think north did a poor choice in 4♣ since now atleast it seems like slam going hand with AKJxxxxx of clubs at the very least. Jump to 5 would still have been better. I don't criticise 6♣ so much since if p really has what I at this point think he should, it seems good enough slam to bid and I doubt I can find out about things I'd need to know to make better choices. I'd still give it a try with 4♦ though.

1♦ - 2♣
2♦ - 4♣
4♦ - 4♥
4♠ - 5♦
6♦

I think the auction should look more like this.