[peachy]

[quote name='cherdanno' date='Apr 14 2009, 03:29 PM'] [quote name='peachy' date='Apr 14 2009, 02:18 PM'] Appreciate all comments so far. At the table, I downgraded my hand to a good 12 and bid 2C, semiworried that 2NT could be passed and semiworried about both majors being stopped. Probably just worthless worry? The auction proceeded:
1C (P) 2C (P)
2S (P) 3C (Dbl)
Rdbl (P) P (3D)
P (3H)4C (P)
5C (P) P (P)


I really don't like your bidding sequence. You are suggesting a shapely limit raise of clubs that is low in high cards. I would bid 2NT rather than 3[cl], and I don't think 4[cl] is an option over 3[he] after partner has suggested to play for penalties. You have extras in defense not offense. [/quote]
I usually wait til the end to butt in again. You said 2C suggested a shapely limit raise in clubs. Actually, it promises a limit or better raise in clubs. Maybe you meant that 3C suggested shapely? Dunno why. 3C suggested "limit raise but not necessarily gameforcing; passable".

Partner's 2S initially denied a heart stopper (or: he had both majors stopped with spade suit and was going to continue after a possible 3C signoff from partner). It seemed to me at the time that we don't have enough trumps [hearts] to defend 3HX, me having Qx and partner not known to have heart stopper or length in hearts.

I think my initial mistake was to downgrade the quacky 13 to a non-gameforce hand I should have just blasted 3NT.

[jdonn]

Peachy I have to agree with cherdano. Think of it this way. You have a balanced hand that is half queens, and four card support for your partner's 3+ club suit. And the three bids you took were clubs, clubs, and clubs. How can that be the best description, even if your hand had been a hair weaker and thus not a game force?

[cherdanno]

Just to clarify, I didn't think 2♣ promises a shapely limit raise, but your sequence 2C-3C-4C should show one. Also, if your partner redoubles AND doubles 3♥, then with your AK and Qx of trumps you shouldn't be ashamed of your defensive holdings at all. I would expect down 2 if you forced me to guess. And if partner passes out 3♥, I would still rather defend than play 4♣.
I also still think 2♣ was fine.
I hope you don't mind my strong language, but my opinion that bidding 4♣ is a mistake is very strong indeed. IMO it is much more of a mistake than any of 2N, 3N, 1D, 2C at your first bid could be, and that this is the most useful thing to give my opinion about in this thread.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Apr 14 2009, 06:05 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 14 2009, 05:30 PM, said:

...what can go wrong with 1♦?

Two major things come to mind.



#2 -- and this is a key one, IMO. If 1♣-P-3NT shows this hand (I'm not saying that it does necessarily, but stay with me), then 1♣-P-1♦...3NT shows something else. Two different sequences to the same contract do not show the same thing. That might not matter in some sequences, but it may very much matter to partner in some situations. If partner, for example, has some strongish hand with slam interest, he might make a wise pass after a 3NT "I have quacks" jump but force beyond 3NT after a slower auction because he thinks you must not have quacks, and hence must be more prime, which might be what he needs.

3N doesn't show this hand. 3N shows a balanced hand with all side suits stopped. Qx is yet to be defined as a stopper, when opposite anywhere from AKJ10 to a void.. now, maybe he won't/shouldn't pass 3N with, say, AJxx void QJxx AJxxx... but where is he going? And he sure as heck is passing with AJxx x QJx AJxxx and so on.

Ok, I would bid 3N on Qxx... and on some hands that is no more a stopper than is Qx... but it is usually a more effective holding .

I admit that if we ran this as a simulation, there will be hands on which the notrump bidders prevail, and many hands... the majority, I would think, on which any plausible auction will reach the same spot. But I also think that there will be more downside, in terms of size of loss and frequency of loss, from the blind bashing on this hand than from use of science.. and I include 1♦ as science.. even tho it isn't at all complex.

The problem with 2♣ is that unless we play a good method, we will often be groping in the dark as to what partner holds... the OP revealed that his partnership was so afflicted... and I have seen a whole lot of pairs screw up inverted minors as soon as either partner has anything out of the ordinary or the opps interfere. IM is a powerful tool, but most who use it don't use it properly.

[jdonn]

Mike I don't know why you are so worried about the method. If you are worried about a heart stopper, then bid 3NT over 2♥ or 2NT, or 3♦ over anything else. That seems like it will get you through.

[Apollo81]

I don't have a strong preference between 1♦, 2♣, and a game-forcing 2NT. I would not bid 3NT with two questionable major suits.

[oldman5757]

There's certainly a very good argument for blasting 3N with this hand, and, as a fan of simple, I'd probably stick a ♦ in with my ♥'s and bid that.

On the auction as given, I don't agree with the 3 ♣ call (or the later 4 ♣ call for that matter). I'd have bid 3 ♦ over 2♠, confirming a stop. The auction could obviously go in a lot of different directions from here, but a common one would be for P to bid 3♥ showing a partial stop and asking you to bid 3NT if you complete the stopper.