[kfay]

Scoring: IMP

1♥-1NT
2♦-2♥
3♣-4♠
6♣

---

Just don't see it every day I guess. 6♣ went -1 while 6♥ made =... unjust?

How would YOU bid the hands?

[OleBerg]

1♥ - 2♣

many ways to 6♣.

[TylerE]

1♣ (Precision) - 1NT (GF, 5+ ♣)
2♣ (Trump ask) - 2♠ (5, 2 of Top 3)
3♦ (Control ask) - 3♥ (4th round)
4♥ (Control ask) - 5♦ (1st round, Denies K or Q)
6♣

[kenrexford]

Perfect auction, IMO. Opener could, in theory, toss back reconsideration of hearts by bidding 5♠, being all esoteric and risking a disaster, so 6♣ is practical.

[Free]

I'd also be in 6♣...

He could've made it however. If - after finding out about the poor trumps split - he'd play on ♦ instead of ♥, he could've discarded the ♠ loser on the 4th ♦. Probably not the best line however.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Why would I seriously want to be in a 5-2 fit, if I have a 5-3 fit,
and why is this even worth discussing?

I am not sure, I would reach slam, but if I would, I would
prefer to reach 6C, of course after I discover 6C-1 vs. 6H=
I would like to be in 6H, but unfortunately, this will be too
late.

For the auction (assuming the system in place was 2/1):

I think 2NT instead of 2H is better, you have a bal. hand
with 10-12, why sell the hand as 6-9?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Fluffy]

I don't like East's 2♥, if 1♥ is limited it seems like a least of evils, I would probably bid a dreadfull 2NT.

3♣ wouldn't be avaible then (would be 0544 minimum) and we would win the booard by playing 3NT.

[cRi cRi]

French way would be :

1♥ - 2♣
3NT (18-19) ..... and now ... tuff decision, maybe you can try 4♣ knowing part denied 4♦ or 4♠ but he also denied 4♣ so ... well ... make a choice and live with it

ps : no way to end up playing 6♥

[the hog]

cRi cRi, on Jul 30 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

French way would be :

1♥ - 2♣
3NT (18-19) ..... and now ... tuff decision, maybe you can try 4♣ knowing part denied 4♦ or 4♠ but he also denied 4♣ so ... well ... make a choice and live with it

ps : no way to end up playing 6♥

I thought you played a 3NT bid here as fit showing. Isn't that what ou said in another post?

[mich-b]

1♥ -2♣
2♦- 2♥
3♣ - 3♥
3♠ - 4♣
...

2♣ - I think A+AK and some nice spots is good enough for 2/1 GF.
2♥ - Hx in ♥, no other good bid (no 4♦, no ♠ stopper)
3♥ - ♥A
4♣ - implying good trumps

[cRi cRi]

we play 1 - 1 3nt as fit showing not 1 - 2 3nt

[nick_s]

kfay, on Jul 29 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♥-1NT
2♦-2♥
3♣-4♠
6♣

---

Time to display my ignorance: I don't understand this auction. Can someone help?

1♥ 1NT
2♦ 2♥

Don't get this. This hand looks like a balanced invite to me, not a 6-9 signoff. I guess they must play this sequence as constructive but no fit.

3♣ 4♠

I see that opener is patterning out, and responder now knows there's a 5-3 club fit. But what is this 4♠? Evidently not a spade cue agreeing clubs.

Edit: Just googled 'Bluhmer'. I get it now.

6♣

It's clear they're both on the same page though

[Phil]

I thought 2♥ was a serious underbid, but maybe that's how they do it in Poland.

I said "Bluhmer" to both commentators before 4♠, and lo and behold they drag it out.

What is perhaps sad is someone said 4♠ was RKC (kickback I guess) for hearts .

Pardon my stupidity here, but wouldn't 3♠ suffice as a Bluhmer?

[kenrexford]

Phil, on Jul 30 2009, 10:23 AM, said:

Pardon my stupidity here, but wouldn't 3♠ suffice as a Bluhmer?

Maybe, but then what would 4♠ be except a SUPER BLUHMER? I joke, but with an internal AK-A, a doubleton heart, and five-card clubs, how much better can this hand be? Heck, 4♠ might even be too low. Maybe a 5♠ SUPER DUPER BLUHMER makes sense here, in light of the diamond 10.

[rhm]

kenrexford, on Jul 29 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

Perfect auction, IMO. Opener could, in theory, toss back reconsideration of hearts by bidding 5♠, being all esoteric and risking a disaster, so 6♣ is practical.

I find an auction difficult to evaluate if I do not understand it

What agreements were in place where responder has a near game force

and bids

1nt over 1♥ and then gives a simple preference over a 2♦ rebid?

This is certainly not standard, where this sequence tends to show a much weaker responding hand

Maybe 1NT was already game forcing.

My knowledge is that this pair uses a variant of Polish Club.
However the standard opening bid with the East hand is 1♣ not 1♥ in Polsih Club.

Rainer Herrmann

[kfay]

rhm, on Jul 31 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

1nt over 1♥ and then gives a simple preference over a 2♦ rebid?

This is certainly not standard, where this sequence tends to show a much weaker responding hand

Maybe 1NT was already game forcing.

Some people open lighter than others.