[dburn]

Scoring: IMP

---

West opened 1♠, East bid two game-forcing diamonds. West raised to three diamonds. If you have any observations on the auction so far, feel free to make them.

East bid 3NT. West bid 4♦. Was that a mistake?

East bid 5♣. Was that a mistake?

West bid 6♦. Was that a mistake?

East and West played 2/1 game-forcing. I will not ask the question for a fourth time, because I already know the answer - to play that way is a mistake.

[JLOL]

dburn, on Oct 25 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

East and West played 2/1 game-forcing. I will not ask the question for a fourth time, because I already know the answer - to play that way is a mistake.

LOL

[hanp]

dburn, on Oct 25 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

West bid 4♦. Was that a mistake?

Yes.

Quote

East bid 5♣. Was that a mistake?

No.

Quote

West bid 6♦. Was that a mistake?

Yes!

Quote

East and West played 2/1 game-forcing. I will not ask the question for a fourth time, because I already know the answer - to play that way is a mistake.

Playing 2/1 is a mistake. Perhaps some will argue that playing bridge with west is a mistake, but in my opinion one hand is not enough to come to that conclusion.

[gnasher]

In another possible past, West passed 3NT, East had xx AJx Kxxxx AQx and an excellent slam was missed.

[hanp]

gnasher, on Oct 26 2009, 05:47 AM, said:

In another possible past, West passed 3NT, East had xx AJx Kxxxx AQx and an excellent slam was missed.

When I posted that I thought bidding over 3NT was a mistake, I didn't mean to say that passing 3NT will always lead to the best possible result.

Also, I think that bidding 6D is a worse mistake, hence my exclamation mark.

[gnasher]

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 04:38 AM, said:

West bid 4♦. Was that a mistake?

Yes, it was. If he was going to bid, he should have bid 4♣, which is a cue-bid in support of diamonds. (Even if you usually play these things as showing shape, it can't mean that here, because of the failure to splinter on the previous round.) The auction might have continued
  4♣-4♦
  4♥-4NT (RKCB)
  5♦-pass

or, if 4NT would be discouraging (or encouraging, or Culbertson)

  4♣-4♦
  4♥-5♣
  5♦-pass

[hanp]

gnasher, on Oct 26 2009, 05:57 AM, said:

If he was going to bid, he should have bid 4♣, which is a cue-bid in support of diamonds.

I agree with this.

[TimG]

gnasher, on Oct 26 2009, 05:47 AM, said:

In another possible past, West passed 3NT, East had xx AJx Kxxxx AQx and an excellent slam was missed.

That seems to suggest that 4♦ was not a mistake (or at least bidding over 3N was not a mistake). If keycard/kickback had been available to east over 4♦, I think that would have been better than 5♣. Similarly, a Turbo 4N (even number of keycards) would have solved the problem as long as west did not decide to play there.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Oct 26 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

When I posted that I thought bidding over 3NT was a mistake, I didn't mean to say that passing 3NT will always lead to the best possible result.

TimG, on Oct 26 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

That seems to suggest that 4♦ was not a mistake (or at least bidding over 3N was not a mistake).

I wasn't particularly arguing against passing 3NT. I was just offering support for David's contention that this sort of auction isn't good for unsophisticated 2/1 game-force systems.

[hanp]

There are few unsophisticated systems that are good at deciding to bypass 3NT in search of a minor suit slam. In the hands of players who have a poor grasp of the system it is quite hopeless of course.

I would agree that those who have the illusion that by merely agreeing to play 2/1 gameforcing you solve a lot of problems and create none, are severely misguided.

[rhm]

dburn, on Oct 25 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

Dealer: West Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AK432 ♥ K32 ♦ QJ97 ♣ K ♠ Q5 ♥ Q1094 ♦ K10832 ♣ AJ

West opened 1♠, East bid two game-forcing diamonds. West raised to three diamonds. If you have any observations on the auction so far, feel free to make them.

East bid 3NT. West bid 4♦. Was that a mistake?

I would not call 4♦ a mistake, but borderline. I prefer it to be minorwood though.
If not minorwood, why not 4♣ instead?

dburn, on Oct 25 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

East bid 5♣. Was that a mistake?

I consider 5♣ a mistake. Sign off at 4NT with this minimum, if not playing minorwood.

dburn, on Oct 25 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

West bid 6♦. Was that a mistake?

East and West played 2/1 game-forcing. I will not ask the question for a fourth time, because I already know the answer - to play that way is a mistake.

4♦ was borderline, 6♦ now was too much . Bid 5♦ over 5♣

Partner can deduce that you would not have bid 4♦ missing AK of ♥, AK of ♦ and the ace of ♣. If he has 2 red key cards in addition to the ace of ♣ he can use his judgment and raise 5♦

If you play2/1 game-forcing without limiting your hand any further, you must judge in slam auctions, whether you are minimum or have extra. West has a little, but East does not and few controls.

Rainer Herrmann

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3D was ok, it showed the diamond support and a better than
min. hand.
From this followes, that 4D over 3NT is overbidding and saying
"partner you did not hear me bidding 3D?".
If West wants to make and add. move, he could bid 4NT, which
would be quantitative.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rhm]

hanp, on Oct 26 2009, 06:14 AM, said:

There are few unsophisticated systems that are good at deciding to bypass 3NT in search of a minor suit slam. In the hands of players who have a poor grasp of the system it is quite hopeless of course.

I would agree that those who have the illusion that by merely agreeing to play 2/1 gameforcing you solve a lot of problems and create none, are severely misguided.

Playing any system can not be done without judgment. 2/1 is no exception.
If 2/1 is poorly understood by many this is not a problem of 2/1, neither is this unique to 2/1.
But 2/1 does solve a lot of problems with strong hands without creating many new ones.
It tends to be at a disadvantage with invitational hands.

Rainer Herrmann

[billw55]

rhm, on Oct 26 2009, 06:47 AM, said:

4♦ was borderline, 6♦ now was too much . Bid 5♦ over 5♣

This. 5♣ clearly denies the ♥A, so 6♦ is optimistic, to say the least.

P_Marlowe said:

3D was ok, it showed the diamond support and a better than
min. hand.
From this followes, that 4D over 3NT is overbidding and saying
"partner you did not hear me bidding 3D?".

... and this too.

[Fluffy]

rhm, on Oct 26 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

dburn, on Oct 25 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

East bid 5♣. Was that a mistake?

I consider 5♣ a mistake. Sign off at 4NT with this minimum, if not playing minorwood.

You might disagree, but I find that bidding 4NT again is hopeless and must be based on ♣QJxx or alike. You already showed minimum with 3NT, you cannot bid 4NT to show the same hand again without a big reason. Partner is unlimited.

I agree with gnasher and han that 4♣ reopening its te right move and solves the problem.

[rhm]

Fluffy, on Oct 26 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

rhm, on Oct 26 2009, 11:47 AM, said:

dburn, on Oct 25 2009, 10:38 PM, said:

East bid 5♣. Was that a mistake?

I consider 5♣ a mistake. Sign off at 4NT with this minimum, if not playing minorwood.

You might disagree, but I find that bidding 4NT again is hopeless and must be based on ♣QJxx or alike. You already showed minimum with 3NT, you cannot bid 4NT to show the same hand again without a big reason. Partner is unlimited.

3NT after minor suit agreement does not limit your hand very well. It just says 9 tricks may be easier than 11 or more with something suitable in the unbid suits.

I like to play 4NT natural in minor suit slam auctions, showing a slam unsuitable hand.
But whatever you play, you should have a bid to deny interest in slam when partner makes another try over 3NT.

In the context of a previous force to game bid I consider East's hand as slam unsuitable.

Change the East hand a little, e.g. change the two major suit queens to the ace of ♥ and a small ♠.

This hand would still be minimum for a game forcing 2♦ but more suitable for slam and slam would in fact be reasonable.

I know of course that 5♣ more or less denied the ace of ♥, but he could have had the ace of ♦ instead.
Anyway bidding 5♣ with this hand is just asking for trouble.
It is true that opener is unlimited, but this is no good reason to cooperate. If that is all West needs for slam he will bid slam over any action by East.

Rainer Herrmann

[dburn]

Is East supposed to rebid other than 3NT with:

♠xx ♥Qxx ♦AKxxx ♣Axx ?

If so, what is he supposed to rebid, and why?

(Memo to self: asking hanp a question is a mistake. I knew this, but I had forgotten.)

[andy_h]

The auction should probably go along the lines of
4♣-4♦
4♥-4♠/5♣
and thereafter West has an obvious bid of 5♦ lacking so many keycards.

Hmm having thought about it more, I think East should just bid 4NT (regressive) over 4♣. I'm having trouble making up hands where West is 5-2-4-2 (due to no splinter) with ♣K (and still requires a heart control) that make slam good excluding the hands that would still move on after a regressive 4NT.

I'm assuming 2♦ is a style where it's almost always a 5card suit (with prototypes of 3442 would start with 2♣) since if it can be 4, then there are some 6-4 hands where West would bid 3♦ rather than a splinter.

[ONEferBRID]

In GF minor auctions, I agree with rhm.... you need Minorwood ( 4D!)or Redwood( 4H!) in this auction when you reject 3NT. Mixed Cuebids are not going to tell you that you are off 2 key cards.

[JLOL]

dburn, on Oct 26 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

(Memo to self: asking hanp a question is a mistake. I knew this, but I had forgotten.)

LOL