[frouu]

Scoring: IMP

2♣-pass - 2♦*-4♣
??

*GF

---

I got this hand from past bidding polls of ACBL...
Can someone explain why 4♠ didn't get the top reward?

[PhantomSac]

frouu, on Feb 4 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

2♣-pass - 2♦*-4♣
??

*GF

---

I got this hand from past bidding polls of ACBL...
Can someone explain why 4♠ didn't get the top reward?

Nope, couldn't tell you.

[Siegmund]

I would guess -- and this IS fishing for an explanation of an unexpected score -- that people figured there'd be no losers in clubs, and that partner's GF response ought to including one working card in the red suits, making 6 more likely than not to succeed.

At this vulnerability I think it's very optimistic to count on overcaller for an 8-card suit and on partner for good enough spades to ruff the club losers even if LHO is also out of clubs. If responder likes his hand THAT much he can still move over 4S - and if he really has good spades and a single club he should.

[hotShot]

You are already in an GF auction and you are stronger than partner can expect.
Bidding game will end the auction. Going slow should show strength.
It would be nice to know about partners shape. We can assume/hope that partner is short in ♣. Something like

Scoring: IMP

---

should not be asking to much from partners GF.
Bidding space is one of the problems to solve.
"dbl" would leave partner with the most space to left, but I suppose that could be penalty and get passed.

Unless partner forces to game with something like this.

Scoring: IMP

---

We could simply blast to 6♠.

[gwnn]

Loser count is for losers but you have 44444444

[helene_t]

I think the hand is too weak for pass followed by 4♠. Also, I am not sure if we get the 6-card across if we don't bid it now. Oh well, maybe the poll conditions were that we don't normally open 2- or 3-suited hands with 2♣ so you show a singlesuiter by pulling p's double, or 4♥.

Anyway, I think 4♠ is fine. Dbl could work but I think that should be a balanced hand.

[hotShot]

gwnn, on Feb 4 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

Loser count is for losers but you have 44444444

Is that an optimistic (only) 4 or a pessimistic (caution!) 4?

[gwnn]

I don't think Loser Count analysis addicts would like to bank on partner having 3 cover cards.

[hotShot]

The question is does the GF guarantee 2 cover cards?

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Feb 4 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

I don't think Loser Count analysis addicts would like to bank on partner having 3 cover cards.

He might have a stiff club and ♦Q.

[gwnn]

hotShot, on Feb 4 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

The question is does the GF guarantee 2 cover cards?

The answer is no.

[ArtK78]

In my opinion, 4♠ seems obvious. But an argument can be made for pass, then, over whatever action partner takes, bid 4♠. That might convey that you have a minimal 2♣ opening bid (subminimal in my opinion).

I find that this hand is a subminimal 2♣ opening. It has 4 losers, which exceeds the number of losers that I require for a 2♣ opening (3 losers or less in an unbalanced hand). However, I cannot see opening this hand 1♠, as it takes so little for 4♠ to be a claim, and you rate to have 9 tricks in hand in notrump opposite a zero count and 2 small spades.

The downside of bidding 4♠ directly is that partner, with two cover cards, may drive to slam and his two cover cards may not be enough for slam. The more I think about it, the more I like pass over 4♣ intending to bid 4♠ over whatever partner calls.

[hanp]

SUBMINIMAL??!

This hand is n



(will finish writing when recovered from shock)

[blackshoe]

Playing Romex, I would open this hand 1NT rather than 2♣. Playing SA or 2/1, I would open it 2♣ and absent interference rebid 4♠. With the interference, you can still bid 4♠, or you can pass and bid 4♠ later. The question is what the difference should be. I think pass and bid should show a better hand.

[jdonn]

Why would you not bid 4♠ now? Did it occur to anyone that if you pass and partner bids 4♥ and you bid 4♠ partner will (correctly) assume that you passed first to show you have spades and diamonds?

Subminimal?! You know it only takes 9 tricks to make game if you have all the suits stopped. Guess how many suits we have stopped and how many tricks we have?

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on Feb 4 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

Playing Romex, I would open this hand 1NT rather than 2♣. Playing SA or 2/1, I would open it 2♣ and absent interference rebid 4♠. With the interference, you can still bid 4♠, or you can pass and bid 4♠ later. The question is what the difference should be. I think pass and bid should show a better hand.

I agree with the initial sentence of this post entirely. The requirements for a 2♣ opening in Romex on an unbalanced hand is 3 losers or less. The requirements for a 1NT opening in Romex (Dynamic 1NT) is 4-5 losers and approximately 19-22 HCP. This hand falls within the parameters of the 1NT opening.

Having said that, I disagree with the second sentence. I think that an immediate 4♠ call shows an inflexible 2♣ opening based on a dominant suit, such as AKQxxxx or better. The pass followed by 4♠ should show a 2♣ opening based on a less dominant suit, such as AKQxxx or possibly worse, and some more flexibility in the final contract (i.e., some support for other suits). I don't believe that the distinction should be a better 2♣ opening or a worse 2♣ opening.

And to those who are shocked at using the term subminimal to describe this 2♣ opening, please note that I said that I see no alternative to opening 2♣ in standard bidding. I just want to point out that in the context of a 2♣ opening this is definitely at the bottom of the scale. I am not including in this discussion hands on which you intend to rebid 2NT, as those 2♣ openings are based solely on point count and not on trick taking potential.

[matmat]

ArtK78, on Feb 4 2010, 11:18 AM, said:

I just want to point out that in the context of a 2♣ opening this is definitely at the bottom of the scale.

Yes, you're right, if i apply the special secret formula where i give myself four points for an ace, three for a king, two for the queen and one for the knave, I come out with twenty-two. Now, since i cannot construct hands that contain twenty-one or twenty or nineteen high card points that I would open two clubs, or hands with fewer controls and fewer aces that i would do same with, this must be one of the worst hands ever to have been opened this new fangled strong, artificial two clubs. Definitely subminimal.

[jjbrr]

this thread is full of lols.

4♠ is 100% obvious.

lol@subminimal. This hand is way good.

[frouu]

I've realized the old ACBL bridge bullentins are also online and I just have found the bulletin that includes the detailed answers of the expert panel (April 2008).

Those who bid pass (9 votes, reward 100pts)

"Pass is forcing. We want to hear partner's bid. Free opportunity to learn something with no risk. If we bid 4♠, partner has nothing to cue bid since we have all the controls (????) "
"I want to hear what partner calls, If he doubles I will bid 4♠"
"I've got the boss suit, I can pass and not worry about being embarrassed trying to show my suit later. If my majors switched, I'd bid 4♥. If partner produces 4♦, I'll be looking for grand slam"
"Pass. If partner bids 4♦, the big upside of pass, a 5nt bid probes the question 6♦ or 7."
"I assume partner doesn't have good 5 card suit. SInce I am going to bid at least 6♠, I might as well see what partner has"
"If partner doubles, that tells me he has balanced hand, therefore, no shortness in spades, I'm going to get to slam."
"If partner doubles, I will settle for 4♠. If he bids something else, I can bid accordingly"
"2♦ GF gives you a chance to pass over 4♣ and perhaps bid more accurately at your next turn- a direct 4♠ will often end the auction.

Those who bid 4♠: (7votes, reward 50 pts)
"If partner can't move over 4♠, we can't have slam."
"Double should be distributional takeout, pass the more balanced hand"
"I need to clarify my 2♣ bid. Passing will only confuse partner as to my hand type. Double, whether meant as penalty or takeout, is a clear misstatement of this hand"
"4♠,even though, it is surely an underbid. Still how high do we wish to force when partner could have x Kxxxx Qxxxx xx."

I am still not convinced by pass bid. Good to see 4♠ is not insane

[rogerclee]

People who bid 4S: Jeff Meckstroth, Larry Cohen, Grant Baze, The Colchamiros, Mike Lawrence, Kerri Sanborn, Karen Walker

People who passed: The Stansbys, August Boehm, The Coopers, Allan Falk, Dick Freeman, Betty Ann Kennedy, Jill Meyers, Steve Robinson, the Sutherlins

I rest my case.