[mr1303]

Scoring: MP

---

1S 2C
2H 3D
3S 6NT

South's leap to 6NT was fairly criminal, but should North take any of the blame for opening an aceless 9 count?

What else should South bid at his third turn?

[gnasher]

I'd have opened the North hand, but it's probably not mainstream. I think North should rebid 2♠ rather than 2♥, because a 4-4 heart fit is unllikely to play well. However, South's final action was still ridiculous, and the obvious cause of the poor result.

I assume from the 3♦ bid that 2NT would have been non-forcing, and 3♦ was FSF. South has an awkward call over 3♠, because he's uncertain both about how many spades are opposite and about how high to go. I'd just bid 3NT, suggesting doubt about something, but aware that I hadn't really got my hand across.

[gwnn]

I think both players were highly crazy and it doesn't in practice matter how the crazinesses compare

[inquiry]

mr1303, on Jul 21 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

....(S)hould North take any of the blame for opening an aceless 9 count?

The answer to this question depends upon partnership agreement on what a minimum opening bid looks like. If they agree they can open hands like this (pick your method, this is "enough" Zar's for instance, although Zar himself would open this a weak two I think).

Quote

What else should South bid at his third turn?

The problem was his second bid. I give 75% South, 25% north (see below).

Well, I think we can all agree not to bid 6Nt, but even if you agree to open hands like north, I think ther was a mistake BEFORE South's bid as his second turn.

The first mistake on the hand is the 2♥ bid. When you open weak hands like this 1♠ the feature of the hand is spades... spades... spades. So north should have rebid 2♠. After the 2♠ rebid, south has to get across his slam interest, but before he can, he has to find the denomination. After spade-club-spade, only NT and black suits are in the picture. A reverse to 3♦ certainly tells the stregnth of the hand but clouds the denomination picture. First, it makes it inconvient for north to support clubs if he has a heart stopper. Second, it makes it difficult to determine if 2♠ was a catchall minimum or an actual 6 card plus suit.

Assuming 2♣ was gameforce, I like a 2NT rebid by south over 2♠. Now, opener has a chance to support clubs, bid 3NT himself, or show his hand is all about spades. Over 2NT, north now bids 3♥ south can show delayed spade support.

I also think South should bid 2NT over 2♥, fishing for a club raise, a heart rebid, or a spade rebid. North probably should bid 4♠ over this 2NT if that is somekind of I am terribly weak, sorry I opened, and have at least six spades kind of bid. Somehow I doubt that bid is possible here.

Once spades are set up as trumps (by whatever method), then blackwood would avoid 6♠ now all you have to do is make 5♠.

So, ok, north 2♥ rebid was wrong (slightly). I am not found of the 4th suit by responder (3♦) as it is misdirected, not bad, but misdirected. Clearlly on the auctual auction, north needs to rebid spades now. Over 3♠ by north, now south has a rebid problem. And this is where the question of what he should bid comes in. 3NT is an underbid, what is a 4NT bid? Quantitative? If so it is about right, except the hands belongs in spades. And I think the spade rebid now, emphases spades. The timing of that is wrong, because with a hand about spades and WEAK you would not bid 2H (see above). So in my mind, once north shows long spades but he didn't rebid them at first, he is showing at least something more than a minimum. I guess if I had to pull a bid out of my hat over 3♠ on your auction, the bid I would make is 5♠ inviitational, ending the auction. (4♠ wouldn't be forcing, 4 of a minor would not help, so process of elimination is 5♠). If 4NT is "blackwood for you" over this 3♠ bid, then bid 4NT.

So I rate this hand as 75% South (3D - 5%, 6NT - 70%) and 25% North (2H). However, in my mind, North directed the hand down the road to disaster by opening light/rebidding 2♥ instead of 2♠.

Two reasoanble auction might be (if you open 1S this light).

1S - 2C
2S - 2N
4S - Pass (4S very weak in this game force auction even for a 2S response)

1s - 2C
2S - 2N
3H - 3S
4S - 4N
5C - 5S
Pass

(or better pass 4S).

[the hog]

gwnn, on Jul 22 2010, 05:54 AM, said:

I think both players were highly crazy and it doesn't in practice matter how the crazinesses compare

Yes indeed. North has a pass or a 2S opening and South is off with the nuckalavees.

[Cyberyeti]

This is all south's fault, as the slam is still terrible opposite Axxxxx, KQxx, Q, Kx.

Presumably 3♦ is FG and south has no idea whether N has a good or bad hand, is there a case for N bidding 4♠ rather than 3 to show a bad hand with 6 spades ? I don't play 4th suit FG, so am not sure what the standard responses are in this case.

[whereagles]

mr1303, on Jul 21 2010, 09:10 PM, said:

1. South's leap to 6NT was fairly criminal,

2. but should North take any of the blame for opening an aceless 9 count?

3. What else should South bid at his third turn?

1. That was very mild.. lol

2. No. Give him ♥K on top and you're still 2 aces off

3. 4♠. Go for the sure plus and let pard, who is yet somewhat unlimited, do the slamming if he wants. Besides, in some 2/1 variations the 3♦ bid already has a tendency to show some extras.

[ArtK78]

I don't know whether this particular pair has any special agreements (such as which room at the asylum South prefers for his frequent visits), but I can say that the sequence of bids that North chose to show his 6-4 in the majors shows a very good hand in standard bidding. He should have an above-average opening hand, typically 15-17 HCP or the equivalent along with 6-4 shape.

With a minimum 6-4 hand, it is normal to bid spades twice before introducing hearts (assuming you need or want to do so).

Obviously, with a subminimum opening, North should have chosen the weaker of the two approaches. And, having chosen the stronger approach, South's 6NT bid, while still wildly optimistic, is somewhat more understandable.

[Free]

North doesn't have an opening imo, what a pile of garbage!

South probably thought with 6-4 and minimum opener should rebid 2♠ first and 3♥ later.

They deserve each other.

[the hog]

Free, on Jul 23 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

North doesn't have an opening imo, what a pile of garbage!

South probably thought with 6-4 and minimum opener should rebid 2♠ first and 3♥ later.

They deserve each other.

I have never seen Art's interpretation of extra strength by bidding 6-4s before either. Is this common practice amongst some?

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Jul 23 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

I have never seen Art's interpretation of extra strength by bidding 6-4s before either. Is this common practice amongst some?

It's a common interpretation if rebidding the first suit would be non-forcing and limited, and the second suit would be unlimited. For example, after 1♦-1♠, I'd bid 2♦ with a minimum 6-4 in the minors, because I'd rather play 2♦ than 2♣, 3♣ or 3♦. Hence 1♦-1♠;2♣-2NT;3♦ must be a non-minimum.

In the originally posted auction, if 2♣ was game-forcing, I don't see any reason that it should apply here. If 2♣ was forcing only to 2♠, you could make the same argument.

But in any case I don't think it should apply to this auction, because I don't think opener's 3♠ promises 6-4.

[Free]

The_Hog, on Jul 23 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

Free, on Jul 23 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

North doesn't have an opening imo, what a pile of garbage!

South probably thought with 6-4 and minimum opener should rebid 2♠ first and 3♥ later.

They deserve each other.

I have never seen Art's interpretation of extra strength by bidding 6-4s before either. Is this common practice amongst some?

I also haven't see this before, but I just read it in another thread

[the hog]

gnasher, on Jul 23 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 23 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

I have never seen Art's interpretation of extra strength by bidding 6-4s before either. Is this common practice amongst some?

It's a common interpretation if rebidding the first suit would be non-forcing and limited, and the second suit would be unlimited. For example, after 1♦-1♠, I'd bid 2♦ with a minimum 6-4 in the minors, because I'd rather play 2♦ than 2♣, 3♣ or 3♦. Hence 1♦-1♠;2♣-2NT;3♦ must be a non-minimum.

In the originally posted auction, if 2♣ was game-forcing, I don't see any reason that it should apply here. If 2♣ was forcing only to 2♠, you could make the same argument.

But in any case I don't think it should apply to this auction, because I don't think opener's 3♠ promises 6-4.

Thanks.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Jul 23 2010, 03:36 AM, said:

Free, on Jul 23 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

North doesn't have an opening imo, what a pile of garbage!

South probably thought with 6-4 and minimum opener should rebid 2♠ first and 3♥ later.

They deserve each other.

I have never seen Art's interpretation of extra strength by bidding 6-4s before either. Is this common practice amongst some?

It is my understanding as well, and i posted before Art... now if it is standard, i don't know, but I open piles of junk like this myself, and one has to learn to throw out an anchor or get too high....