[twcho]

Scoring: IMP

---

NS playing precision and bidding went:
N - S
1♣-2♣
2♦-2♥
3♣-3♥
3♠-4♣
4♦-5♣
6♣
Only the first bid is artificial and other are more or less natural bid.
Who is at more fault? and which is the most terrible bid?

[mike777]

twcho, on Apr 27 2005, 09:55 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AQJ ♥ 74 ♦ KQ754 ♣ AKJ ♠ 72 ♥ KQJ8 ♦ 83 ♣ QT954

NS playing precision and bidding went:
N - S
1♣-2♣
2♦-2♥
3♣-3♥
3♠-4♣
4♦-5♣
6♣
Only the first bid is artificial and other are more or less natural bid.
Who is at more fault? and which is the most terrible bid?

hhm where to begin

Most bids after strong club are terrible
2c=bad
2d=bad
etc etc etc.

In fairness, one gets the impression you are both bidding some book, not some logical thought out system in real life.

[awm]

The worst bid in this auction is 6♣. I'm not enthusiastic about the 3♠ or 4♣ calls either. Going through bid by bid:

The strong club opening and 2♣ response are systemic. I suppose one could show a balanced hand with responder's cards, but with points in the suits 2♣ is fine. Opener's 2♦ is reasonable since there's no rush to bid notrump with xx in hearts and there could easily be a nine card diamond fit. 2♥ is fine of course. Opener's delayed support makes sense; opener could just bid 2NT here but 20 hcp is extra values even if it's pretty flat. But after 3♣, the 3♥ call should be a cuebid and should deny the diamond ace. I think all the bids up through this point are reasonable.

Opener's 3♠ cue is dubious. Partner has denied the diamond ace. In order to make slam good here, partner's going to need the ♣Q, ♥AK, and probably another card. Opener's already shown slam interest with 3♣ and I think it's reasonable to try 3NT at this point.

Responder can also bid 3NT here. Opener has shown cards in both of responder's weak suits, so 3NT rates to be an okay spot. With a dead minimum positive response that's already pretty much shown its shape and cards, a 3NT call here would let opener out of the auction.

So I think both partners were pushing by the time 4♣ was bid. At this point opener bids 4♦ as a further cue, and responder's 5♣ presumably denies both a second top heart and the spade king. I cannot imagine a hand that would make 6♣ more than 50%, and there are plenty of hands opposite which it has no play whatsoever. I'd rate the 6♣ call the worst of the auction.

[Double !]

Gee, the answer to the question depends so much on which version of precision you are playing. The bid I believe was most problematic was 3 spades, or else 3 clubs if not playing asking bids. At some point opener needed to make a descriptive NT bid IMO. There was no "most terrible bid". The most terrible thing was the partnership not having, at some point, limited one of the two hands during the bidding so the question of "How High?" the partnership could go never got clarified. But never dispair: my partnership once alerted an asking bid and explained it's meaning during a nationals, and then passed by accident---"oops". I hate ascribing fault because it is unproductive. Wouldn't it be more productive to sit down with partner, discuss what happened, where the partnership thinks things broke down, and come up with a conjoint solution rather than polling to ask whose fault was it?

[inquiry]

Ok, i will take a shot at the auction and try to figure out who is at fault. It seems to me that the auction was confused. North seemed like he was underbidding his hand and east looks like he was overbidding his.

1♣ = 16+, ok with 20 or so, I can find no fault with this bid.

2♣ = 8+ hcp, five+ suit. Well there is 8 hcp and five clubs, so technically it is the correct bid, but sometimes with 8 hcp and weak suit, you may not want to preempt the auction. I would not object to 1♦ here.

2♦ = long suit, no heart stopper, and no asking bids... ok, so two choices, 2♦ and 3♣. I like 2♦ here as there is no convient way to show the extra stregnth.

2♥ = sure.. that is where we live... this has to be the right bid at this point

3♣ = hmmm ok, does this deny ability to bid 2NT? What does bid diamonds then suppport show? I think 2NT here, planning to support clubs later at the four level is correct. Bidding 3CL now makes it impossible to bid 3NT later (will not show this much stuff.. But if you bid 2NT now to show NT as possible strain and then bid beyond 3NT when supporting clubs, you will convey the extra values here.

3♥ = gosh, i don't want to get too high..I wonder what 3♥ shows? cue-bid control? Five hearts thus six clubs? No easy bid? 3♣ by opener endplayed South {if opener can't bid NT, neither can south}. Look how easy it is if opner bids 2NT, responder bids 3NT, opener bids 4♣ as slam try, responder retreats to 4NT, end of auction.

3♠. I understand openers motive, with 20 points, he doesn't WANT to bid 3NT now... as responder will pass with lots of hand that make slam. But what is responder without a spade stopper (his 3♥ already denied that) suppose to do? HE will retreat to 4♣.. no useful infor sharing has occured.

4♦ opener cue-bids trying for slam

5♣ = I can't cue-bid hearts, spades, and I am weak.

6♣ what the heck, I planned on bidding 6♣ when I made the silly choices I did 3♣ and 3♠.

Reasonable auction everyone can live with

1C-2C
2D-2H
2N-3N
4C-4N
Pass

Opener has made his slam try and got to the right strain after all.

[pclayton]

If you are going to play precision, try transfer responses. My auction would go: 1C -1N (clubs) - 2C (controls?) - 2D (0-2)-2N (extras, but states not enough controls for slam-missing 4 to 6 ) - 3C (no shortness) - 3D(natural) - 3H (naturAl) - 3N.

[Fluffy]

3♥ or 3♣ got the problem

3♥ was too positive call, there has to be a way to show minimums when you are unlimited I dunno wich, but 3♥ obviously isn't.

3♣ leaves partner with a difficult call, if you bid 2NT partner can bid 3NT with a minimum.

[hrothgar]

twcho, on Apr 28 2005, 05:55 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

NS playing precision and bidding went:
N - S
1♣-2♣
2♦-2♥
3♣-3♥
3♠-4♣
4♦-5♣
6♣
Only the first bid is artificial and other are more or less natural bid.
Who is at more fault? and which is the most terrible bid?

"Precision" covers a lot of territory. In this case, we have no idea regarding what response structure the pair is using over 1♣. In particular, is the pair using asking bids or not?

With this said and done, 2♦ stands out as the worst bid. You have an 8 card fit, so set trump and investigate controls. (Your playing IMPS, so you can tolerate playing 5♣ rather than 3NT)

[mikestar]

Given that with your NT ranges this is a 1C opener, I like Ben's suggested auction by far the best - 2H over 2H gets across your balanced shape, the 4C over partner's 3N shows the club fit and slam interest--partner can reject and we're in a safe 4N.

However, I think that it is really necessary to take some of the strong balanced hands out of 1C via a natural 2NT or Multi (1C-1D-1H mini-Kokish can work if responder has a negative hand, but leaves the ranges over a positive wide.) In my regular Precision partnership this one would have gone 2N-3C-3D-3N. Responder could bid 4C rather than 3N with a better suit.

[Double !]

I disagree with one opinion that the 2 diamond bid was poor, especially if playing asking bids (which this pair was not playing). The problem was a partnership issue: not having decided which bid (for them) would have been stronger over 2 hearts, 2NT or 3NT. Different people play it different ways. If 2NT suggested extra values, then responder could make a minimum bid of 3NT and opener could decide if any further bidding is warranted as per Ben's suggested sequence. Failure to get the NT bid early and then continue exploration led to an impossible situation for responder, what to bid over 3C. (Actually, the 3Ht bid is correct playing gamma.) 3H sounded more like a default bid saying, "nothing more to say, and no spade stopper for 3NT. Next move up to you, P."

[HeartA]

I completely agree with Ben's analysis.

[PriorKnowledge]

I agree with awm's analysis. 2C, 2D, 2H and 3C are shape showing. The rest are q-bids. Once a suit has been agreed, especially a minor, you have to start your mixed q-bids. Although I think Ben is right that opener can bid 2N over 2H and try for slam over 3N, I think the actual bidding is better, because it can stop in 3N.

So 3H, 3S are mixed q-bids. So far it is OK. With nothing more to show and an absolute min positive response, responder should try for 3N instead of retreating to 4C. 4C denies a diam control, but should show a more distributional hand not suited for 3N. Then opener would give up.

Over 4C, opener has another chance and tries again with 4D and responder bids 5C, denying a 2nd heart control or a spade control.

Since Responder has denied a 2nd heart control and a spade control with 5C, opener knows that the hand has 2 major losers and could be off 2 aces. Responder denied a diam control with the 4C bid, so opener knows the hand has a diam loser. Oops.

Conclusion: The 6C bid is insane and the 4C bid is poor because it skipped 3N.

[pclayton]

I've never been able to figure out how a Precision pair can survive without some mechanism to convey relative strength while showing pattern.

The underlying principle in any 1C Auction should be: 1) find a fit 2) determine approximate strength 3) determine controls - overall or suit-specific and 4) place the contract.

This auction just basically hummed along until someone decided to stop bidding.