rogerclee

low club, thought this was really clear

2n

LOL

I would not get to slam.

That is funny, I think these books are absolutely terrible, along with the main Hardy text. They are just a random mash of conventions that Hardy likes, with cherry-picked example hands to demonstrate their merits. Every example hand or problem in the book is chosen to be painfully obvious, there are no interesting judgment calls of any kind. Also, the tradeoffs involving each convention are not even addressed. Furthermore, many ideas he has are outdated, and newer developments (like two-way NMF or XYZ for example) are not even covered in his yellow book. Most importantly, though they are marketed as 2/1 books, the majority of all of these books has nothing to do with a basic 2/1 framework. In fact, very little detail goes into 2/1 fundamentals, and like I said, it is just a random collection of conventions with mediocre explanations. The books are also just very dry and boring to read. These are the kinds of books that can hold an aspiring bridge player back for years, and I feel bad for anyone who has made the mistake of studying these books with any level of seriousness. There is a reason Hardy never achieved any meaningful level of distinction as a player.

This sort of hand is a common problem, most people just bid 2♥. As a side note, this is why players are always talking about the advantages of bidding 2♣ over 1♦ (and 2♦ over 1♣).

Yes, I do.

yes

I would bid 3♠ - 4♠ 5♣ - 5♠ Pass I changed my mind, I won't bid slam if partner can't cuebid either red suit after 5♣. Sorry about not giving the problem enough thought the first time around.

A friend of mine recently told me about this hand: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sqxhqj9xdq86ck87x&s=saxxhaxxdj5caqtxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You open 1NT, hear 2♣ on the left (single suited), and partner raises to 3N. Lead is the ♦2 (attitude) to your RHO's ♦7. Your opponents are strong experts.

We were always playing for some kind of impossible layout at this point.

3♠, 5♣, will drive to slam.

Wow, would never bid 3♦ with those cards.

2♦ = 14-16 with minors. I wasn't sold, but I thought it was a solid effort.

LOL

Out of curiosity, what shape(s) are the above four posters playing RHO to be on? 2551? 2650?

Yes, I think so.

I think I have too many hearts to do this.

I would suggest that after 3♣-3♦, play 3♥ is any shortness (with 3♠ asks) to free up room for more common hands (like 6322 and 5332). I would also suggest that you keep 4-level bids to show a good 5-card side suit with extras. To answer the original question, yes, it is diamond shortness. There is nothing really wrong with the SAYC Jacoby 2N structure, but it can clearly be improved upon. That said, if you are an intermediate player, I don't think it's worth the memory strain (at all).

and when partner bids 3♦? or 2NT or 3NT or 3♣ or forces to slam? I actually didn't notice I had 12 cards, but I'm pretty sure I'm still bidding 2♥. I'm playing this hand in hearts with all likelihood.

2h

Out of curiousity, what tool do you have to do that? Texas and then 5♣? I just don't have something like that in my bidding system, but it sounds like it might be useful... 2♥, 4♣ is standard. A growing trend is to play that 2♥, 3♥ in this auction shows a spade single suiter and unspecified shortness, and I happen to play this in most of my partnerships.

I show spades with club shortness and don't consider this to be a problem. Trying to get to a diamond fit can work, but in my opinion it is just less effective.

I think north had a very close decision, but I would bid only 3♠, for reasons cited by Josh. It is easy to be excited about being 5-5 in the majors, but in reality, the hand is also just not very good. Missing game is not a disaster. South should not move towards slam with his hand, he knows that his hand is very unsuitable for this despite its massive HCP. On top of this, there is a significant risk of the hand starting with ♦A and a ruff. I have sympathy for North's bidding even though I wouldn't have made the same bid. I think South's bidding was clearly wrong, so I would say the blame is something like 20/80.

I held a hand very similar to this in Beijing, not behind screens. I thought for a long time and bid 3NT, which was a losing action then. I'm glad to note that I made my call in tempo this time.