Guest Jlall Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 With no agreements, 2 players decided to play a team match. They perpetrated the following auction. Hand A: QKQxAKT98xQJx Hand B: AKxAxxJxxAK98 Hand A deals. 1D-1H2C-2S3H-4C4D-4S5N-7Cp What are some thoughts on 1H, 2C, 5N, 7C, and pass? This contract was not without play, but clubs were 5-1 with the stiff ten. Declarer recognizing that he could make if the hand with 5 clubs (RHO) had 3 diamonds to the queen hooked the diamond playing for an unlikely 1-1 in the minors on his left, and went down 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 in my 2/1 FD file the bidding would go 1d : 2c3d : 4nt5h : 5nt6h : 7d 3d=16+ playing points, 6+ card suit i don't see a convincing auction playing 2/1.. some type of relay always seems better for these hands 1h is ok, i just prefer (if i have to lie) setting the gf immediately... i don't like 2c by opener, prefer 3d... what was 5nt? and pass over 7c looks clear, but 7c itself doesn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 I don't like 1H, especially in a partnership without agreements it seems much better to bid the straightforward 2C. I like 2C, although it's probably the call that was responsible for the bad result. I don't care for 2S, but you didn't ask for a comment. (I'd bid 4C) 5NT (pick a slam) seems a good idea. I'm not sure how else you can rescue yourself from this mess. If this is a somewhat serious team match then I don't like 7C. You have a messy auction and no agreements, I would refrain from bidding the grand. However, if this was a fairly random BBO team match then I'm all for 7C! Nice line in 7C. 6C looks interesting after you discover the 5-1 club break. It seems like you need to cash 1 diamond and 3 rounds of hearts before you play a diamond to the king. If west started with 4-3-1-5 distribution you still make because RHO ends up ruffing a loser (of course you also makes if west has 2 diamonds). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 Jimmy, you try for 7 missing the diamond queen?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 That's funny, Jimmy likes 1H and dislikes 2C, I'm just the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 I don't care for 2S, but you didn't ask for a comment. (I'd bid 4C) The bidder probably didn't want to play 4C :P I've never heard of this as forcing, maybe it's gerber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 That's funny, Jimmy likes 1H and dislikes 2C, I'm just the other way around. actually i said the opposite... i'd said 1h was ok but i prefer 2c.. as for 7d missing the queen (given opener's 3d bid over 2c), it looks like a decent shot to me though it could be wrong... barry crane rule # 205: don't bid a grand at teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalvan14 Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 1♥ is clearly masterminding. Why bid a 3-card suit with such a strong hand, and with the obvious 2♣ bid available? The obvious answer is that advancer is looking for 3N, and is trying to interdict a heart lead; IMHO, this means go out of your way to look for trouble. 2♣ is ok with me, since I have a good fit in hearts. I'd not bid 7 withjout the ♦Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 I don't play any sort of ace-asking in minor suit auctions, so I admit I'd just bid 1D - 2C3D - 4D4NT (discouraging, nothing to cue bid) - 5NT (GSF)6NT (2 of the top 3 honours) - Pass OK, I admit I sneaked in special responses to GSF instead. I hate the 1H response.I'm not fond of the 2C rebid, though I had it less (I would just rebid 3D over 1H if I wasn't playing a bid to show a 3-6). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 I think 1♥ was really a terrible call. Why distort your hand when you have a natural 2♣ available? If partner raises hearts, you're likely to end in an awful strain (4-3 doesn't play so well when the 3 hand is flat). Opener's 2♣ rebid is unclear of course, but this is a real problem hand. Bid 3♦ and you miss the hearts, bid 2♦ or 2♥ and you miss game. I think 2♣ was the least of evils. Note that this grand is pretty good if responder holds: AxAxxxxxAKxxx or even AKxAxxxxxAKxx On the other hand, if we give opener something more like the expected hand: QKQxAKxxxQJxx There is still a serious problem with the third diamond... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 Few comments here: I really dislike the 2♣ rebid. I think that its wrong on both shape and strength.Playing in a pick up partnership, I prefer to be able to limit my hand as quickly as possible. Accordingly, I would probably open a slight heavy 1NT in order to get the hand off my chest. I think that this bid positions me better than the probable 1♦ - 1♠ auction. I'm also not especially fond of the 1♥ advance. While 1♥ is a nice cheap bid, this usually isn't a bid where I like to distort my shape. I reluctantly need to bid 2♣ here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Accordingly, I would probably open a slight heavy 1NT in order to get the hand off my chest. I think that this bid positions me bext over the probable 1♠ advance. On the contrary Richard, you'd be very badly positioned. Also, if you think that 1♠ is probable over 1NT then you are playing with the wrong partners. Seriously now, I think that 1NT is too much of a distortion on this hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 1♦: Flawless.1♥: Wouldn't do so myself, instead an unimaginative 2♣. Isn't the worst bid of the auction by far though.2♣: Sorry can't like that. Prefer 3♦ myself. It's that Bridge World Death hand again, but I still prefer bidding something I have over something don't have.2♠: 4th suit forcing. Okay.3♥: Secondary ♥ support. Okay.4♣: Partner bid my longest suit naturally, time to support it.4♦: I don't want to play ♣ - taken as cuebid no doubt.4♠: Cuebid - does not want to play 4♥ :)5NT: This is an overbid. I prefer 5♦ and hope partner will figure out that I have the BWD hand. Remember that according to partner I have already made a cue bid. 7♣: 4 - 4 fits are great.Pass: Endplayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalvan14 Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Sorry, guys, I've to disagree. Allowing for 1♥ being a normal bid [and pard being not high on something], the 2♣ rebid by opener is the most flexible and practical bid, IMHO. 3♦ would crowd the bidding, and reduce the chances to discover the [likely] 5-3 fit in hearts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 On the contrary Richard, you'd be very badly positioned. Also, if you think that 1♠ is probable over 1NT then you are playing with the wrong partners. I was referring to a 1♠ response over a 1♦ opening... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 I'm not a real fan of a 1NT opening on this hand. In fact I don't think you have a real rebid problem over 1♠ (either of 3♦ or 2NT seems okay to me). Opening 1NT simultaneously distorts strength and shape. For example: JTxxJxxQxxKxx It would never occur to me to invite on this hand, but it seems like 3NT is excellent. xxxxxAxxxxxKx I'd probably transfer and pass on this hand, but 5♦ requires only diamonds 2-1 while 2♠ will go down if spades are 5-2. Perhaps some folks who don't transfer as automatically as I do would pass this hand and play 1NT (making if spades 5-2, with an overtrick if spades 4-3). In any case you're not likely to get to the top spot of 5♦ after a 1NT open. xxxxAxxQxxAKx Nice hand, but not a slam try over 15-17 balanced. I'd bid 3NT (the only other option being stayman followed by 3NT). In any case, 3NT goes down if spades are lead and break 5-3, whereas 6♦ is a virtual lock. I just don't see a lot of hands where you win by opening 1NT here. Any time partner transfers to spades you're likely to be in the wrong spot, and you can easily miss games or slams. I can understand opening 1NT on a three-suited pattern short in spades (avoid rebid problems) or with a really yucky six card suit and points in the short suits, but not with a long rebiddable suit like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 I'm not sure what the extent of "no agreements" is, but the hand might be fairly easy in SAYC. Over 1D the bid is 2NT. This is forcing and usually 13-15 but it could also, as here, be a balanced hand that is too strong for 1D-3NT (16-17) i.e about what the hand is. So the auction begins 1D-2NT-3D to show the unbalanced hand. A reasonable continuation would be 1D-2NT3D-3S3NT-4D Over 3S opener relaxes about spades and bids NT, expecting to play. When 3NT is pulled to diamonds opener realizes that responder has the strong version (suggesting NT then pulling the NT is strong in anyone's system). It's hardly certain this hand belongs in 7 of anything, but they should now be able to judge about where they are and either settle for six or take a somewhat informed gamble at seven. Many bad things are said about SAYC, probably with some logic. But if two players are going to sit down and play "without agreements", agreeing SAYC, as written, has its merits. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 I like their bidding a lot, I doubt I could do it any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Playing SAYC or 2/1 thingies without this forcing 2NT that no one knows about you start with 1♦ 2♣3♦ 4♦ and you'll find your way somewhere good. On the other hand if everyone keeps bidding 3-card suits you should not be surprised you end up playing in one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.