Deep into the auction

[Echognome]

So

 

1♦   1♥

1♠   2♣

2♦   2♠ is the start for me

This is exactly how partner said he would have liked to bid it, except was worried that I'd pass 2♠. I think that worry should have been less than the total confusion he would cause by bidding 3♣.

[pclayton]

At the table, I considered many of the suggestions above. I thought about 3NT, but it didn't sound like partner was angling toward 3NT the way he was bidding. Seemed time to mention my club support. Like Mike, I wanted to bid 5♣ just to slow down the auction. However, in these type of muddled auctions, I don't like to cross up partner's intentions. Thus, 4♣ it was.

 

The next bid that hit the table was 6♠! Mind you that we hadn't discussed much in terms of system (e.g. XYZ would have been sensible), partner went a bit off the deep end on this hand. He held:

 

♠K9xx ♥AKQxxx ♦--- ♣KQx.

 

His worry on the hand was that fourth suit was not game forcing, but rather forcing one round. I can certainly sympathize with that, but I felt 3♣ was really misguided. Anyway, this isn't a hand to win the post mortem (partner knew as much immediately), but rather an interesting bidding problem in its own right. Many pairs got too high on this board.

Two red suits headed by the AKQ facing voids. Truly ugly!

 

I have played in partnerships where the 4th suit isn't game forcing. It is always forcing on Opener, however.

 

A semi-standard 2/1 sequence:

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♠

3♦ - 3♥

4♦ - 4♥

4♠ - Pass (?)

 

A sequence with a little science sprinkled in:

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 3♠

3N - 4♣

4♦ - 4♥

4♠

 

3N is frivolous and 4♥ is last train. Opener has denied the A♣, has shown massive duplication opposite responder's ♦ void, has passed up the ability to make a slam try (via last train) and hasn't cooperated over last train. Opener must really have a dog.

 

I think this is a very sensible sequence. Yes I can see that 4♥ is probably a better spot than 4♠, but thats life :D

[Winstonm]

The one aspect of this auction left undiscussed and a stand out to me is the mental adjustments one has to make to accomodate light openings, especially in non-club bidding structures. This auction appears more like two styles at work - a light opening style verses someone who believes more beef is needed. Sure, the big hand overbid regardless, but if he couldn't visualize a hand this light he must have place the opening hand on a minimum of QJxx of spades perhaps.

 

The argument of which style is best is not one I wish to pursue, as both can work well if the partnership is in harmony.

 

MikeH is right in his auction with weak opening to use: 1D-1H-1S-2C-2D-2S.

 

Another auction with different players might start: P-1H-2D-2S-3S.

 

The key issue is that in any suit slam auction, the first criteria to assess is trumps and weak trumps would lead me to bid 4S in auctions 1 and 2.

[mikeh]

A sequence with a little science sprinkled in:

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 3♠

3N - 4♣

4♦ - 4♥

4♠

 

3N is frivolous and 4♥ is last train. Opener has denied the A♣, has shown massive duplication opposite responder's ♦ void, has passed up the ability to make a slam try (via last train) and hasn't cooperated over last train. Opener must really have a dog.

 

I think this is a very sensible sequence. Yes I can see that 4♥ is probably a better spot than 4♠, but thats life :D

don't try this with me...or anyone with whom I have played: they'd pass 3♠ at the speed of light. 3♠ cannot logically be forcing if you play 4SF...you need an invitational bid.

[pclayton]

A sequence with a little science sprinkled in:

 

1♦ - 1♥

1♠ - 3♠

3N - 4♣

4♦ - 4♥

4♠

 

3N is frivolous and 4♥ is last train. Opener has denied the A♣, has shown massive duplication opposite responder's ♦ void, has passed up the ability to make a slam try (via last train) and hasn't cooperated over last train. Opener must really have a dog.

 

I think this is a very sensible sequence. Yes I can see that 4♥ is probably a better spot than 4♠, but thats life  :D

don't try this with me...or anyone with whom I have played: they'd pass 3♠ at the speed of light. 3♠ cannot logically be forcing if you play 4SF...you need an invitational bid.

I should have mentioned 3♠ was forcing; as in an XYZ framework.