Slam on a misfit?

[blackshoe]

[hv=d=e&v=n&w=sxhxdaxxxxxcjxxxx&e=sakxxhakjtxxdqcax]266|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Bidding, playing Standard American (not SAYC, btw) opponents passing:

 

2♣-2♦-2♥-3♦-3♥-4♣-4NT-5♣ (1 key card for clubs)-5♠-6♣-all pass

 

Several errors here, on both sides, I think. How might the hands have been better bid?

[kenrexford]

IMO, the problem started with the 2♣ opening. The "21 HCP's" analysis is a stretch at best, as the stiff diamond Queen is hardly carrying full weight. Handling two-suited hands like this might be easy if partner bids 2♦, but you have a real problem after 2♥, if that is double negative. In any event, it seems a tad rich.

 

My preferred auction would start with 1♥. Responder bids 1NT, probably, although a pass is arguable (and perhaps successful). After 1NT, Opener reverses to 2♠, probably yielding a 2NT (or 3♣) call, whichever is your weakness-indicating option. After 3♥ from Opener, Responder probably does best to bury his control (because of the stiff, non-face-card heart) and sign-off at 4♥.

[pbleighton]

I agree with Ken.

 

Peter

[david_c]

You can get to a sensible contract by:

 

(i) Opening 1♥ instead of 2♣; or

(ii) East bidding 3♠ instead of 3♥; or

(iii) West raising 3♥ to 4♥ instead of bidding 4♣.

 

But in each case the bid actually chosen doesn't seem terribly bad to me.

 

But the wheels really seem to have come off at the point East bid 4NT. Did he think 4♣ was a cue for hearts perhaps? If 4♣ is natural as West intended then East has nothing approaching a 4NT bid. It's not completely clear what 4NT should mean if 4♣ is natural, but whatever it is, East hasn't got it. 4♥ is the bid, and would have ended the auction in a good contract.

[blackshoe]

So do I (I was West). B)

 

Partner argued that she had been taught that she should open 2♣ in borderline cases if she would really hate to be passed out at the one level. She does have more quick tricks than losers, another criterion in favor of 2♣. And I think she was induced to ask for keycards by my 4♣ bid. Perhaps I should have bid 4♥, or even passed 3♥.

 

If we're going to play in hearts, I have one cover card, and after a one level opening and a reverse, partner can't have enough to make slam likely, so I agree with signing off in 4♥ after 1♥-1NT-2♠-2NT-3♥ - which is how our auction would have gone had she opened 1♥. Certainly a case could be made for passing after 1♥ with my hand, in Standard American, but with 6-5 in the minors, I wouldn't.

 

The real problem, IMO, is that we weren't playing Romex. B)

[blackshoe]

Heh. Yeah, 4NT wasn't so good. B) She took me for the minors, but for some reason thought I had a better hand. B)

[neilkaz]

If I know that we have some decent methods over 2♣ I have no real preference between 1♥ and 2♣ since my 21 HCP control rich 1♥ bid may be passed out by hands that can make game. In SA after 1♥-1♠ my hand is too good to just jump to 4♠ so I have to invent a jump shift of 3♣ and then hope things work out.

 

That being said, most SA players have such poor methods after 2♣ that I'd find no fault in opening 1♥ here and then rebidding 2♠ over any NT or minor suit response.

 

The wheels really shouldn't have fallen off in this 2♣ auction playing SA (I'll assume 2♦ waiting (YUCK!!))

 

OK so after 2♣-2♦ the 2♥ rebid is obvious as is the 3♦ response since this hand is not a double negative. The 3♥ rebid shows really good ♥ and I prefer it to 3♠ with this min hand since responder could have bid 2♠ rather than 3♦ with a few cards in ♠.

 

Responder's call of 4♣ is absolutely awful opposite what is at least a very good 6 card ♥ suit and holding only 1 useful card (his ace). Responder should clearly try to end the auction in 4♥ and on a good day the opps don't lead trumps and a ♠ may be ruffed if needed to make the contract or an OT.

 

After 4♣ opener then falls in love with his min 2♣ opening hand and bids 4NT. Clearly he has little idea of what responder holds (as is so usual due to poor methods after opening 2♣) and if he thinks 4♣ is a Q bid supporting ♥, why did he later bid 6♣ ? Perhaps it is the sillyness of the double negative that could have been bid with 3♣ that fools opener into thinking responder has better ♣ ? Anyhow...he should've just rebid 4♥ or if he felt , as is certainly reasonable, responder had more than he does, 4♠ is the next bid towards a possible slam.

 

Blame here... 85% to responder for a very bad 4♣ bid and 15% to opener for pressing towards slam with what looks like a very min 2♣ opener and a clear missfit.

 

Note that my blame assumes that the pushy 2♣ opening is OK and only assigns blame in the subsequent auction after 2♣.

[neilkaz]

So do I (I was West). B)

 

Partner argued that she had been taught that she should open 2♣ in borderline cases if she would really hate to be passed out at the one level. She does have more quick tricks than losers, another criterion in favor of 2♣. And I think she was induced to ask for keycards by my 4♣ bid. Perhaps I should have bid 4♥, or even passed 3♥.

 

If we're going to play in hearts, I have one cover card, and after a one level opening and a reverse, partner can't have enough to make slam likely, so I agree with signing off in 4♥ after 1♥-1NT-2♠-2NT-3♥ - which is how our auction would have gone had she opened 1♥. Certainly a case could be made for passing after 1♥ with my hand, in Standard American, but with 6-5 in the minors, I wouldn't.

 

The real problem, IMO, is that we weren't playing Romex. B)

Again, I find nothing wrong with your partner's 2♣ even though it is a bare min.

 

You really cannot pass 3♥ since your 3♦ bid not showing a double negative is supposed to be game forcing.

 

Just bid 4♥ ending the auction unless PD has a monster hand. She knows you have minimal support since you didn't bid ♥ last turn.

 

She should have at least a very good 6 carder to rebid her suit and, IMHO she does.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[whereagles]

2♣ 2♦

2♥ 3♦

3♠ 3NT

PASS

[neilkaz]

2♣ 2♦

2♥ 3♦

3♠ 3NT

PASS

This auction is very good, also and gets to 4♠ when right and 3NT may play better than 4♥. This also makes it blatantly clear to responder that the hands are missfit.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[HeartA]

I am OK with 2C opening. The worst bid is 4C, followed by 4NT, the third worst is 6C. North bid 2H and 3H, South got no reason believing 6C was better than 6H (North showed 2 majors with 6+ hearts).

 

BTW, I like whereagles' sequence with one amendment: I would correct 3NT to 4H as North.

[blackshoe]

I already (with partner) took most of the blame, but thanks for corroborating that. :P

 

I agree with Senshu that opener should correct 3NT to 4♥ in that auction.

 

I didn't see anything wrong with 2♣ either, although two very good players in the club suggested it wasn't the best opening.

 

I bid 6♣ because I could see that 5NT wasn't gonna work, and I figured partner could correct to 6♦ or 6♥. She, unfortunately, didn't think of that. I'll take the blame for that, too.

 

I'm aware that 3♦ in the original auction is game forcing - but given the trend towards weaker and weaker "game forcing" 2♣ openings (I once saw a player open 2♣ on 8 spades headed by AKQJ and a side singleton) I wouldn't be surprised to see someone pass 3♥ in that auction, which is why I mentioned it. Absent a "senior moment", I wouldn't pass 3♥.

 

4♣ should show slam interest. I overlooked that when I bid it. :(