a sub-optimal contract

[temp3600]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sjt9863hj2da98ca5&s=sha75dkt7642ckqj6]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

My partner and I had this unsatisfying sequence :

1♦    1♠

2♣    3♠

 P

 

What do you think of each of these calls, and how would you have bid these two hands?

Also, would you do something different at IMPS?

 

Thanks!

[HeartA]

1D, 1S and 2D are normal calls. South's final pass was also fine (what can you do?). I think 3S was wrong. I would bid 3D (or even 2H) over 2C. South, marked with at least 5-4, would bid 3S over 3D if he has 3 spades or even Hx.

[inquiry]

Well three bids are demonstratably correct. Surely 1♦-1♠-2♣ all have to be 100% correct.

 

So that brings us to 3♠ and pass. Since 6♦ is odds on (pitch heart on third club, ruff two hearts in dummy) we just have to assume one or both of these bids is, er, less than ideal.

 

The definition of the 3♠ jump seems to come close to fitting this hand. Six card spade suit, game invite values (10-11). The problem is the spades are too weak, and the two fitting aces are pretty strong. I have sympathy for 3♠ especially if 2♥ (4th suit forcing) is played as game forcing. I am also extremely sympathetic for the pass of 3♠, after all on misfits, it is often best to get out of the auction as soon as possible.

 

But here is the rub: this is not a misfit, there is a very nice diamond fit with very little wasted value. That suggest a possible different auction that requires little more than treating the jack high six card suit as a five card suit. Here, a jump to 3♦ showing invitational values with diamond support would work wonders. Sometimes support with support works just like it should. Of course, this problem is complicated by being at matchpoints where you might not want to give so quickly the idea of playing in a major over a minor. But if you do treat this as a five card spade suit, you will do well, something like...

 

1D-1S

2C-3D

3H-4C

6D-Pass

 

(of course if you can use kickback, minorwood or blackwood after the 4♣ cue bid as well).

[the hog]

I agree totally with Ben here, though to be honest I feel there is no way I would have reached 6D. I would have been happy to reach 5.

[kenrexford]

This is a problematic hand. However, it offers good arguments for some alternative theories.

 

The first that comes to mind is the merits of only opening 1♦ with an unbalanced hand, usually with a stiff or void somewhere. If, however, a 5-4-2-2 minor two-suiter is allowed, this is no solution. If a stiff or void is promised, North is all that much more leaning toward the merits of preferencing diamonds. I'm not all that convinced that the two Jacks justify more than a simple preference -- Opener will move when appropriate.

 

A second is the idea of WJS's or constructive jump shifts. The former makes a jump to 3♠ unnecessary, as a simple 2♠ call will show this strength and will enable South room to complete the picture. The latter allows a 3♠ call on this hand, which will describe a poor suit and, accordingly, expected values for 3NT or for a minor contract, unless 3♠ is GF.

 

The third is a pet convention, 2♦ opened as an intermediate minor two-suiter. This handles the problem very well.

 

All that said, with normal bidding, I'd simply convert 2♣ to 2♦. I strongly dislike the jump rebid into such a lousy suit under these circumstances. In practice, 2♦ should yield a 2♥ call, completing a lot of the pattern and allowing some probing of better things.

[EricK]

I don't have much to add to what has already been said.

 

But I would note that if your partnership is in the habit of opening 1♦ on minimum hands with 4♦ & 5♣ then this problem becomes even harder.