Spot all the errors

[kenrexford]

[hv=d=w&v=e&w=sakxxxxhkxxxdkcax&e=sxhqxxdaqxxxxck10x]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Playing 2/1 GF, the auction that occurred:

 

1♠-P-2♦-P-

2♥-P-2NT-P-

3♠-P-4♥-P-

4NT-P-answer-P-

 

...blah, blah, blah...

 

6♥-P-P-P.

[ochinko]

2♦ is only right in SA, not in 2/1.

 

I don't know how much of an error is from West to continue with 4NT knowing that they're gonna play with Moysian fit, and his hearts are not solid.

[ArcLight]

2♦ is only right in SA, not in 2/1.

 

I don't know how much of an error is from West to continue with 4NT knowing that they're gonna play with Moysian fit, and his hearts are not solid.

I think most people would bid 2♦ playing 2/1. 11 HCP and a 6 card ♦ suit headed by the AQ. What are the alternatives? Invitational jump shift 3♦ or 1NT, and then?

 

1S - 2D

2H all good so far

 

1S - 2D

2H - 2NT would 3D be better, despite the KTx in clubs as a stopper for NT

 

1S - 2D

2H - 2NT

3S - 4H - ??? seems like opener is 6-4, so responder wants to play in a 4-3 fit

4NT !!!!! - if responder had 4 hearts he would have bid 3H not 2NT

 

Opener is in a known 4-3 fit, and has a weak trump suit.

 

4NT is the worst bid

 

 

Responder probably thought opener was 6=4=?=? and 3NT was too dangerous.

Bidding 3♦ then 3NT might have been better. I don't think 3NT is better than 4 hearts, assuming opener is bidding rationally.

 

 

Also, what happened after 4NT? Responser shows 1 or 4 key cards. Opener has 3 himself. There is a misisng key card and pard probably has just 3 trumps. Why go beyond 5♥?

[kenrexford]

So far, interesting. Without elaborating yet, I felt that Opener made no wrong bids during the entire shown auction, including 4NT. This view was shared by one of the pros hired by the team who had this auction, as well as by a few pros who analyzed this auction. However, the reason is subtle.

[ochinko]

So far, interesting.  Without elaborating yet, I felt that Opener made no wrong bids during the entire shown auction, including 4NT.  This view was shared by one of the pros hired by the team who had this auction, as well as by a few pros who analyzed this auction.  However, the reason is subtle.

If East had ♣ KQx, 2♦ would be right, yet 6♥ still isn't a good place to stop. West had to park in 6NT instead.

 

Edit: I am not a big fan of 2/1, and could be wrong but playing it I would bid 2♦ (with the original hand) only over a 1♥ opening, as the fit would make me feel better about forcing to game from the start.

[helene_t]

Opener did nothing wrong.

 

2♦ may be an overbid depending on opening style. I would bid 1N unless playing some 2/1-almost-GF style.

 

2N is not good. 3♦ describes the hand.

 

4♥ is not good. No reason to got for the 4-3 fit-fit. Just bid 3N.

[mikeh]

Responder's 2♦ is borderline: whether it is an error depends upon the partnership's opening bid style. The majority of posters here seem to open light, and this is not a good 2/1 opposite a light opener. OTOH, the hand will be very tough to describe later...so I can live with 2♦....

 

Another note: one variant of 2/1 provides that a rebid of 3♦ would be non-forcing, and if that were the system, then responder could have chosen that call... however, doing so might well miss an easy 3N since opener may be unable to stop clubs.

 

Responder should, in my view, have bid 4♠ over 3♠: regardless of whether opener has shown a good 6-4 or just any 6-4. Some play that opener's sequence of spades-hearts-spades shows an extra-value 6-4, some do not. Either way, responder should be raising spades. This 4♥ bid is the most obvious error, in an auction in which several choices were debatable.

 

I suspect that the actual opener did not play that his sequence showed extra values, since (if he did) he was already 'bid-out' by 4♥.

 

Assuming that he had undisclosed values, he could correctly construe responder's sequence as showing a much different hand than actually held. Bidding 4♥, after having bid 2N, should show a STRONG tripleton, with slam interest, albeit insufficient values to commit beyond the 4-level unilaterally.

 

However, I reject any construction of a responder hand that makes 6♥ a good spot. No sane east would bid 2N with, say, QJxx of hearts. Nor with AQxx QJxxx(x) in the reds. When responder knows that hearts are trump, he MUST raise 2♥.

 

While I am sure that it is possible to create some convoluted logic that suggests that the contorted auction shows, say...x AQxx QJxxx KQx, bridge is too tough, as it is, to adopt such a logic.

 

So opener made an error in committing to hearts.. the known 4-3... while he caould expect a strong 3 card suit, he couldn't count on AQJ, and any other holding leaves him off a keycard (known to be a red Ace) and at the mercy of, at best, a 3-3 trump break. This is the second most obvious error, and, indeed, there may be only 2 'errors' on the hand.. the other ineffective calls being merely 'views' that were reasonable in context.

 

If opener bids slam, it should be in notrump.

[awm]

Here's my take on this:

 

(1) 2♦ is a bit of an overbid playing 2/1, but not ridiculous, especially if partner opens sound.

(2) I like the 2NT call. This is not a very slammish hand and has a club stopper. We can find diamonds after a 2NT bid when they are right, but finding 3NT after a 3♦ rebid may be difficult if responder's ♣KTx is the only stopper.

(3) I agree that 4♥ is a bad bid. I would try 3NT, the most discouraging possible action. I don't see why raising spades on a small singleton is necessarily going to lead to a better game here.

(4) It's not clear to me that 4♥ in this auction should actually be natural. Responder has already indicated that notrump is playable by bidding 2NT, and failed to raise hearts at first turn, and opener has never shown more than four hearts. It makes a lot of sense to play 4♥ as a spade cue...

 

At this point opener may be envisioning some hand like Qx Ax AQxxx Kxxx opposite which slam is excellent (even without the diamond queen slam is pretty good). I think 4NT should be keycard for spades. Then again, the final signoff in 6♥ seems to disagree with me.

[ochinko]

Another thought. Assuming that opener expected that 2♦ could be that weak, then shouldn't we expect 4NT to be natural instead of Blackwood? This would still allowed East to answer for key cards but only with a much better hand.

 

But no matter how many faults we find with East's bidding, it is still West's responsibility for putting the final contract in hearts instead of NT.

 

In any case I would take with a grain of salt the opinion of any pro that has a conflict of interests here by being both a bidder and a judge.

[Finch]

As usual with Ken's hands, this is probably a little removed from bridge as we know it.

 

Two thoughts

 

- It looks as if East was very keen not to play the contract. Are EW a married couple with East female? Or a pro-am couple with East a very weak am?

 

This is consistent with East's 2D bid (not wanting to bid a forcing NT as a chance they have to declarer), and East's 4H bid (wonderful! I don't have to play in 3NT)

 

- And West thought East's 2NT bid showed heart support for some reason. Probably the reason that East isn't allowed to declarer, so therefore 2NT has to be artificial. If East wants to play in 3NT, she has to bid 3C (4th suit) over 2H allowing opener to bid it.

 

[This is possibly a bit far-fetched, but I've certainly played pairs when fourth suit forcing from one side means "I've got the suit stopped, do you want to be declarer in 3NT?"]

[jtfanclub]

Another thought. Assuming that opener expected that 2♦ could be that weak, then shouldn't we expect 4NT to be natural instead of Blackwood? This would still allowed East to answer for key cards but only with a much better hand.

 

But no matter how many faults we find with East's bidding, it is still West's responsibility for putting the final contract in hearts instead of NT.

and from awm:

 

(4) It's not clear to me that 4♥ in this auction should actually be natural. Responder has already indicated that notrump is playable by bidding 2NT, and failed to raise hearts at first turn, and opener has never shown more than four hearts. It makes a lot of sense to play 4♥ as a spade cue...

 

All I can think of was that the 6♥ bid was NOT a request to play in 6 hearts, but asking if East had the heart queen!

 

Something must have gotten confused, since I don't see how 4NT could be BW for hearts either.

[kenrexford]

awm gets the prize so far on this one, for spotting one key problem.

 

By the way, this actual auction did occur, and by people who routinely place, albeit not often in the top 10, but place nonetheless in national events.

 

Here's the analysis that I had, shared by some others:

 

1♠ = easy start

2♦ = not right, but can accept that as a "partnership" call

2♥ = easy second call

2NT = there are options, but this is fine

3♠ = easy third call

 

Now is where the hand gets interesting. It seems that a 3♠ call, in the context of the auction to date, focuses two possible contracts -- notrump or spades. Hearts is not a possible strain at this point. This "mayb the Mysian is right" thinking is very bad here.

 

So, 4♥ should, in fact, be Last Train, in support of spades. A cue. As would 4♣ or 4♦. In my personal approach, 4♣ would show a club control, 4♦ two top diamonds (with the Ace) but not a club control, and 4♥ extras not qualifying for either 4♣ or 4♦.

 

So, what should Opener expect? Something like ♠Qx ♥AJx ♦AJ10xx ♣QJx makes sense, or an even better ♠Qx ♥AQx ♦Axxxx ♣QJx makes sense as well.

 

Opposite the latter, slam is laydown, and a grand has lots of play. Opposite the former, the grand still has play, and the small slam is a fair bet. The five-level is safe as you can get. So, Opener has a great justification for bidding 4NT as RKCB for the agreed spade contract.

 

Of course, one might not want to play 4♥ as a cuebid in support of spades, feeling that 4♥ as natural, even if extremely rare in utility, is the best option. What admittedly shocked me, however, was that my assumption that 4♥ must be a cue in support of spades was an assumption that others shared. I though that I might be "out there" a tad.

[kenrexford]

A couple of other notes of interest or in response to comments of others.

 

The pro was not a bidder in this auction. The pro was on the team, at the other table, and was consulted for advice/lesson and to resolve the disagreement between the players who actually bid this hand.

 

The Opener bid 4NT as a catch-all. He thought it might be taken as either natural or as RKCB, because he was not sure about 4♥. But, he knew that two possible interpretations were out there.

 

6NT makes if the opponents never scissors-coup spades.

[mikeh]

awm gets the prize so far on this one, for spotting one key problem.

 

By the way, this actual auction did occur, and by people who routinely place, albeit not often in the top 10, but place nonetheless in national events.

 

Here's the analysis that I had, shared by some others:

 

1♠ = easy start

2♦ = not right, but can accept that as a "partnership" call

2♥ = easy second call

2NT = there are options, but this is fine

3♠ = easy third call

 

Now is where the hand gets interesting.  It seems that a 3♠ call, in the context of the auction to date, focuses two possible contracts -- notrump or spades.  Hearts is not a possible strain at this point.  This "mayb the Mysian is right" thinking is very bad here.

 

So, 4♥ should, in fact, be Last Train, in support of spades.  A cue.  As would 4♣ or 4♦.  In my personal approach, 4♣ would show a club control, 4♦ two top diamonds (with the Ace) but not a club control, and 4♥ extras not qualifying for either 4♣ or 4♦.

 

So, what should Opener expect?  Something like ♠Qx ♥AJx ♦AJ10xx ♣QJx makes sense, or an even better ♠Qx ♥AQx ♦Axxxx ♣QJx makes sense as well.

 

Opposite the latter, slam is laydown, and a grand has lots of play.  Opposite the former, the grand still has play, and the small slam is a fair bet.  The five-level is safe as you can get.  So, Opener has a great justification for bidding 4NT as RKCB for the agreed spade contract.

 

Of course, one might not want to play 4♥ as a cuebid in support of spades, feeling that 4♥ as natural, even if extremely rare in utility, is the best option.  What admittedly shocked me, however, was that my assumption that 4♥ must be a cue in support of spades was an assumption that others shared.  I though that I might be "out there" a tad.

IMO, you are clearly 'out there' when you characterize 4♥ as any form of cue bid in support of spades.

 

There are very, very few hands, consistent with the auction, on which East can have slam interest in ♠s and be unable to either:

 

1) support spades earlier

2) cue 4 minor over 3♠

3) keycard over 3♠, or

4) 5♠ over 3♠

 

As for imposing on 'the field' your idiosyncratic meaning of a 4♦ cue, that seems typical of your analyses in general: you treat your unusual meanings as standard, and extrapolate meanings for other bids on that assumption... hence 4♥ as Last Train... absurd is an underbid.

 

Given that East lacks the ♦K, for 4♥ to be a cue, he has to be slamming off the top 2 diamonds, the top club, both top spades and the ♥K.... maybe you can come up with a hand that 'qualifies'.. but please, please don't use your personal cue-bidding rules when seeking consensus opinions on an auction by players who don't use your rules.

 

I can see that perhaps 4N was intended as natural, but I sure wouldn't haul that bid out in this auction when opener is essentially unlimited.

 

If opener held AKQxxx AQJx x Ax, maybe he'd open 2♣, but many wouldn't. Make it AKJxxx AQ10x K Ax and even fewer would open 2♣... and surely wouldn't want to be passed in 4N on either of them: I think those who argue that 4N is passable, if undiscussed, are being influenced by the actual hand, not by basic bidding principles.

 

As for raising 3♠ on a stiff.. I think that opener has invited (well, he's hoping for xx, but, when the club stopper is dubious, stiff will not surprise him) that by his 3♠ call... and responder's hand, being minimum or sub-minimum with a bad diamond suit opposite known shortness and only 1 club stopper, should raise....Give me KQx clubs, same hand, I bid 3N.. but with minimums, a clear lead coming from the opps, and no readliy establishable trick source, count me in for the 6-1 fit. Am I happy about it? Of course not.

[jdonn]

I actually don't find Ken's characterizations of the meanings of the bids very unusual. I won't elaborate but I think Ken's positions on the meanings of both 4♦ and 4♥ are relatively reasonable and not 'out there' at all, though not the sort of thing to assume undiscussed.

 

Regardless of that, 6♥ was clearly the worst bid. How could that contract be right?

[ArtK78]

I won't argue that 4H should be some sort of slam try rather than a suggestion to play hearts, but how can it be last train when 4C and 4D are available? It seems to me that last train only applies when there is no room for any other constructive forward going call.

 

I will say one thing - 4H was the one bid guaranteed to lead to maximum confusion.

[kenrexford]

IMO, you are clearly 'out there'...imposing on 'the field'...your idiosyncratic meaning...your unusual meanings...absurd is an underbid.

Typical useless ranting, as expected.

 

You are rather missing one huge point, Mikeh, when you so characteristically decide to angrily attack. I noted that I expected my personal interpretation to not be mainstream. I noted my surprise that this auction was interpreted by other folks, very qualified folks at that, in the same way that I interpreted this auction. Namely, that 4♣, 4♦, and 4♥ would all be "advance cues" in support of spades. The specific nuance of each bid is a matter of partnership agreements, but the general concensus apparently was that 4♥ was a "Last Train" call by those who discussed this in Nashville.

 

If you play Aces-first cuebidding, then the 4♥ call would cover all hands with no diamond or club Ace, but extras. Something like ♠Qx ♥AQx ♦QJxxx ♣KQx might qualify in the sequence, opposite this Opener.

 

One could imagine a style with which you only cue clubs with first-round and/or diamonds only with both top controls, such that 4♥ would handle a club suit of up to KQJ and/or a diamond suit of up to AQJxx(x).

 

My way, which is actually not all that unusual, is where 4♣ would show a first-or-second round, 4♦ no ability to cue 4♣ and better than expected diamond values (AQ or AK), and 4♥ any other "extras" hand, typcially meaning a single diamond control, two key heart cards, and a top spade card. That is not all too strange an agreement, once you decide that these calls are cues.

[mikeh]

. I won't elaborate but I think Ken's positions on the meanings of both 4♦ and 4♥ are relatively reasonable and not 'out there' at all, though not the sort of thing to assume undiscussed.

That is the point, surely? Ken posts an auction and does so in the context of 'spot the mistakes' and then posts his analysis which assumes that 'correct' bidding requires inferences drawn from his idiosyncratic preferences.

 

Nowhere did I suggest that his meanings reflect bad bridge... but surely even Ken doesn't seriously think that it is a mistake for a random, but good, pair not to use his ideas...

 

His posts are equivalent to my posting an auction with opener having a big hand... bidding 2/1.. and then my claiming that the 'mistake' was not opening a precision 1♣ because that would have been my preference as opener.

 

The point is not what, in his system, a bid should mean. It is what it does mean in an undiscussed 2/1 partnership. In such a partnership 'who's to blame' discussion, assigning meanings to 4♦/♥ per his 'personal preference' is almost as stupid as it is irritating.

[kenrexford]

I won't argue that 4H should be some sort of slam try rather than a suggestion to play hearts, but how can it be last train when 4C and 4D are available? It seems to me that last train only applies when there is no room for any other constructive forward going call.

If Aces-first is your style, this Opener might expect 4♥ to show a hand like ♠Qx ♥AQx ♦QJxxx ♣KQx.

 

If 4♣ would show 1st-round control, Responder cannot bid that without the Ace, but he could still have extras. If 4♣ would show frist-or-second control, Responder seems likely to have QJx.

 

If 4♣ cannot be bid (not the Ace, or QJx), the 4♦ might not be available either, if Responder has QJxx(x) or, if 4♦ shows "good diamonds," "a trick source," or "two of the top three," when Responder has something like A-fifth. 4♦ also might even require both Ace and King for some people.

 

In all cases where 4♣ and 4♦ are unavailable, for these reasons, 4♥ is the call. Keep in mind that Responder might have three full covers in the majors(♠Q, ♥A, ♥Q). That leaves a lot of possibilities for minor-suit extra's without ability to cue either minor by various partnership agreements.

 

Sure, this could (and did) lead to some confusion. If you want to play at one level of the game, go easy on partner. If you want to step up beyond that level, expect rough steps while you both figure things out.

[joshs]

Give East x AQx Axxxxx Kxx. Over 3S its pretty clear that 3N is not right unless opener has significant extras (you have no tricks) or if opener's spades are running, in which case 4S is probably as good a spot. The problem is you have no idea which is the correct major (partner can have 4 small hearts after all). So personally I would have assumed that 4H was something like the hand I gave above, and asking partner to pick a major. Opposite that actual West hand 3N is the best contract, but 3N will get raised to 4N, and that may well go down.

 

For those who claim that 4H is a slam try, its a slam try in what? While I think its playable to have both 4C and 4H be slam tries for spades, I don't see why a moysian can't be the right game contract on this misfitting sounding auction, so I would never have suspected that 4H was anything other than a suggestion of a final contract.... (If it might be natural, it is natural...)

 

Having said all that, of course 4H on the actual hand was rediculous, as was bidding to 6H. If you interpret 4H as natural and showing 3 card support, it has to be a minimum hand since with extras you would never choose to play in a moysian (as the short hand). (Or did you think that 4H was a natural 4N bid with a strong 3 card heart suit? And what are you suppossed to do with the minimum, just concede -100 in 3N instead of trying to go plus?)

 

After all opener can have AJxxxx Jxxx K Ax and all his calls would have been perfectly normal, and 3N hoping to run diamonds is you best chance for game.

 

 

So given what I expect for 4H I would have passed 4H in a sec.....

 

(Note: with 6421 and Hx of diamonds, opener will usually bid 3D and not 3S unless the spades are super strong.)

[mike777]

Dealer: West Vul: E/W Scoring: IMP

♠ AKxxxx ♥ Kxxx ♦ K ♣ Ax ♠ x ♥ Qxx ♦ AQxxxx ♣ K10x

 

Playing 2/1 GF, the auction that occurred:

 

1♠-P-2♦-P-

2♥-P-2NT-P-

3♠-P-4♥-P-

4NT-P-answer-P-

 

...blah, blah, blah...

 

6♥-P-P-P.

Assuming partner does not open very sound then:

I like all of opener's bid.

I dislike all of responder's bids

 

 

1s=1nt

2h=2nt

4s=p

[kenrexford]

Ken posts an auction and does so in the context of 'spot the mistakes' and then posts his analysis which assumes that 'correct' bidding requires inferences drawn from his idiosyncratic preferences.

 

...

 

The point is not what, in his system, a bid should mean. It is what it does mean in an undiscussed 2/1 partnership. In such a partnership 'who's to blame' discussion, assigning meanings to 4♦/♥ per his 'personal preference' is almost as stupid as it is irritating.

Again, I could care less what style of cuebidding one elects to use. The question is whether 4♥ is an offer to play hearts or is an advanced cue in support of spades (showing whatever your agreements would have it show).

 

One cannot abdicate the question by forcing a default to "natural" when undiscussed any more than one could abdicate the question by forcing a default to "cuebid" when undiscussed.

 

Relying upon a general default, like "It must be natural if undiscussed" is not an excuse for not knowing that which others know, if others do in fact "know" something that is being discussed.

 

Again, as I mentioned, I might have thought that 4♥, as an advanced cue, was something that would need discussion. However, the word I received was that this is obviously an advanced cue. "Obviously" to those powers-that-be who are my mentors or who are the mentors of my mentors.

 

Your objections, quite heated at that, sound like the words of the raving people I run into at club games, just at a different level. They might argue that 1♥-P-2♥-P-3♣ as a two-suited game try is esoteric; "You would bid 3♥ with that hand -- invitational!"

 

The reasoning on this hand is really simple. If you have a hand where you might prefer hearts to notrump if partner is 6-4, why are you bidding 2NT and not 3♦ or 3♣?!?!?

 

Oh, and Mikeh... Do you think that the folks in Nashville who discussed this hand before I even heard about it were my students? I take that as great praise indeed! LOL

[kenrexford]

I would have assumed that 4H was something like the hand I gave above, and asking partner to pick a major...I don't see why a moysian can't be the right game contract on this misfitting sounding auction, so I would never have suspected that 4H was anything other than a suggestion of a final contract.... (If it might be natural, it is natural...)

If you would want to bid 4♥ over 3♠ as a pick-the-strain bid, then you should not have bid 2NT. That's the simple answer, I suppose. You bid 3♣ or 3♦ with all such hands.

 

2NT commits the partnership to declare in notrump or in any strain that is at or above (in rank) any strain reintroduced by Opener. If Opener rebids spades, spades or notrump are the only possible contracts (unless Opener pulls 3NT to 4♥ on some freak -- again, Opener is reintroducing the strain). If Opener rebids 3♥, either major, or NT, can be the final strain. If Opener makes a delayed diamond raise, any strain (except clubs) is potentially viable. If Opener bids clubs (5404), this may be an exception -- I don't think that diamonds is an alternative now, but otherwise the rules work.

 

Simple rule, easy to follow.

[jtfanclub]

You're still avoiding the question, though, Ken...what the heck did opener mean by the 6♥ bid?

[kenrexford]

You're still avoiding the question, though, Ken...what the heck did opener mean by the 6♥ bid?

Well, I left that out because the story, as told to me, did not include this part, because that was not the topic of the heated discussion.

 

I can imagine what happened, though.

 

Opener's 4NT, if not passed, must have been taken as 1430 RKCB for hearts. Responder's response would be 5♣, which is the same response had 4NT been 1430 for spades.

 

Opener now may have asked for the spade Queen, Responder showing the heart Queen.

 

The answer would have been 6♣, I'm assuming.

 

Opener then visualized something like ♠Qx ♥Qxx ♦AJxxx ♣Kxx

 

Opener needed a little more stuff. Maybe the club Queen, maybe better diamonds, maybe the heart Jack. Something more. Responder must have at least one of these cards, and he will surely go with all three, and two allows a judgment decision that Opener can live with.

 

So, he might have bid 6♥, intending that to be Last Train, but was shocked by the pass.

 

Who knows?

 

Of course, that would be stupid, seeking a grand off an Ace. I don't know!