Really Bad Slam Auction Using BBO 2/1

[jdeegan]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sak10873h108d9cakj4&s=sq9haj65daqj1087cq]133|200|Scoring: MP

1♦-P-1♠-P

3♦-P-4♣-P

4♦-P-4♠-P

5♥-P-6♦-P

P-P

[/hv]

:) Playing BBO 2/1 at MP's. Which bid was the most responsible for the inferior contract? How should the hand be bid?

[mike777]

3d, dead minimum with all those short suit pts but....

3s seems clear now...and end up in 6s which can go down.

I just think trying to bid a minor, new suit at the 4 level, is very very complicated. Too complicated. :)

[pclayton]

Maybe the partnership didn't discuss what 4♣ means. Things got off the rails at that point. 3♠ seems clear to me. Now South cues 4♥ and 6♠ should be reached.

 

3♦ is a mild overbid and gets honorable mention.

[kenrexford]

This seems like a mess.

 

The start was good. Each person mentioned their best suit.

 

Opener's 3♦ might be OK, I suppose. 2♦ seems too weak, and 2♥ seems too strong.

 

Responder's 4♣ call was weird. As noted, 3♠ makes a lot more sense. At least the spade (and only) fit is found.

 

I'm not sure what Opener should do after 4♣. 4♦ works for nothing better to say.

 

Responder's 4♠ call is a tad late and obscure.

 

Opener's 5♥ is a bid. I don't know what it means, or why it was bid, but it is a bid.

 

Responder's 6♦ was perhaps the strangest bid. I have no idea why 6♦ seemed right. But, I have no idea what anything means at this point, for that matter.

[ulven]

Opener's 3♦ might be OK, I suppose. 2♦ seems too weak, and 2♥ seems too strong.

I'm sure you're joking. 3D was a really horrible bid and everything after that doesn't matter. 2D is ok playing standard.

[Codo]

3 ♦ was so bad, I have no words for it.

 

If you are strong enough for a reverse, bid 2 Heart. If you are not: 2 Diamond. I could life with both but 2 Diamond is cleary better.

4 Club was what? It surey was no real suit, because there is no need to search a club fit, you cannot have one anymore. 3 Spade here is clear cut. (This is forcing of course).

 

The later bidding was not able to get into a better contract after this start.

[kenrexford]

Opener's 3♦ might be OK, I suppose.  2♦ seems too weak, and 2♥ seems too strong.

I'm sure you're joking. 3D was a really horrible bid and everything after that doesn't matter. 2D is ok playing standard.

I was being nice. The only two bids for which I gave any real endorsement were 1♦ and 1♠. LOL

[Free]

The first mistake usually messes up the rest of the auction. 3♦ is the first error imo, so that's the worst mistake! I don't see any reason to bid 3♦ instead of 2♥...

[skjaeran]

The opening hand isn't worth a reverse or a jump rebid, so 3♦ was technically the worst bid.

 

When that's said and done, that bid didn't destroy the auction. North's 4♣ rebid was nonsense, a forcing 3♠ bid in stead should lead to an easy auction to 6♠. North probably wasn't sure this was in fact a forcing bid, and chose 4♣ in stead. After that nobody seems to have a clue.

[Fluffy]

3♦ is plain wrong, it shows the same minimum strenght than 2♥.

 

But the bid that drove to slam was 4♣, kinda poor bid, with 3♠ or even 3♥ avaible to find the ♠ fit.

[jdeegan]

Opener's 3♦ might be OK, I suppose.  2♦ seems too weak, and 2♥ seems too strong.

I'm sure you're joking. 3D was a really horrible bid and everything after that doesn't matter. 2D is ok playing standard.

:D The auction began: 1♦-P-1♠-P The way most people play 2/1, a difference between SAYC and 2/1 does not exist as no GF is implied.

[gwnn]

His point is not that there is some sort of difference between sayc and 2/1 GF. There would be, indeed, however a difference between "standard" where 1♦ promises something like 11-21 and "strong club or something" where 1♦ or whatever would promise not more than ~9-16. I think that was Ulf's point when he added "in standard".

[ulven]

His point is not that there is some sort of difference between sayc and 2/1 GF. There would be, indeed, however a difference between "standard" where 1♦ promises something like 11-21 and "strong club or something" where 1♦ or whatever would promise not more than ~9-16. I think that was Ulf's point when he added "in standard".

Yes, thank you.

 

In a strong club context I'd rebid 2H as would most others.

[pclayton]

While everyone is condemning 3♦, I find it difficult to see how that contributed to the disaster.

 

On the other hand, 4♣ was interpreted as diamond support. The auction became rather bizarre after this point, especially 5♣.

[sceptic]

whoops wrong thread

[ArcLight]

I would Reverse and bid 2♥ but I still don't understand why some people think 3 ♦ is horrible?

 

The stiff Q can easily be worth 0, but the Spade Q may be useful since pard bid the suit. The Daimond suit is quite good.

I think 2♦ would be a far worse bid than 3♦, unless you enjoy misisng a lot of games.

[EricK]

I don't like 3♦ as it makes it almost impossible to find a ♥ contract (assuming that 1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 3♥ isn't necessarily a suit but might only be showing a stopper and looking for NT or be an advanced cue bid).

 

That being said, I don't like 4♣ either. Partner has pretty much denied a ♣ suit (although to be fair, he has pretty much denied a ♥ suit as well - but just happens to hold one), and so 4♣ is ripe for misinterpretation (either a cue-bid agreeing ♦, or at least 6-5 in the blacks).

 

Any of these starts should find the ♠ slam

1♦ 1♠

2♥

 

1♦ 1♠

3♦ 3♠

 

even

1♦ 2♠ (if that would be strong)

[jdeegan]

I don't like 3♦ as it makes it almost impossible to find a ♥ contract (assuming that 1♦ 1♠ 3♦ 3♥ isn't necessarily a suit but might only be showing a stopper and looking for NT or be an advanced cue bid).

 

That being said, I don't like 4♣ either. Partner has pretty much denied a ♣ suit (although to be fair, he has pretty much denied a ♥ suit as well - but just happens to hold one), and so 4♣ is ripe for misinterpretation (either a cue-bid agreeing ♦, or at least 6-5 in the blacks).

 

Any of these starts should find the ♠ slam

1♦ 1♠

2♥

 

1♦ 1♠

3♦ 3♠

 

even

1♦ 2♠ (if that would be strong)

:D :P I am the guilty 3♦ bidder - mea culpa. Perhaps, 2♥ is better because we really can't find the 4-4 ♥ fit after 3♦. It turned out that my partner did not bid 3♠ because she played it non-forcing - an illogical treatment someone taught her years ago. Lesson here is be careful who you take bridge lessons from.

 

What amazes me is that only one poster even thought about responding with a strong 2♠ initially. Perhaps, nobody plays this anymore, but at IMPs they should, imo.

 

The North hand certainly qualifies. It is almost an old-fashioned strong two bid - i.e. 4+ quick tricks and 4 losers. It easily can make a laydown six bid opposite the perfect minimum. It is not really a two suiter. North probably should control the auction on account of his hand - minor spade cards and red aces are about all he is interested in. These are the traditional requirements for the old-fashioned strong jump shift.

 

Auctions after a strong jump shift are normally a joy. Just remember not to immediately raise partner without an honor in his suit or with a stiff. In this instance, the bidding might procede:

1♦-P-2♠-P

3♠-P-4♣-P

4♦-P-5♣-P

5♥-P-6♠-P

P-P

 

Players who want (or need) to shoot for the grand may do so on an intelligent basis. Those whose grip on sanity is sufficiently weak enough to play RKC can, no doubt, find elegant, subtle and easily misunderstood variations.

[skjaeran]

What amazes me is that only one poster even thought about responding with a strong 2♠ initially. Perhaps, nobody plays this anymore, but at IMPs they should, imo.

It doesn't amaze me.

 

IF playing sjs I'd not jump to 2♠ on this hand with such a powerful side suit. As most people play sjs you can't have a side suit (some allow support for the opening suit though).

 

Jumping to 2♠ would deny us the chance to find 6♣ (or 7♣), which might easily be the be top spot. A new suit by opener after a jump doesn't show a suit, only honour consentration, and denies Qx or better support, HHxxx in the opening suit and stoppers in both side suits, as I'm used to play this (I can't remember when I actually played sjs though, it's a looong time ago).