Rebound Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 I wasn't present for this hand but I'd like your expert opinions on the 2 views those who actually played the hand assumed during the auction. The system is vanilla 2/1 with quite sound openings in 1st and 2nd seat: Dealer opens 1♠-2♦-2♥-3♣-3♥-4♠ IMO the actual hands they held are irrelevant. I'd like to hear whatever interpretations you would have for this auction, presuming it even seems possible to you. I can think of reasons why it wouldn't but the person with whom I discussed it were in complete agreement as to the type of hand 4♠ in particular would most likely show. Hopefully, no one will mind if i wait for some replies before posting the interpretations of the individuals who actually played it. TIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Should not exist imo. I don't think any hand with 3 spades should ever bid 3C, hands with 2 spades should bid 3S, "exclusion" is just way too dangerous if they haven't agreed here, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Basically agree with Justin. However, if playing with someone I know I can trust, this would be Exclusion, even undiscussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 partner has only 2 spades and thinks this is the only makeable game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Exclusion would make the most sense here I think, but I doubt I will ever be in a partnership serious enough to play that convention. So far it has cost much more IMPs due to misunderstandings than it has gained due to accurate slam bidding. I do recall one funny missed opportunity, though. P bid 5♦ opposite my ♦AKQxxxx. I replied zero keycards and so we went down in 6♣ while 5♦ would just have made. P suggested that I passed 5♦. Not sure if I agree with that. Maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Screams Exclusion. I'd be sad if I were in a partnership that was unable to field this sequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 17, 2008 Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 This is just why I never play exclusion. I'm not sure the sequence really exists, to be honest, because opener is unlimited. But it definitely sounds as if responder is expecting 4S to end the auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebound Posted February 17, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2008 Thanks for the comments. Now, supposing for the moment we agree that, essentially, the auction should not exist. Could you imagine any sort of extremely difficult to describe hand such that partner is trying to send a message by bidding in such an odd manner? If so, what? Here's a hint: After 1♠-2♦-2♥, 2♠ would sound like some sort of forced preference. Why at that time 3♠ is not an option if he has good spade support is beyond me. I don't think any of the above holds any water either, but that seems to have been the thinking in this case. I'm just wondering if anyone could possibly expect to decipher the message he was attempting to convey. Indicentally, my regular partner, in this case, opener, and I agreed that in the extremely unlikely event this auction were to come up, it would indicate some sort of hand with 2 spades or 3 small that probably shouldn't have made a 2/1 call in the first place that was now trying to sign off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.