Opinions please on how to bid this one?

[Wackojack]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=s8ha97542dq8432ca&s=skq107432hdakj10ck7]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

This hand came up last night f2f against not very strong opps. You open 1♠, West overcalls 2♥, passed round to me. I bid 3♠. You may not agree with this, but bear with me for the present. Partner bids 3NT.

 

1. How should the auction go now assuming this start?

2. Ideally how do you think NS should bid?

[helene_t]

My first inclination was 4♦, but if p responds 4NT (to play) I might regret it. I think pass is a realistic option given that you already showed much of your hand, and slam is far away if this is a misfit.

 

Another option is 4♠, could have better chances than 3NT, but again, I think 3♠ already showed at least this suit.

 

I think I pass.

[the hog]

I dislike your partner's 3NT bid - she should bid 4S. I would bid 4D over 3NT. Now you should get to 6.

Clearly I wouldn't reach 6 playing what I like.

[inquiry]

Its always difficult when you opponents have bid one suit in which they have a seven card fit and never mentioned their TWELVE CARD FIT.

 

I like your 3♠ rebid. I dislike your partner's 3NT bid, his single heart stopper is not good enough, surely the 2♥ bidder has KQJT9(X), so you would need 9 running tricks. I agree he should bid 4♠, but since a 4♠ raise could be made on a lot less, unlike Ron (The_hog) I think 4♠ ends the auction. A cleverer bid might be a 4♥ cue-bid, showing at least mild slam interest, and a trap pass hand with hearts. He is bidding your spades, not his. This will not show real ♠ support. I think this still lands you in 4♠. Another, and more attrative option for north is to bid 4♦ "on the way" to 4♠ IF THIS shows diamonds (and is not a cue-bid) along with a trap-pass type of hand. The theory is if north is weak, he will pass 3♠. If he bids a natural 4♦, i think you land in 6♦.

 

Once your partner did bid 3NT, I see nothing wrong with a natural 4♦ bid, on the way to 4♠. It is highly descriptive (I have enough spades to play 4♠ opposite your shortness, I have 4♦'s or 5♦'s too). 7-4 seems likely on this auction to me, as the jump to 3♠ has already shown 6 ♠ so to pull has to show more. If you where 6-5 you would have jumped to 3♦ not 3♠. The diamond slam would be trivial on an auction like that... I can imagine...

 

1♠-(2♥)-P-(P)//// 3♠-(P)-3N-(P)//// 4♦-(P)-4♥-etc

[whereagles]

Agree with Ron.

[Codo]

Its always difficult when you opponents have bid one suit in which they have a seven card fit and never mentioned their TWELVE CARD FIT.

 

I like your 3♠ rebid. I dislike your partner's 3NT bid, his single heart stopper is not good enough, surely the 2♥ bidder has KQJT9(X), so you would need 9 running tricks. 

Hi Ben,

 

you are a hero for flawless analyszes. But here you fail miserably:

 

1.You possess 3 Clubs, that give them more or less ten clubs not twelve.

2. Pd has a double stopper in form of A9xxx.

 

Besides this, I would never find a Diamond slam, because I would not bid 4 Diamond over 3 NT, even if this looks good and should be normal and natural. I just cannot. I don´t want pd to go to 5 Diamond with a 1444 Hand f.e.

[Apollo81]

In the auction you had, I would have chosen either 4♥ or 4♠ as North rather than 3NT. South has a possible 4♦ call over 3NT, but I suspect a large majority would pass if you had posted this as a problem.

[inquiry]

Its always difficult when you opponents have bid one suit in which they have a seven card fit and never mentioned their TWELVE CARD FIT.

 

I like your 3♠ rebid. I dislike your partner's 3NT bid, his single heart stopper is not good enough, surely the 2♥ bidder has KQJT9(X), so you would need 9 running tricks. 

Hi Ben,

 

you are a hero for flawless analyszes. But here you fail miserably:

 

1.You possess 3 Clubs, that give them more or less ten clubs not twelve.

2. Pd has a double stopper in form of A9xxx.

 

Besides this, I would never find a Diamond slam, because I would not bid 4 Diamond over 3 NT, even if this looks good and should be normal and natural. I just cannot. I don´t want pd to go to 5 Diamond with a 1444 Hand f.e.

i never could count to 13.... sigh....

[Fluffy]

Even without opposition I don't think anyone would bid ♦ at all.

[hrothgar]

Hey there

 

I'm sure that folks are going to puke at my suggested auction, but if I were partnering myself at the table I'd expect things to go 4♠ - swish...

 

Lets assume that you decide to bid like a sane person and open 1♠ and RHO overcalls 2♥

 

1♠ - (2♥)

 

Partner's pass looks more than reasonable. We're white, the opponents are red and if partner can reopen with a double there looks to be blood

 

Your three Spade rebid is also reasonable. Where things get a bit weird is the 3NT rebid...

 

If I were North I'd be thinking slam. I have two bullets and my queen of Diamonds should be worth something.

 

I think that a 4♣ cue bid is more than reasonable with your hand.

[Cascade]

I am not sure I could bid the slam.

 

1♠ (2♥) Pass (Pass)

3♠ ...

 

all of this seems fine

 

Partner's 3NT seems wrong. With two aces and opposite partner who has a self-sufficient spades suit we have a great hand for other contracts. Sure we would like another spade or two but that is not always possible.

 

Raising to 4♠ is clear possibly with a cue-bid on the way. You would raise to 4♠ on this auction with most 6 hcp hands and maybe even some weaker ones after all partner contracted for 9 tricks with you showing nothing.

 

Only the singleton spade make me think that a cue-bid is not clear.

 

Getting to 6♦ will be difficult.

[MikeRJ]

I am slightly surprised that everyone seems so happy with the 3S rebid. I would rebid 4S and I am not usually regarded as a wild bidder. (I suppose a 4H rebid by South to show the void would be possible if you were sure partner would read it, but you would probably want a better hand for this.)

 

Mike

[han]

Its always difficult when you opponents have bid one suit in which they have a seven card fit and never mentioned their TWELVE CARD FIT.

 

Recount?

 

I would open 4S with the south hand (7-4) and would never find the diamond slam.

[jdonn]

I disagree with all those saying a 3♠ rebid is reasonable, I would rebid that on the ace of diamonds less with this shape, in fact maybe even a bit less than that. However I'm pretty sure I would rebid either 3♥ or 4♠ anyway and just play it there, I can't honestly say I would ever introduce diamonds as south.

[Apollo81]

I would open 4S with the south hand

Seriously? Eww. You are even favorable.

[han]

No I wasn't serious, although I've read on this forum that some people open at the game level with most 7-4's and have a lot of success doing so.

[mikeh]

I wouldn't find the slam playing opposite a mikeh-clone, or any other partner with whom I am familiar.

 

I would be in 4♠, having rebid 4♠ as South.

 

Some hands are just too tough, and I stopped worrying about that concept years ago... and my bidding has become more reliable, and I sleep better, as a result :)

[hrothgar]

As I noted earlier in this thread, I would open this hand 4♠.

 

I think that the discussions in this thread are a great illustration why I do so. The hand in question has enormous playing strength. As we can see, the two hands have excellent play for 6♦.

 

One would think that starting with a 1♠ opening would give us the best chance to find the 6♦ slam. However, no one is even sniffing arround investigating Diamonds as a possible strain. In practice, the 4♠ opening isn't working any worse than the 1♠ opening.

 

I recognize that this is an isolated example and that I am generalizing, however, in my experience these same issues occur over and over...

 

If you open at the one level with a distributional hand you're going to end up in a competitive auction. The added bidding space from opening at the one level is largely illusionary.

[Halo]

Well I don't agree with 3S, or 4S.

 

If we judge not to double, then bidding 3D looks very sensible to me. We have a very good hand and if we go for offence, let's give ourselves some chances.

[jdonn]

One would think that starting with a 1♠ opening would give us the best chance to find the 6♦ slam. However, no one is even sniffing arround investigating Diamonds as a possible strain. In practice, the 4♠ opening isn't working any worse than the 1♠ opening.

Yes, this is a break even situation. On the other hand, if there was either no interference, or interference in the suit in which the opponents actually have a big fit, bidding a diamond slam would become extremely feasible.

[Apollo81]

Well I don't agree with 3S, or 4S.

 

If we judge not to double, then bidding 3D looks very sensible to me. We have a very good hand and if we go for offence, let's give ourselves some chances.

I think the whole point of this thread was that now we can't bid 3♦ like we would have done over a 1N response since that understates the spades and the playing strength of this hand.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 4S

#2 more less the way, it did develop in reality

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Halo]

Well I don't agree with 3S, or 4S.

 

If we judge not to double, then bidding 3D looks very sensible to me. We have a very good hand and if we go for offence, let's give ourselves some chances.

I think the whole point of this thread was that now we can't bid 3♦ like we would have done over a 1N response since that understates the spades and the playing strength of this hand.

But does it still understate spades when your next bid is 4S?

[hrothgar]

One would think that starting with a 1♠ opening would give us the best chance to find the 6♦ slam.  However, no one is even sniffing arround investigating Diamonds as a possible strain.  In practice, the 4♠ opening isn't working any worse than the 1♠ opening.

Yes, this is a break even situation. On the other hand, if there was either no interference, or interference in the suit in which the opponents actually have a big fit, bidding a diamond slam would become extremely feasible.

Hi Josh

 

I'm not sure whether this evaluates as a break even situation:

 

Either Meckstroth or Rodwell made a very interesting point about all the "crappy" games that they bid... The defenders are never sure whether this is a game that will make comfortably or whether they need to do something wild to break the contract. The defenders are always under a lot of mental pressure.

 

I'd argue that the 4♠ opening can be viewed in the same light. Making the 4♠ opening less precise will certainly have an impact on our constructive bidding. However, it will also impose some additional burdens on the defenders. Moreover, this lack of precision will imapct them anytime we open 4M (not just when we have a 7-4 hand).

 

I certainly can't prove that these benefits outweigh the costs associated with missing the occasional slam. However, I'm happy enough with the style...

 

As an added benefit, I don't need to worry about 7-4 hands in my relay structures :-)

[jdonn]

Hi Josh

 

I'm not sure whether this evaluates as a break even situation:

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant either opening bid would have broken even on the actual layout and subsequent auction. I mean this time it breaks even, I wasn't refering to the broader general situation.