Where did we go wrong?

[benlessard]

♠AKxx ♥xxx ♦AKxxx ♣x

For every hand like this you will get a hand where partner got running diamonds while 5C has no play.

 

Not saying that 3Nt is perfect but i much prefer 3Nt than 4C wich will often lead to 5C or 6C with 2 trumps losers.

 

I would never bypass 3Nt to play 5m with KJ8x.xxxx in my minor.

[Guest Jlall]

The 6C bid is ridiculous, if partner needs a void in support he can bid clubs forever himself. As far as the other bids:

 

I prefer 3D to 3S

I agree with 4C

4D is pretty obvious over 4C. It's not clear what will happen after that. I think north should raise to 5D after bidding clubs 3 times though, and south will surely bid 6.

[mike777]

Here's a hand where we didn't reach a very good spot. We were playing 2/1 GF. Our auction:

 

1♦ - 2♣ (GF)

2♦ (5+) - 3♣

3♠ - 4♣

6♣ - Pass

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq9xhadqckj8xxxxx&s=saktxhkxdak98xxxc]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

hate 6c.......

 

as a side note i guess a nonforcing 1nt was not an option......assuming this will never never be the contract?

[neilkaz]

The 6♣ bid is one of the worst bids seen this year in the expert forum.

 

Why raise PD to slam with a void and a superb and likely self sufficient higher suit in an allready GF auction.

[DrTodd13]

I guess I am alone in this one but I'm a bit surprised that nobody is questioning the characterization of the north hand as an initial GF. If pd has a 3451 11 count, I'm not sure I want to be forcing to game here.

 

I presume that 3♣ is available as an invite denying a 4cM. So, just to be contrary,

I'll offer:

 

1♦ - 3♣

3♠ (accepting invite, suggesting possible 3N problems, leaving open possible Moysian or right-siding 3N) - 4♠

[mike777]

I guess I am alone in this one but I'm a bit surprised that nobody is questioning the characterization of the north hand as an initial GF. 

you must have missed my post :P

[mikeh]

I agree with the mainstream comments critical of the final call: 4♦ seems far more logical.

 

I recognize that it is important to assess the bidding in the context of the methods, and the sequence over 1♦ 2♣ are extremely difficult from a theoretical point of view. I don't like Adam's style, but he might well find mine as problematic as I find his: I would have rebid 2♠ to show 4 spades and longer diamonds, but I don't think that this style difference played any role in the outcome.. the positions were roughly equivalent at the point of 3♠, and 4♦ would have solved the problems.

 

 

BTW, I think that S should have given some thought to the fact that North NEVER jumped... he could have jumped to 4♣ over 2♦ to announce a solid suit, but even more importantly, wouldn't he have jumped to 5♣ over 3♠ with a suit that can play for 1 loser opposite a void?

 

As for various comments made by a number of posters:

 

1. I think that almost everyone would play the sequence 1♦ 2♣ 2♦ 4♣ as slam-oriented with solid clubs, if only for the basic reason that with a lesser suit/hand, 3N may be the better contract. There are other reasons, such as enabling opener to evaluate for slam purposes without worrying about the degree of fit, and to not worry about whether some other suit should be trump.

 

2. Two players have suggested that the original gf 2♣ was an error. Imho, they can only rationalize that argument by looking at the final result. We have seen that a plausible continuation over 2♣ can and probably should lead to 6♦, which is a great contract. I have profound doubts that we would be as well-positioned to reach 6♦ after either a 1N (1N???? really, mike777...) or an invitational 3♣ were that available. Plus, on many, many fairly routine hands, the 2♣ call makes the rest of the auction far easier than either of the non-forcing alternatives suggested so far... even tho responder holds 8 clubs, the odds are very high that opener is not void in the suit. This is not to say that 2♣ solves our problems.. but freaks are very difficult to bid.

 

3. As for the notion that opener can jump rebid the suit, Adam has observed that this would show a better suit, and I would have thought that such would have been the expert standard.. just as the jump to 4♣ over 2♦ would usually be played as solid suit, so too should (imo) a jump rebid by opener in a 2/1 auction. Since we are in a gf, and since one of the benefits of playing 2/1 is conservation of bidding space to provide maximal exploration of denomination, it makes sense, at least to me, that we confine space-consuming jumps to hands that announce that the need to worry about which suit is trump (or which suit provides a long series of winners for notrump) is over.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

... but even more importantly, wouldn't he have jumped to 5♣ over 3♠ with a suit that can play for 1 loser opposite a void?

<snip>

... What is the difference between 4C and 5C?

Both bids should set trumps, I dont think it is sensible

to reach the 4 level with no clue, what suit is trumps (*).

 

As I stated before, I think 5C instead of 4C is better,

not sure, if the final contract would have been better,

but I dont really care for a specific set of hands.

 

(*) I also would say, if one does believe, that 4C does

not set trumps, 4D should 100%, making a later 5C bid

from either side a cue / whatever.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe