ATB

[pclayton]

Interesting ATB (or maybe not):

 

[hv=w=saxxhxxdxxxcakxxx&e=sxxxhjxxdaqtxcqjx]266|100|[/hv]

 

1♣ - 1N - 2♣ - 3N.

 

All Vul, IMPs.

 

Hearts were 4-4, but a diamond was off so this was a silly result.

 

Assign the Blame please. Plenty to go around here I'm sure.

[Echognome]

I assign much more blame to 2♣ than to 3NT. 3NT was speculating on 6 club tricks and 1.5 additional tricks from partner. However, West really has no reason to move over 1NT.

[blackshoe]

You posted it, it's your fault. :)

 

Actually, I think the first problematic bid may be 1♣. When you open, you should plan a rebid - and this hand doesn't have one.

 

As responder, on the auction, I might rebid 2NT. On a good day, opener will have enough to go to three. Bidding three on my own is just, as you say, silly.

 

So... 50/50 each player.

[jdonn]

3NT was certainly the worst bid. We may not have enough strength, or tricks, or stoppers, or any of those things. We could lose the first 9 or so tricks in the majors on a bad day! There is just no reason to gamble like that. Give partner a sixth club and game is still awful. He is not barred if you raise to 3♣.

 

2♣ was at least understandable, although probably inferior.

[Echognome]

At least Josh and I agree... to disagree.

[han]

He is not barred if you raise to 3♣.

A problem is of course that you don't have much play for 3C either, but I agree that 3NT was certainly the worst bid.

 

2♣ was at least understandable, although probably inferior.

 

Agree with this as well.

[jdonn]

At least Josh and I agree... to disagree.

I didn't see your posted before I posted, how dare you disagree with me!

 

Seriously you even call 3NT "speculating". Why speculate with 8 other bids inbetween the one chosen? What good will all those tricks you refer to, which you don't even know partner has, do if he also has a singleton in a major?

 

One other bad reason to take a random shot on 3NT and pray it's good. You have very little hope of the wrong lead, since any long major they hold is probably over the 1NT bid since there was no overcall over 1♣.

[han]

Actually, I think the first problematic bid may be 1♣. When you open, you should plan a rebid - and this hand doesn't have one.

This must be some higher bridge that I don't understand. If you deem this hand good enough to open then you open it. You will rebid 1NT if available. Over 1NT you can pass or bid 2C, pass seems normal to me and qualifies as a rebid in my world.

[Lobowolf]

I'm not a big fan of either side of the auction, but I'd give responder most of the blame. When 1NT gets pulled to 2♣ , opener is showing NT concerns, and they're presumably major suit oriented, since responder might have length in diamonds (as is the case here), but lacks it in the majors. Responder has 1/2 a stopper in both majors combined. I can see upgrading the hand with QJx in clubs after a rebid, and I can see getting agressive if the scoring is IMPs, but IMO it's a serious flaw that all his non-club stuff is in the same place.

[kenrexford]

IMO, 2♣ dangled a carrot that was hard to resist. So, I'm on the side of not bidding 2♣. I can sympathize with Responder for thinking that 3NT was probably on a diamond hook, which it would be if Opener has a sixth club, despite the 11-count. Sure -- you need hearts behaving after a heart lead also.

[cherdano]

You posted it, it's your fault. :)

 

Actually, I think the first problematic bid may be 1♣. When you open, you should plan a rebid - and this hand doesn't have one.

Huh? You don't have a rebid to show a balanced minimum?

 

Anyway, I am open for debate on light openings. But this is not a light opening. It has AAK WITH a perferct 5-card suit.

 

On the original question: I think 2♣ is ok if you play 1N as a balanced club raise. If partner might bid 1N with 3352 to shut out the majors, it could lead to a rather silly contract. So I would never bid 2♣ unless I know partner's 1N style to be of the former kind (and then I don't know any partner who would ALWAYS have clubs for his 1N bid). As an aside I think it makes a lot more sense to bid 1D-1N-2C with 3244 shape.

 

I still agree that 3N is the worse bid, though.

[pclayton]

I bid 2♣. I think this is a clear opener for anyone not hung up on point count.

 

2♣ kind of occurred to me on the spot. While its a nice source or tricks, we could have an open major, and a single stop in the others. Pard should not bid 1N with a 3352, so I expected at least 3 if not 4. So 2♣ felt like a safer spot.

 

I think 3N is presumptuous, but some sort of forward going call is OK I think. even down 1 in 3♣ isn't terrible since the opponents have 8 tricks in a major.

[TimG]

What do you all think of responder starting with 1D? When NT is right, it is probably best played from opener's side (we have no holdings that need protection).

[jdonn]

What do you all think of responder starting with 1D? When NT is right, it is probably best played from opener's side (we have no holdings that need protection).

I have had bad luck doing this since partner invariably bids a major suit over that, and since it's so anti-preemptive.

[han]

I don't have strong feelings about 1D vs 1NT, unless 1NT shows 8-10, then I strongly prefer 1NT.

 

The auction 1C-1NT-2C-3NT really shouldn't exist so this thread shouldn't exist either. It's like bidding 1NT-3NT-4NT down two and asking whether responder should have invited.

[Lobowolf]

I don't have strong feelings about 1D vs 1NT, unless 1NT shows 8-10, then I strongly prefer 1NT.

 

The auction 1C-1NT-2C-3NT really shouldn't exist so this thread shouldn't exist either. It's like bidding 1NT-3NT-4NT down two and asking whether responder should have invited.

Yeah, when the upgrade is from (essentially) "sub-invitational" to "game forcing" (or game bid) after opener's minimum rebid, that's a bit much.

[pclayton]

There a famous auction that happened at the Hawaii Nationals a few years ago:

 

Opps silent and equally befuddled. Pass - 1N (12-14) - 6N! The 6N bidder passed 1st chair with 10 solid LOL.

 

I have seen one of my partners perpetuate this bid: Pass - 1♣ - 1♠ - 2N - 6N(!). He had a flat 13. It wasn't enough :)

[dburn]

Would have opened 1♣ every day of the week and twice on Sundays - ace-ace-king is an opening bid in all positions at all vulnerabilities. So that can't be the worst bid.

 

Might have responded 1♦ just in case partner had a balanced 2NT rebid with some major that could profitably be led through (AQ doubleton, or Kx). But 1NT makes it harder for them to bid the majors, or to judge how high to contest if they do bid the majors, so that can't be the worst bid either.

 

Detest 2♣ - that just tells the opponents to bid, when we might easily buy it in 1NT and run seven tricks with them cold for eight or nine in a major. So that could easily be the worst bid, had it not been superseded by...

 

3NT, which is an out-and-out gamble in a position where there is no need to gamble. If I'm not supposed to be 3=3=5=2, then I could bid a simple 2♦ or try two of a major, to show values in that suit and maybe attract a diamond lead against 3NT if that's where we end up. But I would bid an honest 3♣ - that way, if partner bids 3NT we will make it, and if he doesn't we will have done what we can.

[Lobowolf]

There a famous auction that happened at the Hawaii Nationals a few years ago:

 

Opps silent and equally befuddled. Pass - 1N (12-14) - 6N! The 6N bidder passed 1st chair with 10 solid LOL.

 

I have seen one of my partners perpetuate this bid: Pass - 1♣ - 1♠ - 2N - 6N(!). He had a flat 13. It wasn't enough :)

Maybe by a passed hand, a quantitative 5NT should mean, "You're not gonna believe I passed this stinkin' hand. Pass or bid 6, but if you're going pass, think again about bidding 6. Seriously."

[jdonn]

There a famous auction that happened at the Hawaii Nationals a few years ago:

 

Opps silent and equally befuddled. Pass - 1N (12-14) - 6N! The 6N bidder passed 1st chair with 10 solid LOL.

And his partner had the other three aces and out. Really. Although I think it was just 9 solid (could be wrong?)

[kenrexford]

This sequence caused some disagreement between me and a regular partner of mine. I think there is a bit of a philosophical issue at work here. The comments about this being an impossible argument assume one philosophical viewpoint, where the auction would be impossible, rather than another viewpoint, where the auction makes sense.

 

The idea is hinted at by dburn: "Detest 2♣ - that just tells the opponents to bid, when we might easily buy it in 1NT and run seven tricks with them cold for eight or nine in a major."

 

The implication of this is that Opener should not rebid 2♣ in this sequence just to better the partscore, when at IMP scoring. First of all, the "better partscore," if it truly is better, may not actually gain, because, in the long run, the gains get countered by major-suit competition. If anything, I could see merits in treating 3♣ in this sequence as a weaker bid than 2♣, because converting 1NT to 2♣ all but guarantees making a 3♣ bid later anyway. So, why bid 2♣?

 

In my thinking, it makes more sense for 2♣ at IMP scoring to be a stronger move, suggesting possible 3NT (T form). As this sequence (1♣-1NT-2♣) leaves all strains out other than clubs or a T-form 3NT contract, the call enables two-level calls in all other suits as exploratory bids for the hypothetical 3NT contract. With the actual hand held by Responder, a maximum with outstanding internal support, a side Ace, and a Queen with that side Ace, the values are clearly there for the acceptance (if 2♣ is understood this way), but informatory bidding gains little.

 

Consider the two possible approaches.

 

In the one, Opener is forced to bid 3♣ to show prospects, thereby depriving the partnership of the entire three-level to explore game. In the other, Opener passes this hands but is able to explore game with as little as AKxxxx in clubs amd a side Ace (all that is needed for the game to be fair).

 

I like the idea of Opener being able to show something like this hand (six if fit plus one) with a 2♣ call. Were Responder to have something like the spade King instead of the diamond Queen and heart Jack, he could isolate that card (2♠) and this way find a 3NT contract (on a combined 21 HCP), a T-form 3NT contract, with relative three-level safety in clubs (we'd bid 3♣ over 2♥ anyway), a result not attainable otherwise.

 

All that said, no one with cred (that I know) seems to buy this argument. I think the CW is wrong here, but I find myself in a very small minority. So, I ended up just giving in to the pressure when playing with people with cred.

[skjaeran]

Would have opened 1♣ every day of the week and twice on Sundays - ace-ace-king is an opening bid in all positions at all vulnerabilities. So that can't be the worst bid.

 

Might have responded 1♦ just in case partner had a balanced 2NT rebid with some major that could profitably be led through (AQ doubleton, or Kx). But 1NT makes it harder for them to bid the majors, or to judge how high to contest if they do bid the majors, so that can't be the worst bid either.

 

Detest 2♣ - that just tells the opponents to bid, when we might easily buy it in 1NT and run seven tricks with them cold for eight or nine in a major. So that could easily be the worst bid, had it not been superseded by...

 

3NT, which is an out-and-out gamble in a position where there is no need to gamble. If I'm not supposed to be 3=3=5=2, then I could bid a simple 2♦ or try two of a major, to show values in that suit and maybe attract a diamond lead against 3NT if that's where we end up. But I would bid an honest 3♣ - that way, if partner bids 3NT we will make it, and if he doesn't we will have done what we can.

Agree with this almost 100%. But IMO it's closer between 2♣ and 3NT being the worst bid than David think.

[pclayton]

The implication of this is that Opener should not rebid 2♣ in this sequence just to better the partscore, when at IMP scoring. First of all, the "better partscore," if it truly is better, may not actually gain, because, in the long run, the gains get countered by major-suit competition. If anything, I could see merits in treating 3♣ in this sequence as a weaker bid than 2♣, because converting 1NT to 2♣ all but guarantees making a 3♣ bid later anyway. So, why bid 2♣?

I've never played it, but I think its a very reasonable approach to play 2♣ stronger than 3♣. I think Auken - Von Arnim play this. 2♣ is forcing and can encompass a lot of different hands.

 

I think they play it in any 1m-1x-2/3m situations, but there may be exceptions.

[ASkolnick]

I disagree the auction doesn't exist, because partner held this hand at IMPS.

 

Ax

Axx

QTxx

xxxx

 

 

Auction

1D-1N

2D-3N

 

Unfortunately, I had the

xx

xxx

AKxxx

Axx

 

hand, but certainly partner was correct in bidding 3N. He thinks, I probably have 6 top tricks in diamonds, and 2 Acess. If partner has a 9th trick for me, we just bid a

good very light game at IMPS.

[Finch]

Oooooh noooooooooo I'm starting to agree with Ken.....

 

In one partnership we play all four of the 1m - 1NT - 2m sequences as forcing (with semi-artificial rebids by responder) and the three obvious 1m - 1NT - 3m sequences as pre-emptive.

 

But I would never assume anything like that agreement. Without discussion, 2C is weak attempting to play in the known club fit (well, known unless you think 1NT is right with five diamonds). It's all very well saying you would 'never' pull to 2C because it's asking the opponents to bid 2M, but if you are vulnerable you might prefer to defend 2M than go a few off in 1NT.