ATB

[awm]

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

 

N/S were playing 2/1 GF except suit rebid. They did not have a lot of discussion otherwise, but are both expert players. The uncontested auction:

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♦ - 2♠

3♠ - 4♠

5♣ - 6♣

6♠ - Pass

 

This contract did not fare well when the opening leader cashed the top two hearts. The result was an amusing push when the other table played 6♦ on the same defense.

 

Anyway, who do you blame for reaching slam off two cashers? And which call was the worst?

[Echognome]

I mostly blame North, although there are several calls I don't like.

 

In order of the auction I dislike:

 

2♠ (prefer 3♣)

5♣ (although sympathetic, missing too many cards: ♠Q, ♥AK, ♦ and ♣ Aces)

6♣ (worst bid) surely not worth a drive to slam. Prefer 5♦.

[awm]

In order of the auction I dislike...

 

2♠ (prefer 3♣)

Keep in mind that 3♣ would not have been forcing in the style they were playing (2/1 except suit rebid). I think this is the case in BWS also.

 

Obviously if you evaluate the north hand as an invite only this is fine.

[neilkaz]

6♣ is a very bad bid since it should be obvious that PD is looking for a ♥ control.

[cherdanno]

I disagree with the previous posts here. 5♣ is clearly a bad bid, a partner who refuses to make any cuebid cannot have two aces, a king and the trump queen. In fact, I would make one cuebid with the Nort hand rather than bidding 4♠.

 

Given that, I think 6♣ is the right bid. It is impossible for opener to make a slam try missing two heart controls, both minor aces, and the trump queen, after we didn't make a single cuebid. Hence we are worth a slam force and might just try to get to the best slam while we are getting there.

[quiddity]

I hate 2S. Either the hand is a game force (2H) or an invite (3C). It is not a spade raise.

After the pseudo-raise, 3S seems wasteful. I think I would try 3C - maybe lying about the length but KJ is really nice in partner's 2/1 suit.

6C is strange; why not 5D?

[Phil]

Playing 2/1 except for suit rebid should probably help here.

 

I don't have a lot of problems with 2♠. You can't rebid 3♣, although you could agree to play 2♥ as a 'punt' here too.

 

3♠ is a little premature. I much prefer 3♣ (which gets 3♦) and then South can try 3♠. The heart weakness should be evident by now, so you can avoid the bad 3N.

 

I assume in a new partnership that 3♠ is a strong bid. North owes a cuebid, or at least a NS 3N if that's on the card. He has a key queen, an outside A and a nice side suit. So 4♣ is indicated. South cues diamonds and you stop in 4♠.

 

5♣ is crying for a heart card, so 6♣ is crazy.

 

Lots of meat on the bone here, but 6♣ gets my vote.

[bid_em_up]

I assume in a new partnership that 3♠ is a strong bid. North owes a cuebid, or at least a NS 3N if that's on the card. He has a key queen, an outside A and a nice side suit. So 4♣ is indicated. South cues diamonds and you stop in 4♠.

The train goes off the tracks on responders 4♠ bid, imo. It makes any competent cuebidding sequence impossible.

 

So 4♠ is the bid that gets my vote.

[skjaeran]

To me it's close between 4♠ and 5♣ as the worst bid in the auction. Having 2KC and the trump queen, not cuebidding over 3♠ is criminal.

 

But there's absolutely no point in bidding on past 4♠ by opener either - there's no hand responder can have for his bidding that makes slam anything but ridiculous.

 

I voted 4♠, but after writing the rest of the post, I think it's a draw.

[kenrexford]

The vast majority of the auction after the first three bids is so foreign to me, and shocking, that I can hardly assess blame with confidence.

 

The 2♠ call seems to be a partnership thing. I hate the style, if the style is waiting. But, I might have to live with that as not a mistake.

 

The 3♠ call seems sick. You either play 2♠ as setting trumps, in which case bypassing several good cues seems moronic, or 2♠ does not set trumps, in which case 3♠ seems moronic. I don't know for which reason the call is moronic, but it nonetheless is.

 

The 4♠ call seems extremely uncooperative, but perhaps legitimate in the partnership. I don't know.

 

The 5♣ call seems plausible, depending on what partner's calls mean. I find it hard to believe that partner could have two Aces and the trump Queen for his 4♠ call, but he does. If his red Aces were to be reversed, then 6♠ makes. So, 5♣ cannot be contextually hopeless, unless the signoff denies "two with the Queen" if you also have the fourth suit controlled, even with one of these key cards. Again, I don't know.

 

6♣ seems bizarre, unless the control situation is absolute maximum for the signoff.

 

So, I have no idea who is to blame because the bidding style seems whacked out.

[Double !]

Just curious.

 

Why the H*** didn't responder rebid 2♥, (4th suit forcing) over opener's 2♦ if he wanted to set up the GF and go from there.

However, playing 2/1 GF except if responder rebids his/her suit, with poor spots in the club suit, a rebid of 3♣ is not that much of an underbid and, in retrospect, with lighter initial action being more common, might actually be the preferred choice.

 

DHL

[peachy]

I can't pick which bid deserved to be voted as worst - 2S, 3S, 4S, 5C, or 6C. Apparently responder rated his hand as GF since he did not rebid the club suit so this auction is "any old 2/1" instead of "except when suit rebid". In a GF auction, 2S promises 3+ spades. Responder could not rebid 3C due to system restriction, but he should have not misrepresented his spade length, even when it did no damage to the auction now that opener's spades were so pretty. Opener could have bid 3C instead of 3S. Then, I don't understand why responder refused to show any aces by the 4S bid. Then, I don't understand why opener bid 5C, though I do have some sympathy for it - it would be a rare and strange hand for responder to not have any aces and still be gameforcing; opener is staring at A LOT of kings, queens and even jacks, including honors in clubs so 5C is desperately looking for a heart control.

[Cascade]

Among other bids the blame depends on precisely what 3♠ showed.

[jmcw]

2♠ is clearly wrong. Over 2♦ I pefer 3♦ forcing (2♥ is a reasonable 2nd choice). From there, we will eventually settle in 4♠.