Partner Opened 2C IIRC

[mike777]

geez guys I thouht this deal was a really really easy one..hmmm......

 

 

we made not one but two slam tries..ol 2 and 1/2.....pard bids 4h......give up.

[hanp]

Mike would you bid differently with xxx xxx KQxx xxx?

[Codo]

What did the sequence show so far?

 

To me this had been easy, we are off the first two tricks in club, so I pass without a second thought.

 

Obviously many of you play a quite different system. Here partner showed enough strength for one slam move but not for a second, while my hand is more or less unlimited. In this case I would try 5 ♥ to show extras without another cue.

[wank]

if you're playing that p must bid go past 4h lest he denies a club control, you're going to go overboard a lot imo

[billw55]

Agree with pretzalz and gwnn, there should be a more descriptive first response. 2♦ regardless of holding seems to promote doubt later in the auction.

[kfay]

Agree with pretzalz and gwnn, there should be a more descriptive first response. 2♦ regardless of holding seems to promote doubt later in the auction.

Problem is now we haven't agreed hearts until the 4-level! OOPS!!!

[pooltuna]

A few reasonable players have, for some reason, eschewed the action I took on this hand...

 

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s653hq72dkq64cq85]133|100|Scoring: IMP

2♣-2♦

2♥-3♥

3♠-4♦

4♥-?[/hv]

you need to look at this from the 2♣ opener's point of view. (S)he knows once (s)he bypassed the ♣ suit it would look like 2 possible losers and (s)he knows you will be in a terrible position to move over the 4♥ game bid. Believe them and pass.

[dake50]

Do you have a 3NT =5-9, 4333, 0-1 control if 8,9(or near this canonical hand) ? That ends this description. Now just fit you/not, partner.

[Little Kid]

No way I'm passing, partner opened 2♣.

[kfay]

Mike would you bid differently with xxx xxx KQxx xxx?

My thoughts exactly, Han.

 

Although, to be honest, I wasn't sure what my obligations were even with:

 

xxx xxx Kxxx xxx

[billw55]

Agree with pretzalz and gwnn, there should be a more descriptive first response.  2♦ regardless of holding seems to promote doubt later in the auction.

Problem is now we haven't agreed hearts until the 4-level! OOPS!!!

So what? Let's try gwnn's 2♠ to show 8-10 balanced:

 

2♣ - 2♠

3♥ - 4♥

 

My hand is in a very small box now, so partner can make good decisions going forward. Perhaps:

 

4♠ - 5♦

 

and now he can sign off in 5♥ with two club losers. Or he can use keycard over 4♥. Or he can pass if he was stretching to open 2♣.

[kfay]

Agree with pretzalz and gwnn, there should be a more descriptive first response.  2♦ regardless of holding seems to promote doubt later in the auction.

Problem is now we haven't agreed hearts until the 4-level! OOPS!!!

So what? Let's try gwnn's 2♠ to show 8-10 balanced:

 

2♣ - 2♠

3♥ - 4♥

 

My hand is in a very small box now, so partner can make good decisions going forward. Perhaps:

 

4♠ - 5♦

 

and now he can sign off in 5♥ with two club losers. Or he can use keycard over 4♥. Or he can pass if he was stretching to open 2♣.

I'm not sure, not playing the system, but shouldn't the auction go:

 

2♣-2♠

3♥-4♦

 

hey... I'm blanced so I can't really have a diamond suit, right?

[billw55]

I'm not sure, not playing the system, but shouldn't the auction go:

 

2♣-2♠

3♥-4♦

 

hey... I'm blanced so I can't really have a diamond suit, right?

Possibly, if opener will understand that 4♦ agrees hearts.

 

Either way, it seems that we get to 4♥ with partner knowing my hand better than after the nebulous 2♦ sequence.

[ONEferBRID]

A few reasonable players have, for some reason, eschewed the action I took on this hand...

 

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s653hq72dkq64cq85]133|100|Scoring: IMP

2♣-2♦

2♥-3♥

3♠-4♦

4♥-?[/hv]

If paying "mixed cues", then 4♦ denies a ♣ control.

4♥ says: " Unfortunately, I have 2 quick losers in ♣, otherwise I would have gone 4NT ( RKC for ♥ ), or continued with cuebids.

 

[ I know, I know... RKC is for wimps ] .

[kfay]

Ok Well here was partner's hand:

 

[hv=n=sajxhakj10xxdaxca10&s=sxxxhqxxdkqxxcqxx]133|200|[/hv]

 

Do you think he's obligated to bid more over 4♦? Wouldn't I certainly bid this way with xxx xxx KQxx xxx or xxx Qxx Kxxx xxx (and maybe even xxx xxx Kxxx xxx)?

 

So my thoughts were: Partner opened 2♣!!! I went on... at the other table they did not and they were +680.

 

Thoughts?

 

Make my ♣Q the ♠Q or switch partner's blacks and we're cold, on the lie of the cards on this hand we were cold... but is he supposed to bid more just because he has the ♣A? The auction was the same at the other table up to 4♥.

[jdonn]

It's hard. You're right switch partner's black suits and you are cold. Or make his diamodns AJ, or his spades AQx. Of course moving on doesn't mean you are forced to slam, but it does look like a bit of guesswork.

[kfay]

By the way, this hand brought up a discussion with another partner of mine.

 

People who have thought about it probably realize that the best way to play:

 

2♣-2♦

2♠-3♠

4X

 

isn't acutally a 'cue' persay, but an actual suit, since we may not belong in spades (see many many many bridgeworld bidding problems).

 

Well.. what's the difference between that auction and this auction up through 3♠? How do I show 4=5 in the majors and end up possibly playing in spades? Do people generally agree to play this way in this auction as well and, if so, how do you resolve suit agreements after opener bids 3♠? Furthermore, how do I even cuebid if that's the case? Starting to think that you can't really do everything when it comes to hearts...

[ArtK78]

I suppose you will all just laugh at me if I suggest that maybe the opening hand wasn't a 2♣ opener?

 

It isn't even close to what I would consider a 2♣ opener.

 

Some time back, an attempt was made to define a 2♣ opening bid as a hand where, if you opened one of a suit and partner passed, you would say "Oh, s**t!" This one doesn't come close to meeting that definition.

[jdonn]

I suppose you will all just laugh at me if I suggest that maybe the opening hand wasn't a 2♣ opener?

 

It isn't even close to what I would consider a 2♣ opener.

 

Some time back, an attempt was made to define a 2♣ opening bid as a hand where, if you opened one of a suit and partner passed, you would say "Oh, s**t!" This one doesn't come close to meeting that definition.

If partner had a balanced yarb you wouldn't mind taking your chances in 3NT. Exactly what would it take to make you say "oh sh*t" if you opened the bidding and partner passed? And you not only say this hand doesn't reach that, but you say it doesn't even come close?? Standard exageration?

[ArtK78]

If partner has a balanced yarborough he is likely to raise hearts at some point in the auction, and you may or may not get to 3NT.

 

My primary complaint is not so much whether you can make a game opposite nothing. It is how the low floor on 2♣ opening bids makes constructive bidding after a 2♣ opening bid so much more difficult than it should be to justify starting the bidding at the 2 level. You have deprived yourself of a level of bidding without sufficiently defining your hand. The problem is further exacerbated when the opponents interfere.

[Siegmund]

Wouldn't I certainly bid this way with xxx xxx KQxx xxx or xxx Qxx Kxxx xxx (and maybe even xxx xxx Kxxx xxx)?

 

Depends partly what 2♦ was. If you're playing 2♥ bust, the 2♦ bid promised one likely trick, and since all you have is the DK I would expect it to go 2♣-2♦-2♥-4♥, to say hearts are trump but you would have nothing to tell your partner about if you allowed him the space between 3♥ and 4♥ to explore for slam.

 

Queen of trump plus a side king is too good for that, so your 2nd hand quoted is about the worst hand I'd bid 2♦ then 3♥ but I'm not counting anything extra for my ♣Q on the actual hand. Partner called my attention to my trumps and my spades, so my xxx spades is going to be a major disappointment.

 

And yes, as others said, partner is a teensy bit weak for his 2♣ opener. That said, it looks like we had an otherwise successful auction, avoiding a slam that needs a squeeze or a gift to be better than 25%.

[jdonn]

Isn't it 50% on a non-spade lead and at least 25% if not better on a spade lead? And cold on any lead if opener's black suit's are switched? I wouldn't be a very big crime to reach this slam.

[Finch]

Isn't it 50% on a non-spade lead and at least 25% if not better on a spade lead? And cold on any lead if opener's black suit's are switched? I wouldn't be a very big crime to reach this slam.

It's way better than 25% on a spade lead.

 

On the king of spades lead, you are probably safe giving the opening leader the queen as well. There are probably better lines, but one simple one is to duck the lead, win the e.g. trump switch (assuming they don't switch away from the CK), cash the black aces and run trumps coming down to

 

 

-

-

KQxx

Q

 

J

x

Ax

10

 

 

This makes whenever LHO has the long diamonds, or RHO has the long diamonds and the KJ of clubs, or about 60%.

 

On a low spade lead to the king you will probably play the same way - no-one false cards with the K from KQ on your right here.

 

On a spade lead to the queen it's a bit of a guess, but you can still come down to the same ending and make every time the hand with the spade guard has the long diamonds.

 

You are also rather better than 50% on a non-spade lead, as you can e.g. play a club to the 10 early then have good squeeze chances.

[Finch]

By the way, for all this talk about serious or non-serious 3NT bids, this is another good hand for playing 3NT as natural.

 

2C - 2D - 2H - 3H -

 

3S = I have both majors

4C/4D = I have a club/diamond side suit

3NT = I have a balanced (6322) hand

 

Or, if you play Kokish,

2C - 2D - 2H (strong balanced or hearts) - 2S (relay) - 3NT = I have a minimum 2C opening which is balanced with 6 hearts.

 

None of this helps on the example hand, because it requires only very minor fiddling with opener's 6322 hand to make 6H either huge or cold (AKx AKJ10xx Ax Kx; AQx AKJ10xx Ax Kx is a nice Morton's fork (or the spade finesse), Ax AKJxxx Ax AJx is virtually cold, as is Ax AKJxxx AJx Kx (and that's not a 2C opening for most people))

[Siegmund]

I see I misunderestimated the chance of setting up that squeeze on the spade lead. Thanks for pointing out those extra chances, Frances.

 

No, it's not a crime to reach the slam. I just don't necessarily think it's a crime to miss it either.