Comments on the auction?

[hanp]

Kx

Axx

J

K1098xxx

 

 

AQJxxx

Kxx

Qx

AJ

 

1S - 2C

3S - 4D

4H - 4S

Pass

 

 

Comments on the auction? 2C is GF, 3S shows a good suit and a good hand.

[rogerclee]

I would cuebid 4C as north, especially if I played 2C = clubs or balanced. I also dislike north's 4S, I would make another try.

 

Agree with south's bidding, though I'm curious what a minimum 3S bid is. AQTxxx Kxx Qx Ax?

 

edit: realized north's 4C is not a cuebid, but he should try again

[Fluffy]

I don't see what hand had north in mind that would go down at the 5 level.

 

 

Mmm, now I don't see what hand had south in mind that would go down in 5♠ either.

 

Looks like I am not very clever today or both have underbid, I bet for the former.

[jdonn]

North has to keep going IMO. Also I don't care for 3♠ but if anything it should have made things easier here. But I mean, it's not necessarily an easy hand to bid when you don't even belong in your longest fit in slam.

[cherdanno]

I would cuebid 4C as north, especially if I played 2C = clubs or balanced. I also dislike north's 4S, I would make another try.

 

Agree with south's bidding, though I'm curious what a minimum 3S bid is. AQTxxx Kxx Qx Ax?

If you really even consider bidding 3♠ with this hand, I don't understand why you wouldn't play 4♣ as natural.

I wouldn't have bid 3♠ with the actual hand. Given that South bid 3♠, I also think North is too good to bid 4♠.

 

Edit: I guess I should have said "I am not used to the style with 3S as good suit good hand" rather than "very good suit useful hand". So I guess 3S is in range for this agreement, but still North can really go on over 4H.

[peachy]

In your/my 2/1, 1S-2C-2S is the default bid with minimum even with no extra length or strength in spades when can't raise clubs, don't have a red 4-card suit, and don't have one side suit stopped. Under these conditions, it is okay to bid a descriptive 3S with the OP hand and show a pretty six-card spade suit [no more than one loser in it], moderate extras, strongly imply spades should be trump . Admittedly, it is minimum for this description.

 

All in all, North should continue. My gut says, N was worried that S did not know that N knew "spades is trump" and that 5C could me misunderstood. No insult intended on North, but no other reason seems real for not going on for at least once more with a hand that has Kx spades and all side suits controlled first or second round.

[rogerclee]

never mind

[PhantomSac]

I think north has a close decision but that his signoff is very reasonable.

[kenrexford]

This is difficult to comment upon, because the structure is so foreign to me. I mean, the 3♠ call itself is not so wild and crazy stuff that I cannot figure out what that means. But, the theory behind such a preemptive call for such a non-exciting hand baffles me to the point where I cannot tell what each side should expect that they have shown.

 

I mean, if South has shown a hand with two of the top three spades, six of them, relatively balanced and scattered, with about a six-loser hand, and has further shown a heart control in that context (and hence the King), then North should expect South to have the Ace or Queen of clubs. With that extra help, the whole decision is whether it is the Ace (where 6♠ looks to be fairly laydown) or the Queen (where 5♠ might be tricky).

 

Whether North should have bumped more or South should have gone on that 4♦ cue seems to be a matter of fine-tuning understanding of this approach. And thus I can merely comment up to this point that it seems that those who use this (somewhat strange) approach would be better suited to answer, knowing the theory and thinking behind all of this. And, that's if all my assumptions are right.

[Cascade]

South should move. South has the unexpected values in partner's suit. From North's perspective swap the ♣A for the ♦A in partner's hand and we are content at 4♠.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

4H instead of 4D may have been better, the first cue being a top honor

works really well.

If South sees the Ace of hearts, he wont have a lot of fear going down

in 5, so he will make another move over 4S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hanp]

This is difficult to comment upon, because the structure is so foreign to me. I mean, the 3♠ call itself is not so wild and crazy stuff that I cannot figure out what that means. But, the theory behind such a preemptive call for such a non-exciting hand baffles me to the point where I cannot tell what each side should expect that they have shown.

 

I mean, if South has shown a hand with two of the top three spades, six of them, relatively balanced and scattered, with about a six-loser hand, and has further shown a heart control in that context (and hence the King), then North should expect South to have the Ace or Queen of clubs. With that extra help, the whole decision is whether it is the Ace (where 6♠ looks to be fairly laydown) or the Queen (where 5♠ might be tricky).

 

Whether North should have bumped more or South should have gone on that 4♦ cue seems to be a matter of fine-tuning understanding of this approach. And thus I can merely comment up to this point that it seems that those who use this (somewhat strange) approach would be better suited to answer, knowing the theory and thinking behind all of this. And, that's if all my assumptions are right.

You are of course welcome to post anything you like but a long post that says you have nothing to say seems rather useless.

 

I was north, I was playing with a first time partner from a very different bridge culture. Still, I knew what her 3S was and she knew what my 4D was. What remained was a judgement problem.

 

Thanks for the interesting reactions.

[kenrexford]

This is difficult to comment upon, because the structure is so foreign to me.  I mean, the 3♠ call itself is not so wild and crazy stuff that I cannot figure out what that means.  But, the theory behind such a preemptive call for such a non-exciting hand baffles me to the point where I cannot tell what each side should expect that they have shown.

 

I mean, if South has shown a hand with two of the top three spades, six of them, relatively balanced and scattered, with about a six-loser hand, and has further shown a heart control in that context (and hence the King), then North should expect South to have the Ace or Queen of clubs.  With that extra help, the whole decision is whether it is the Ace (where 6♠ looks to be fairly laydown) or the Queen (where 5♠ might be tricky).

 

Whether North should have bumped more or South should have gone on that 4♦ cue seems to be a matter of fine-tuning understanding of this approach.  And thus I can merely comment up to this point that it seems that those who use this (somewhat strange) approach would be better suited to answer, knowing the theory and thinking behind all of this.  And, that's if all my assumptions are right.

You are of course welcome to post anything you like but a long post that says you have nothing to say seems rather useless.

 

I was north, I was playing with a first time partner from a very different bridge culture. Still, I knew what her 3S was and she knew what my 4D was. What remained was a judgement problem.

 

Thanks for the interesting reactions.

I'm not sure why you assessed what I commented as useless.

 

What I thought i was doing is to analyze from a logical perspective what seems to be an unusual treatment. surely you agree that this 3♠ call is not the common or standard manner of handling this hand. But, assuming a logical interpretation of what the bid means, one would expect that the call shows a specific hand type, which is one that is fairly balanced (else presumably a new suit is bid) and fairly notrump tolerant, with "extras," meaning probably a six-loser hand, which is what Opener has.

 

I then assessed what is known up to this point and realized that the ultimate conclusion as to who should do more (if anyone) comes down to a very precise unknown (clubs) and a more theoretical unknown (what exactly is expected in this sequence, if the partnershop was on the exact same theoretical page). I then concluded that I (and other guessers here) cannot logically assess "blame" because it is so close a call, because either one might contextually have underbid (depending on what the assumptions are), and because it is plausible that either side might have enough contextual info to act.

 

so, I thought I was giving a detailed, thoughtful analysis to reach a conclusion that the question cannot really be answered well.

 

If a "useful" answer one that points to a specific answer more than one that points to the fact that an answer really cannot be provided?

 

The "judgment problem" cannot be assessed, IMO, without knowing what is meant by Opener's extras indication, the magnitude of extras implied or shown by the option to cue, and the magnitude of the interest indicated by opener's inclination to further cooperate in the cue sequence.

[jjbrr]

I don't think this 3♠ is not common or standard. I would argue quite the opposite.

[peachy]

I don't think this 3♠ is not common or standard. I would argue quite the opposite.

Not sure what you argue for or against. This 3S is common in any 2/1 style. It is standard in 2/1 Hardy style.

[kenrexford]

Really? Y'all are saying that there is a mainstream 2/1 approach where opener jumps to 3♠ simply because he has a sixth spade and "extras," as opposed to a 3♠ call showing a self-sufficient suit?

 

Why the heck would you do that?!?!? Just rebid 2♠. Why take away the entire 3-level? Just seems odd to me.

[quiddity]

Lawrence's 2/1 CD suggests two possible styles for the jump rebid - a solid suit (AKQxxxx or AKQTxx), or a "semi-solid" suit (AKJTxx, AQJTxx, KQJTxx, AQJ9xxx). He thinks these suits are ok because rkc can keep you from getting too high.

 

With AQJxxx you might expect 2 losers opposite a singleton, so I agree that it's pushing things to jump rebid with that suit.

[whereagles]

You cannot ask the weaker hand, North, to keep on going after it has bid all it had to bid.

 

It is South, the strong hand, that should have bid 4NT over 4♠. It is her responsibility to proceed because a stronger hand is more independent.

 

Personal opinion, though I think simple capitaincy rules like the above avoid oh-so-common post-mortem discussions as to who should have done what, discussions whose outcome is more based on human relations between players than bridge technical merit...

[whereagles]

(...) Just rebid 2♠. Why take away the entire 3-level? Just seems odd to me.

What seems odd to me is to bid 2♠ on a bad 11 and good 17, but ok. If the players can sort out the level of the contract afterwards, I guess you should go for it....

[straube]

How about...

 

1S-1N

3S-4C (suit)

5C-6S

 

I think 1S-2C is reasonable but we're not sure of a fit yet and this hand needs club tolerance for it to be worth a GF.

 

I don't like 1S-2C, 3S. Now 1S-1N, 3S is a different auction. Here opener can rebid 2S which almost certainly shows 6. 1S-2C, 3S will be embarrassing if 6S is reached opposite a stiff and the opponents win two spade tricks.

 

After 1S-2C, 3S I don't see how responder can find out what he truly wants to know (the club ace) unless 3N is some sort of slam try (which it isn't). 4C is rebidding his suit (which is not rebiddable in the face of an independent spade suit) so I think I like 4D which agrees spades and

doesn't deny a club control. I think unless responder bids 3N (natural) or 4C (his suit) that he's forced to cue along the way to 4S so 4D doesn't show slam interest but agrees spades. 4H by opener follows. I think responder is endplayed into 4S here. He can gamble that opener has the club ace (or maybe Qx), but if he doesn't....

[gnasher]

How would the auction go after 1♠-2♣;2♠?

[kenrexford]

How would the auction go after 1♠-2♣;2♠?

Depends, of course. For me, 2♦ by Opener would have been available for many hands as a catch-all, such that 2♠ clearly shows a sixth spade. Therefore, Responder just raises to 3♠ to agree trumps.

 

This allows Opener to serious 3NT if he wants, or to courtesy cue if that seems right to him. I'd imagine, for the sake of argument, a serious 3NT call. If this happens, the auction ends up the same -- 4♦ cue by Responder and 4♥ cue by Opener. The differences are that 4♦ bypassed 4♣, and therefore denied two of the top three clubs, 4♥ is actually Last Train, and Opener got to show serious interest. With those changes, the onus is clearly on North.

 

Had South opted, in my sequence, to shoot low with a 4♣ cue, any cooperation by North would mean that the ball is in South's court, clearly.

 

The decision as to which way to go by South at his first call is a partnership matter, as the situation is close at that point, similar to at the actual critical point. But, there's a wee bit more space to unwind any chosen course.

[hanp]

Ken your double dummy bidding is flawless as usual.

 

It is convenient to know that partner's 6-card suit is so good when you raise on Kx. Not knowing my partner's hand I might rebid my 7-card suit. My partner would surely raise and it could be tough to get to 6S.

[hotShot]

Since 2/1 is a mystery to me, my contribution will be a questions.

 

Should not a jump over a GF be at least invitational to slam?

 

Now if that is true, than North has failed to show his ♣K and his ♥A.

And perhaps 3♠ is a slide overbid from South.

 

North has 2 keycards, an extra K and shortage in an unbid suit. What more would I need to bid 5♦ as exclusion KC (if available) over partners slam invitation?

 

 

I assume that 2♦ and 2♥ would have been a GF too.

So North has shown a hand with less than 3♠, less than 5♥ and ♣length>=♦length.

South could/should understand North bidding as 2434 that includes A or K in ♦. I don't think that South has a chance to guess a 7 card ♣ length and ♦ shortage.

So I think South has no move left after partners sign off 4♠.

[kenrexford]

Ken your double dummy bidding is flawless as usual.

 

It is convenient to know that partner's 6-card suit is so good when you raise on Kx. Not knowing my partner's hand I might rebid my 7-card suit. My partner would surely raise and it could be tough to get to 6S.

I never seem to get comments like this.

 

If my approach has a problem, it is in occasionally playing in a major when 3NT or perhaps even a minor contract is superior. This is because I use what I consider to be a practical rule, namely that I will in 2/1 sequences have as a rule that an agreed major will be the strain for game, and secondarily that I will always agree a major if a fit is known.

 

This has downsides, of course. But, it seems disingenuous to fault a particular sequence on the one hand as taking away ability to find the best strain but then to comment that my always-agree-the-major rule is "double dummy bidding." Please pick one objection and stick with it.

 

Using this rule, this is not remotely double-dummy. Opener showed six spades. Responder has a fit. The rule is to show the fit. The fact that on thjis hand it helps, apparently, is not double-dummy. On the hands where it does not help, but I raise anyway, will you call that intentional double-dummy self-sabotage? Please.

 

The way I bid, for clubs to come back into focus, Responder or opener must make a choice-of-slams call at some point. This might not be ideal to you, which is fine. It works OK for me. I actually pre-tailor structure for that contingency. For example, if Opener has denied a void in clubs, or Responder has promised first-round club control, then 5♣ would be RKCB, but with the King and Queen of clubs shown instead of the King and Queen of spades (presumably because the other is known, in an example auction).

 

In this sequence, my approach is really bad, in one sense. After Responder bids 2♣ and then 3♠, Opener cannot know whether the club suit is even Kx or nine-card in length. That's obviously not ideal. But, my rules end up with that unfortunate aspect.

 

But, double dummy? That's a comment that is based on a combination of ignorance of my real-world approach (perhaps because of a shock that I would bid as stupidly as that, in your possible opinion) and an assessment of my position as dishonest, apparently, which is offensive.

 

I'd much rather that, with knowledge of what I really do, you call my rules idiotic and absurd than to essentially call me dishonest.