Analyze this Sequence

[kenrexford]

Opener:♠xx ♥AKQx ♦Kx ♣Kxxxx

Responder: ♠x ♥xx ♦Qxxxx ♣AJ108x

 

O: 1♣

R: 2♣ (inverted -- Opener thinks this was too small for that call)

O: 2♦ (opening strength; 2♥ would be natural unbalanced; responder thinks 2♥ would have been a better description)

R: 3♣

O: 3♥ (values in hearts)

R: 4♠ (splinter)

(auction continues to whatever point)

 

Opener contended that 4♠ was a gross overbid. Should have more like x-xxx-Axxxx-Axxx for this call.

Responder countered that the sequence sounded like Opener had the parallel 2-2-4-5 with maybe xx-Ax-Kxxxx-AKxx, where the club slam looks good. 4NT would be available as Last Train, which Responder would decline.

 

Thoughts?

[Fluffy]

bid your stiff at a lower level. I'd bid 2♠ shortness, but 3♠ would also be ok.

[hanp]

Thought 1. 2C was an overbid.

 

Thought 2. I don't understand what 2D showed (presumably an opening bid shows opening strength?), nor why it was bid.

 

Thought 3. After responder has signed off in 3C, the splinter should show short spades, not a strong good hand.

 

Thought 4. Blackwood would have been useful.

 

Thought 5. Maybe both partners should look a little more at their own actions instead.

[kgr]

I would start with:

1♣-3♣

3♣ is 6-9 with ♣'s for me. 1♣ only promises a 2c♣ for me, but even if it promises 3c♣ then 3♣ looks enough for me. And with the short Majors it is also more preemptive.

Opener will now bid 3♦ to show a stop and showing a problem in one of the majors; and responder can splinter 4♠.

Playing 41-30 opener can bid 4NT and responder shows 1 Ace with 5♣.

[hanp]

I would start with 1NT.

[Free]

I'd start with 2♠ showing 6-9 with 5+♣. If opener bids 2NT relay I can bid 3♠ showing shortness.

 

2♣ is an overbid

I think 2♦ means you don't have a light opening, but what's wrong with showing your hand with 2♥?

3♣ signing off, limiting the hand - great

3♥ values, can't see any harm in that

4♠ splinter, since responder already denied real game interest, he's now just showing he has "something"

 

Now RKC 1430 would be great to stay out of slam.

[pooltuna]

1) opener could have started with 1NT

2) opener was right about 2♣

3) responder was right about 2♥ provided it did not show xtras (opener has some but not enough for a reverse). IMO the inability to show xtras is a flaw in most 2/1 FG systems.

4) 3♥ now responder pays for the initial 2♣ call

5) responder is nuts to bid 4♠ didn't 2♦ show a minimal opener?

[Phil]

Disagree with 1♣ - What are you planning on doing over 1♠?

 

Disagree with 2♣, although if you do not have a mixed raise in clubs available, hands like this are a problem, but what is so wrong with 1♦ with this shape? Personally I think a double raise should be more like 4-8 to include hands like this and you give up on the really weak hands.

 

2♦ is endemic in your style: "tell me about your hand and I'll keep you in the dark". I don't see what is wrong with 2♥ if this isn't considered a 1N opening.

 

3♣ /3♥ look normal.

 

4♠ ?! suddenly responder wants to invite slam after opener's signoff?

 

In spite of all this, you were headed for the garden spot of 5♣, except you do not tell us how the movie ends.

[jdonn]

Thought 2. I don't understand what 2D showed (presumably an opening bid shows opening strength?), nor why it was bid.

Exactly what I was wondering

[kenrexford]

2♦ in this sequence simply shows a full opening strength hand and is non-committal as to pattern. 2M shows an unbalanced hand and is forcing but non-committal as to strength. 2NT is a flat balanced minimum, and 3C is an unbalanced or extra-clubs minimum. 3-level jumps are shortness.

 

The person bidding 2♦ opted for this call because 2425 did not seem unbalanced enough.

[nigel_k]

Agree with 2♣. It suggests more high card values but 3♣ could be a much worse hand and nothing else appeals unless you have another agreed treatment for this hand type. 1♦ followed by 3♣ doesn't help matters.

 

Don't agree with 2♦. If it's balanced North should have opened 1NT, otherwise it qualifies for 2♥ showing an unbalanced hand. I don't think there should be any middle ground that is too unbalanced for 1NT and too balanced to rebid 2♥.

 

After that it depends on the meaning of 3♣. If 3♣ is nonforcing or suggests a minimum then I think South's sequence is ok.

 

If 3♣ is unlimited then I would just keep bidding clubs at minimum level with South and eventually cue bid 4♠ if the opportunity arises. Splinter or anything else is too much.

[jdonn]

I still don't get it. 2♦ doesn't show or deny anything, it just says I didn't want to claim I was balanced or unbalanced unless I'm balanced with extras? What kind of bid is this?

[cherdanno]

So first you open 1♣ with a 15 count, and then you want to deny your hand is unbalanced? So partner knows you have 12-14 or 18-19?

[kenrexford]

The structure is one that has a degree of flexibility. That said, I am not agreeing that all calls are correct within that structure, and hence the question.

 

FWIW, the 3♣ call did show a limited hand and was passable.

[jdonn]

Anyway just to actually contribute more constructively, I think 4♠ is a fine bid and that opener should know a hand like this is possible and bid 4NT to check. It's not like a hand that bid a NF 3♣ will turn down a slam invite with a stiff spade and two aces and a fifth club. This should be exactly why we play last train here.

 

I agree with opener that responder wasn't really good enough for 2♣, but I don't consider that bid the cause of the problem. Give responder a few red jacks or the club queen and the same thing can happen.

 

I also would start with 1NT as opener, though 1♣ should have worked well since unless you have a response for invitational hands with the minors it may be very hard to reach 5♣ here after that.

[hanp]

4♠ ?! suddenly responder wants to invite slam after opener's signoff?

Opener did not sign off.

[Codo]

1 ♣ okay, you can show this hand as unbalanced, I had opened 1 NT

 

2 ♣ I have 7 HCPS, b ut a nice shape, sorry this is an overbid. I had tried a mixed raise if avaiable. IF i had no bid for this, I had tried 3 ♣.

 

2 ♦ Ridicolous. Last bid, I treated my hand as unbalanced, now, after partner showed around five clubs, I change horses and switch to balanced?

 

3 ♣ I guess this shows minimum? Great bid.

 

3 ♥ Heart values. Okay, nice- unluckily due to my 2 ♦ bid, partner will play me for a 18-19 NT hand without diamond values. (or why did I surpass 3 ♦?) Not exactzly what I have.

 

4 ♠ Why? After 3 ♥, I should know that partner has a balancd hand with 18-19 HCPS and no diamond values. So slam is impossible and I can decide whether I should play 3 NT or 5 clubs. I had choosen the later.