6N: How Should It Have Been Bid?

[gurgistan]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakj9h3da43cakq96&s=sq4hkj952dkqj85ct]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Partner (North) opens 2♣. I bid 2♦ waiting. Partner bids 3♣. I bid 3♥. Partner bids 3N. I bid 6N.

 

Opponents are silent throughout.

 

Questions:

 

1. Should I have bid anything other than 2♦ waiting? That is what I play but sometimes you can make a positive bid.

 

2. Should I have bid 3♦ instead of 3♥ after North's rebid?

 

3. If auction had gone 2♣, 2[D], 3♣, 3♦ what would North's next b id have been?[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

I would open 1♣ on the N hand and take my chances that partner has ♠Qxxx and out and nobody bids.

 

Our auction would be 1♣-1♥-2N(GF unbalanced)-3♦(5+-5+, less extreme hands bid 3♣)-4♦ and on to 6♦ by any of a number of routes.

 

6N by south is beyond me, and I prefer 6♦ to 6N by N.

[hanp]

If 2H was available then you should definitely bid it. It's your only chance to show both suits and doesn't take up any room.

[EricK]

2♣ is an overbid IMO. It is hard enough to show everything in a 5431 hand without starting to describe the shape 2 levels higher. Opener should be able to predict that he will be stymied into bidding 3NT on his 3rd turn, or risk partner taking the bidding past 3NT if he shows ♣ and then ♠

 

But partner did choose 2♣ and this is where we found ourselves! Now 2♥ if it is natural and positive stands out. You need to show partner what you have, and it is easy to predict the likely course of the auction if you make a waiting bid here

 

Having made the 2♦ bid though, you need to start showing your shape at the 3 level. 3♥ is fine, but then you must bid your ♦ over partners 3NT.

 

This is a very instructive hand for beginners. Both players were given opportunities to plan ahead in the auction, and both failed that test.

[bucky]

Both the 2♣ opening and the 2♦ response share the same problem: making a nebulous bid when a more descriptive bid is available.

[the hog]

I agree with the other posters.

Even if you open 2C, you have an obvious 2H bid now. What is this 2D waiting with 2x5 card suits and a positive hand? Do you ALWAYS bid 2D waiting?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#0 It is a matter of style, or whatever you call it, I think openings 1C maybe

better most of the time, you have rebid issues, switch the black suits, and

I am fine with 2C

#1 2D is not wrong, but you have 12HCP vs. a 2C opener, you know, that

you will play at least on 6 level, the only issue is what.

Since 2H does not kill a lot of space, and since your suit is reasonable,

starting with 2H will quite often lead to an easier auction.

In depend what p answers, you can show your two suits with 3D in the next

round.

#2 No, 3H

#3 4D

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jdonn]

I like this auction

 

1♣ 1♥

2♠ 2NT

3♦ 4♦

4♠ 4NT

5♦

 

At this point from south's perspective 6♦ certainly looks like the safer slam. Just imagine north having the spade jack or club queen less.

 

I think if there's any important B/I lesson from this hand it's that after a bid like 2NT on the auction I show it's good for north to keep showing his shape. It's a common error that I see to assume that just because partner bid a suit we no longer have to worry about it. South could have xxxx of hearts which would be bad for 3NT opposite north's singleton. Or we could belong in a minor suit, such as we would on the actual hand if south's spades were xx. So 3♣ would show 4126 or 4216 or 4036, 3♦ would show 4135 with a small singleton heart or 4045, 3♥ would show 4315 or 4306, 3♠ would show 5xx6, and 3NT would show 4225 or 4135 with a singleton heart honor. The space is available to continue exploring so there is no reason not to do so.

[Codo]

1. You need to define 1 ♣ and 2 ♣. If you are forbidden to open this hand 1 ♣, you should change the system.

 

2. You need a system after 2 ♣. There are system which inculde a relay of 2 ♦. I hate them.

 

3. After your bidding reached 3 NT, you should have introduced your second suit, you have a two suiter, don't you?

[Fluffy]

I was gonna sugggest jdonn's auction. Not sure if I'd bid 2NT at the table but it works like a charm.

[ONEferBRID]

Again,

I'm going to used gnasher's ( 2S! )"toy" * when there is a 1H response to 1-minor and Opener is strong enough for a GF rebid; included is my scheme for the followup. 2S! = unbalanced, GF and may be artificial :

 

* [ Sept 10, 2010; http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=41513&st=30 ]

 

But I think I would reach 6D ... not 6NT:

 

♠ AKJ9

♥ 3

♦ A43

♣ AKQ96

 

♠ Q4

♥ KJ952

♦ KQJ85

♣ T

 

1C - 1H

2S! - 2NT! ( asks for clarification )

??

   3C! = long Cl

   3D! = 4s, 5+c, no 3h

   3H! = 3h, 5+c, no 4s

   3S! = 4s and 3h

 

After:

3D! - 4D ( 5/5 in the reds, slammish )

4H! ( Redwood, RKC for Diam; 4NT would be to play ) - 4NT ( 1 key card )

5C ( dQ-ask ) - ??

                5D = no dQ

                5H = dQ and hK

               etc

6D

[bucky]

Again,

I'm going to used gnasher's ( 2S! )"toy" * when there is a 1H response to 1-minor and Opener is strong enough for a GF rebid; included is my scheme for the followup. 2S! = unbalanced, GF and may be artificial :

I am not convinced this is suitable for B/I. There was enough trouble to decide what to open and to respond. Natural bidding sequence with good evaluation and judgment is best (like the one Josh proposed, although responder may consider rebidding 3♦ instead of 2NT after opener's jump shift, but either sequence will reach 6♦ painlessly).

[Cyberyeti]

Again,

I'm going to used gnasher's ( 2S! )"toy" * when there is a 1H response to 1-minor and Opener is strong enough for a GF rebid; included is  my scheme for the followup.  2S! = unbalanced, GF and may be artificial :

I am not convinced this is suitable for B/I. There was enough trouble to decide what to open and to respond. Natural bidding sequence with good evaluation and judgment is best (like the one Josh proposed, although responder may consider rebidding 3♦ instead of 2NT after opener's jump shift, but either sequence will reach 6♦ painlessly).

Maybe not 2♠, but I've ben playing the 1N 12-14, 1x-1y-1N wide range up to my 2N opener and 1x-1y-2N as the unbalanced GF for 25 years since I was B/I, so similar is possible.

[bucky]

Maybe not 2♠, but I've ben playing the 1N 12-14, 1x-1y-1N wide range up to my 2N opener and 1x-1y-2N as the unbalanced GF for 25 years since I was B/I, so similar is possible.

I didn't imply that a particular system is good or bad for B/I. My point is that, bidding fundamental is about card evaluation and judgment. When that can be shown in a most natural way (as few relay as possible), the benefit will be most appreciated.

[vuroth]

Do you ALWAYS bid 2D waiting?

:)

[gurgistan]

Do you ALWAYS bid 2D waiting?

:)

I had a very bad experience with a 8-10hcp balanced hand opposite my partner's 2♣ opener (some other partner) sometime ago. I bid 2N and we ended up in 6N. Only 2 tables failed to make 12 tricks out of 16 tables. Ours and a 6♠, both of which were played by South (I was South at our table).

 

I then became convinced that having the strong hand play the contract (which is worth 1 trick) was crucial.

 

I posted the hand in General Discussion.

 

So yes, I am always trying to play 2♦ waiting.

[gwnn]

pro tip: play

 

2NT=5-5 in the majors, positive

 

Of course, in this hand it would have been great to play 2NT=hearts+ minor, positive :blink:

[junyi_zhu]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakj9h3da43cakq96&s=sq4hkj952dkqj85ct]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Partner (North) opens 2♣. I bid 2♦ waiting. Partner bids 3♣. I bid 3♥. Partner bids 3N. I bid 6N.

 

Opponents are silent throughout.

 

Questions:

 

1. Should I have bid anything other than 2♦ waiting? That is what I play but sometimes you can make a positive bid.

 

2. Should I have bid 3♦ instead of 3♥ after North's rebid?

 

3. If auction had gone 2♣, 2[D], 3♣, 3♦ what would North's next b id have been?[/hv]

You did very well in this hand, well bid.

1 2D waiting is certainly fine if you have suit quality requirement for H.

2 3H over 3C is also fine, because it is the natural way to show your 5-5 two suiters.

3 If you bid 3D, your partner would bid 3S which is natural.

[Stephen Tu]

I had a very bad experience with a 8-10hcp balanced hand opposite my partner's 2♣ opener (some other partner) sometime ago. I bid 2N and we ended up in 6N. Only 2 tables failed to make 12 tricks out of 16 tables. Ours and a 6♠, both of which were played by South (I was South at our table).

 

I then became convinced that having the strong hand play the contract (which is worth 1 trick) was crucial.

 

So yes, I am always trying to play 2♦ waiting.

I think you are overreacting & jumping to the wrong conclusion from your insufficient sample size of one hand. I reviewed your earlier post ... basically you had a strong 4=4=1=4 with stiff DA facing a 4342 10 count, and reached 6nt down on a diamond lead. But really opener had a clear-cut 3c rebid (whether interpreted as clubs or stayman), after which the cold 6s should have been reached easily (It was 6♥ that failed, not 6♠ as you said above). 90% of the blame was simply on that, not "wrong-siding" the contract. Because really this wasn't "wrong-siding", it was basically random; if your RHO had the KQT of diamonds or something like 9865 and led a diamond you still would have been down with the strong hand declaring, with the SK still offside. It wasn't a case where opener had something like the Kx of diamonds and the strong hand declaring 6nt was a clear benefit.

 

Not responding 2h isn't going to get partner declaring hearts unless he has a 2nt rebid or happens to have 5+ hearts himself. So you only get to "right-side" some fraction of the time. Plus even in those cases, a large portion of the time it doesn't matter (there is no attackable suit for the defense where position matters, or the critical honors are onside anyway). It certainly isn't "worth 1 trick", it's only worth some small fraction of a trick, which is not necessarily worth the loss in bidding accuracy.

 

If you refuse to make a positive response on everything, bid 2d always, you are going to have somewhat less accurate auctions than those people who utilize more sequences. You use up more space to show your shape when partner has a black suit, and you don't get to distinguish strength ranges or suit quality between hands that bid a suit immediately over 2c vs. those that bid 2d first. You will "right-side" the contract showing an actual trick gain only rarely in compensation.

[bucky]

Do you ALWAYS bid 2D waiting?

:(

I had a very bad experience with a 8-10hcp balanced hand opposite my partner's 2♣ opener (some other partner) sometime ago. I bid 2N and we ended up in 6N. Only 2 tables failed to make 12 tricks out of 16 tables. Ours and a 6♠, both of which were played by South (I was South at our table).

 

I then became convinced that having the strong hand play the contract (which is worth 1 trick) was crucial.

 

I posted the hand in General Discussion.

 

So yes, I am always trying to play 2♦ waiting.

Your bad experience came from responding 2NT to 2♣, which is usually (but not always) bad. But when you have a positive hand and suit worth showing, responding in SUIT will help partner count the number of tricks. This is particularly true when your hand has shape, you need to tell partner lots of information, a nebulous 2♦ is not a good start in achieving that. And it doesn't mean you will have to end up being declarer either.

 

In short, I think it is premature to jump to the conclusion to ALWAYS bid 2♦ from one bad experience of responding 2NT.

[lamford]

pro tip: play

 

2NT=5-5 in the majors, positive

 

Of course, in this hand it would have been great to play 2NT=hearts+ minor, positive :D

Can I suggest an improvement that 2NT is any 5-5 game force?

then 3C = ask

 

3D = diamonds and not hearts

3H = hearts and not spades

3S = spades and not diamonds

 

The next suit up allows the responder to complete the description. If instead of 3C, opener bids his suit, that should say "not interested in your suits, pard, but please cue for my solid/semi-solid suit.

[gwnn]

maybe. haven't thought about it. Don't like the big ambiguity though, I like responder to be clear about his hand.