Impossible 2/1 hand

[rduran1216]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq6hakq54dacakj5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dp2hp4hp]133|200[/hv]

 

No agreements about 2D, simply waiting, and 4H is weaker than 3H

 

What now?

[mikeh]

why blame 2/1? This is not a 2/1 sequence....it's a basic standard sequence, including, I suspect, some UK players as well as virtually all NA players who don't play a strong club.

 

Moreover, 2/1 imposes no constraints on agreements about responding to 2♣. Your problem is, it seems, that you don't have clear agreements...but that is a partnership issue, not a 2/1 problem.

 

In essence, due to inadequate methods, you have no clue as to what to do next. In these circumstances, pass seems best to me. If partner has xx Jxxx xxxx Qxx, too bad....bid and he'll have xxxx xxx KQx xxx.

[rduran1216]

why blame 2/1? This is not a 2/1 sequence....it's a basic standard sequence, including, I suspect, some UK players as well as virtually all NA players who don't play a strong club.

 

Moreover, 2/1 imposes no constraints on agreements about responding to 2♣. Your problem is, it seems, that you don't have clear agreements...but that is a partnership issue, not a 2/1 problem.

 

In essence, due to inadequate methods, you have no clue as to what to do next. In these circumstances, pass seems best to me. If partner has xx Jxxx xxxx Qxx, too bad....bid and he'll have xxxx xxx KQx xxx.

 

Ok impossible standard hand with basic agreements assumed.

 

I see no way to decide how high to go, or how.

[ArtK78]

At this level, cuebidding is out of the question.

 

I would just punt with 6♥ and assume that partner does not have the magic hand needed for a grand in light of his 4♥ call. There are too many hands that partner could have where 6♥ is cold to just give up here. But 5♥ is so open-ended that it is essentially pointless.

[hrothgar]

I agree with much of what Mike said... Even so, pass seems a bit tame.

I'd like to be able to bid something.

 

4NT doesn't make sense (partner can't have an Ace)

In a similar vein, cue bidding - or anything complicated - runs into the whole "no agreements" problem.

 

To some extent, it feels like you're pigeonholed into one of the following

 

Pass (Seems overly conservative)

6♥ (seems overly aggressive)

5♥ Range ask

 

Speaking purely from the gut, 5♥ feels right with this hand. I accept that there are many "maxes" where slam will fail and equally many "mins" where it might succeed. Even so, I'm guessing that an in tempo 5♥ will win out over pass.

[OleBerg]

6♥ wtp? (Assuming partner had a second negative.)

 

Partner will never be able to knwo what is working and what is rubbish.

 

And some people cash aces against slams.

[mike777]

pass, game before slam. Pard cant have a K and jump to 4h....so I pass.

 

Pard knows enough that 3h is forcing and he picked 4h so....

[Phil]

Poor 2/1 - gets ripped on by Europeans (and people from Long Beach, CA).

 

4N should ask for specific Q's. That is my call.

[Cyberyeti]

Poor 2/1 - gets ripped on by Europeans (and people from Long Beach, CA).

 

4N should ask for specific Q's. That is my call.

I've long said that you should have different asking bids when partner is known to be very weak.

 

Partner can have a yarborough where the slam is good, and some better hands where it's awful. The critical card is quite likely to be J♠ which you're never going to find out about.

 

In my world view, this is not the weakest way of raising hearts, 2♣-2♦-2♥-2♠(real bust)-3♣-4♥ is weaker, so I wouldn't expect a 3343 yarborough, and would bid again.

[rduran1216]

Poor 2/1 - gets ripped on by Europeans (and people from Long Beach, CA).

 

4N should ask for specific Q's. That is my call.

 

I'm touched by the trolls getting on the wording, I didn't want this to turn into some "if we play relays this wouldn't be a problem, or with Precision you can find out what you need, blah blah.

 

Playing the strong 2 club opening is part of 2/1, making this a 2/1 problem.

[hrothgar]

 

Playing the strong 2 club opening is part of 2/1, making this a 2/1 problem.

 

 

A strong 2♣ opening is also part of

 

Standard American

French Standard

Acol

More than one "Polish Club" variant

 

and probably a hundred other bidding systems.

 

Simply put, characterizing this as a "2/1 problem" simply injects noise into the discussion.

It doesn't add useful information, nor does it materially impact the analysis.

[the hog]

As Richard points out this is not a 2/1 problem. Have you defined the meaning of the jump with your partner? If so, it is not a problem at all. Anyway, I am bidding 5C so that partner can evaluate length in C or a C honour.

[mikeh]

I'm touched by the trolls getting on the wording, I didn't want this to turn into some "if we play relays this wouldn't be a problem, or with Precision you can find out what you need, blah blah.

 

Playing the strong 2 club opening is part of 2/1, making this a 2/1 problem.

Why not post it as: 'playing a method in which 2♣ is our strong artificial opening, with no agreement about 2♦ other than that it is waiting, we had the following sequence......what should I do now, given that 4♥ was weaker than 3♥?

 

simple, accurate, and gets the attention of all players interested in the problem, while not turning off those who have no interest in 2/1 problems.

 

And I suggest you check on the definition of 'troll' before using that term to attack people who pointed out your mistake. I also suggest you check the logic of your last sentence. It tends to smack of 'all dogs are 4 legged animals, therefore all 4 legged animals are dogs'.

[rduran1216]

Ok, its a 2C as a strong bid problem, some of you need to find wives/gf's husbands/w/e.

 

Thank you to those who gave serious replies.

 

Is 5H well defined in this sequence?

[hrothgar]

 

Is 5H well defined in this sequence?

 

 

Sort of...

 

Traditionally, bidding 5M is a flexible slam try, the meaning of which depends on

 

1. The auction to date

2. The definition of other available slam tries

 

If I had to wager a guess, I'd say that the most frequent use of the bid is to ask about trump quality/extra length.

 

In the example that you postulated, you have absolutely no agreements with your partner, so 5♥ should probably default to a range ask. (Trump quality doesn't really make sense because you can use Blackwood to get the same information)

[gnasher]

A strong 2♣ opening is also part of

...

French Standard

Wouldn't this be a 2♦ opening in SEF? It's reassuring to think that some people would face the even worse sequence 2♦-2♥;3♥-4♥.

[dake50]

6H.

Partner, if he's worth his salt, Has H:J and C:Q. Even S:J

[rogerclee]

I wouldn't pass!

[paulg]

Ok, its a 2C as a strong bid problem, some of you need to find wives/gf's husbands/w/e.

Not the way to win friends and influence people.

[OleBerg]

Not the way to win friends and influence people.

 

Give the man a break. He politely asks for help on a hand he has found difficult, and people starts to bitch about the semantics of his headline.

 

Furthermore, he is right. At least about me; I do need to get a gf/wife, instead of farting around on the internet.

[Fluffy]

5♦ splinter solves problems, assuming partner has no aces for his bidding, 4NT should be semi-bal slam try and 4♠/♣/5♦ splinter. Even if you don't play that way partner knows you cannot lack both balck controls and will understand

[the hog]

"and 4♠/♣/5♦ splinter."

 

Why should they be splinters. Fluffy, you are making this up.

[Fluffy]

Cos the hands that wanna invite for slam most likelly are based on shortness Ron.

 

And you have 4NT for the other hands that need a cuebid. You can reverse 4♠ and 4NT obviously as an improvement.

[OleBerg]

"and 4♠/♣/5♦ splinter."

 

Why should they be splinters. Fluffy, you are making this up.

I guess what Fluffy meant was: "If your agreement is to have splinters at the 5-level, it solves the problems. Thats how I read his post.

 

So you are correct, since agreement is somthing you make up.

[Fluffy]

I have an agreement that doesn't have a name, it could be named something like last train shortness bid.

 

the easiest example si this

 

pass-2NT

3♣-3♦

3♠-4♥

5♣

 

after the initial pass, any slam try is only justified by shape, and based on a shortness. And 5♣ shows the shortness.

 

We also don't use serious 3NT, but when a major suit fit is set at the 3 level, 3NT is slam try without shortness and anything else is singleton/void.

 

I don't have specific agreements on the sequence given by the OP, but with my partner I am pretty sure he would take 5♦ as splinter slam try.