Your auction please?

[Coelacanth]

[hv=pc=n&s=shaqt9764da2cakq5&n=skt983hdkjt9643c4]133|200[/hv]

East deals, all vul at IMPS.

 

NS will have the auction to themselves.

 

What contract would you like to reach?

What auction can get you there?

Do you think you would actually find that auction at the table? If not, what contract will you reach?

[rhm]

2♣-2♦

2♥-3♦

3♥-3♠

4♥-Pass

 

Is this auction difficult?

6♦ is playable though.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[awm]

2♣ - 3♦

3♥ - 3♠

3NT - 4♦

6♦ - Pass

[aguahombre]

Yeh, easy after the 3D response to 2C. There are limits to the theory of staying out of pard's way with the first response. And a non-descript 2D response is so far beyond the limits as to be silly.

[rhm]

Yeh, easy after the 3D response to 2C. There are limits to the theory of staying out of pard's way with the first response. And a non-descript 2D response is so far beyond the limits as to be silly.

I beg to differ.

3♦ over 2♣ in effect takes away another level of bidding in an already crowded situation with basically no gain. What should be the difference between 2♣-2♦-2xyz-3♦ and 2♣--3♦?

Yes, 2♦ as the cheapest response is non-descript, but 3♦ as the most expensive bid has to be very descript. That is the secret how optimal information exchange works in a forcing situation.

2♣--3♦ should not just show a long, but a very good suit. This suit does not qualify. The less HCP you have, and distribution before a fit has been established is no substitute for strength, the better the suit should be. It should almost never be a ♦-major two-suiter. To bid 3♦ when you do not know where to play just has to be wrong over 2♣. The ♦s are long but not that good and it is easy to see that this deal might easily be a misfit which needs to be played in 3NT.

Opener will have trouble to show ♣s over 3♦ and you will have trouble what to do over 3NT. Neither do I relish the sequence 2♣-3♦-4♣. What would be your rebid over 4♣? 4♠ by either side is at least very ambiguous and would be a control bid bid in support of the last bid minor in my book.

 

Give opener for example ♠Ax-♥AQxx-♦x-♣AKQJxx (where you belong in 3NT) versus ♠AQxx-♥Ax-♦x-♣AKQJxx (where you belong in 6♠). Declarer will choose the same rebid in either case over 3♦.

Over 2♦ no rebid by opener can embarrass you and it might enlighten you, e.g if opener rebids 2♠ or 2NT. In that sense you get in your own way by not bidding 2♦.

If partner has a good ♥ suit and 3NT is best you have a much better chance to get there if you go slowly.

Note that even though opener has ♦ support, 6♦ is playable but nothing to write home about. It might make or it might go down.

 

On awm's sequence

 

2♣--3♦

3♥--3♠

 

it is wishful thinking that opener would rebid 3NT. I know of no player, whether expert or beginner, who would not rebid his ♥s here with this hand.

 

After

2♣-2♦

2♥-3♦

3♥-3♠

 

opener has still a close decision between 3NT and 4♥ and responder has a close decision whether to bid 4♦ over 3NT.

 

The sequence

2♣-2♦

2♥-3♦

3♥-3♠

3NT-4♦

6♦

 

at least passes a reality check. Yours does not.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

I beg to differ.

3♦ over 2♣ in effect takes away another level of bidding in an already crowded situation with basically no gain. What should be the difference between 2♣-2♦-2xyz-3♦ and 2♣--3♦?

Yes, 2♦ as the cheapest response is non-descript, but 3♦ as the most expensive bid has to be very descript. That is the secret how optimal information exchange works in a forcing situation.

I disagree with the conclusions drawn from this, KJ10xxxx is plenty. Partner knows that if I've taken the trouble to bid 3♦, Ax or Qx is plenty for a second time raise.

 

2♣-3♦

3♥-3♠

4♦-5♦

P or 6♦ (close decision, I think I'd bid 6)

[whereagles]

With my pet pard I would probably end up in 5 or 6♦ on a polish club-like auction.

 

1♣ 1♠

2♦ 4♦

4NT 5♦

6♦

 

1♣ = either nat or any strong GF (forcing)

1♠ = we don't care much for minors lol

2♦ = art, GF

4♦ = nat 55 slammish

4NT = please pass (4♥ would be support for diamonds)

5♦ = no way I'm passing

6♦ = at least I'll be playing it, ha!

[rhm]

With my pet pard I would probably end up in 5 or 6♦ on a polish club-like auction.

 

1♣ 1♠

2♦ 4♦

4NT 5♦

6♦

 

1♣ = either nat or any strong GF (forcing)

1♠ = we don't care much for minors lol

2♦ = art, GF

4♦ = nat 55 slammish

4NT = please pass (4♥ would be support for diamonds)

5♦ = no way I'm passing

6♦ = at least I'll be playing it, ha!

Would 2♥ (game force with ♥) not be the normal rebid in Polish club?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

I disagree with the conclusions drawn from this, KJ10xxxx is plenty. Partner knows that if I've taken the trouble to bid 3♦, Ax or Qx is plenty for a second time raise.

 

2♣-3♦

3♥-3♠

4♦-5♦

P or 6♦ (close decision, I think I'd bid 6)

 

For opener to preference with Ax into a minor, in particular when you consider KJ10xxxx plenty for a positive in ♦, instead of rebidding a good 7 card major, which can play opposite a void, smacks of even more hindsight than a 3NT rebid by opener does.

If you change a small ♦ for a small ♣ in responders hand, agreeing ♦ does not look very clever to me.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[TWO4BRIDGE]

2♣ - 3♦

3♥ - 3♠

3NT - 4♦

6♦ - Pass

Similar but showing 5s/6+d:

 

2C - 3D ( 5+cards, 2 of top 3 or 3 of top 5 )

3H - 3S

3NT - 4S

5D - pass or 6D if you feel lucky

[whereagles]

Would 2♥ (game force with ♥) not be the normal rebid in Polish club?

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

I don't know, I'd have to check the book. Still, in this case 2♥ would be artificial and showing a weakish hand with no slam interest (~5-7 hcp). As I said, this pet system is polish club-based. I took up the idea of dumping the strong hands into the 1♣ opener and took it from there in my own way.

[Coelacanth]

Thanks everyone for the interesting discussion.

 

It's possible I've mis-remembered the hand and that the south hand didn't have the ♣Q. The reason I think this is that nobody who we showed the hand to thought it was a 2♣ opener.

 

The auction at my table (I was East) was 1♥-1♠, 4♥-P. Making 5 on a club lead when hearts were 3-3 and diamonds 2-2. At the other table, my teammates bid 1♥-1♠, 3♥-4♦, 4NT-5♦, 5♥-P, making 5 for a push. Opener thought 4♦ was some kind of cuebid supporting hearts, but after finding zero keycards managed to stop in time. They apologized for not finding 6♦.

 

I'm not sure 6♦ played by North is cold. East will lead the ♠Q and West has the ♠A.

[the_clown]

I m also opening this 1♥, with a ♠ void and only 19 HCP i dont see any chance of this being passed out. Playing 2/1 I m planning to bid gazzili 2♣ over 1♠ or 1nt, showing 17+/balanced or 2524 12-14/15-16 with clubs. Partner responds 2♦ 8+ and 3♥ shows a very good 17+ hand with a suit playable opposite a void, which is what i have. Now p doesnt have the chance to bid his ♦ natural so he will probably settle for game.

 

Opening 2♣ will also not get us in 6♦ since we have the ♦ weak 2 in there, so 3♦ would be ♦preempt.

 

1♥-1♠

2♣-2♦

3♥-4♥

[Flameous]

1♣ - 2♦ (16+ / 7-12, 5+♠, 4+♦)

2♥ - 2♠ (Heart shortness)

2NT - 3♣ (55+)

3♦ - 3NT (5062)

4♥ - 4♠ (♦ RKC / 1)

4NT - 5♠ (Asks Q, 7th diamond should do the trick)

6♦ - P

 

I'm not quite sure if I really want to be in this but it's not too bad.

 

After 2♣ opening:

2♣ - 2♥ (4+♠, unbal)

3♥ - 4♦ (No relay, so shows long good suit, often with spade shortness)

4♥ or 5♦, hard to say which one I'd bid. 5♦ might get raise to 6.

 

After 1♥ opening (I'd probably choose this for the reasons the_clown said)

1♥ - 1♠

2♣ - 3♦ (Gazzilli style / 46+ or something like that, haven't really figured a bid to show 56+ :D)

4♥ let's play.

[Cyberyeti]

For opener to preference with Ax into a minor, in particular when you consider KJ10xxxx plenty for a positive in ♦, instead of rebidding a good 7 card major, which can play opposite a void, smacks of even more hindsight than a 3NT rebid by opener does.

If you change a small ♦ for a small ♣ in responders hand, agreeing ♦ does not look very clever to me.

 

Rainer Herrmann

Partner has shown 6 diamonds and 4 or 5 spades, how many hearts do you think he has ? With only KJ/K and 6-5 I bid 2♠ or 2♦ not 3♦, 3♦ shows a bit more playing strength which the 7th diamond gives me.

[rhm]

Partner has shown 6 diamonds and 4 or 5 spades, how many hearts do you think he has ?

Why do you ask when you cite me at the same time with my claim that this ♥ suit can play opposite a void?

Do you read and actually understand what you cite?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

1♥-1♠

3♣-3NT

4♥

 

I don't understand the 2♣ openers with spade void

[Hanoi5]

Even though the quality of the heart suit is nice it clearly isn't a suit worth playing with against a void. I think opening 1♥ is not dangerous (in the sense that we'd be left playing there), but I don't think it solves the problem anyway.

 

1♥-1♠

3♣-3♦

3♥-

 

And I'm lost from there. Maybe 4♦ and then 5♦ over 4♥, but I don't know.

[Cyberyeti]

Why do you ask when you cite me at the same time with my claim that this ♥ suit can play opposite a void?

Do you read and actually understand what you cite?

 

Rainer Herrmann

Yeah it plays REALLY well in a slam opposite a void or small singleton. Sure it can play game, but after a positive response, particularly 3♦ that's where I'm looking.

[rhm]

1♥-1♠

3♣-3NT

4♥

 

I don't understand the 2♣ openers with spade void

Maybe because a two loser hand with a long major suit qualifies for 2♣ and partner will never envision this if you open 1♥.

After your sequence I would await dummy with quite a bit of trepidation, because slam will be cold opposite many dummies, for example ♠JTxxx,♥Jx,♦KQxx,♣xxx.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Even though the quality of the heart suit is nice it clearly isn't a suit worth playing with against a void. I think opening 1♥ is not dangerous (in the sense that we'd be left playing there), but I don't think it solves the problem anyway.

 

1♥-1♠

3♣-3♦

3♥-

 

And I'm lost from there. Maybe 4♦ and then 5♦ over 4♥, but I don't know.

True 1♥ is unlikely to be passed out.

 

I remember a recent thread http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/45151-pass-a-forcing-bid/ with a rather similar bidding sequence, where people argued the merits of passing a forcing bid, because game looked unlikely to partner.

 

Rainer Herrmann