My very bad bid

[silvr bull]

Partner says my bid here is one of the worst he has ever seen! What would you bid as South?

IMPs with random BBO opponents.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthkt764dq72ck54&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1sp1np2dp]133|200|Open 5 card majors. 1NT forces one more bid. [/hv]

[Lord Molyb]

2♠. Your values aren't good enough to invite outright and you should "correct" to the 5-2 fit.

2♥ isn't terrible but it's likely to get you into the wrong strain. Pass could work out too.

[helene_t]

It is unusual that 1nt is forcing by a passed hand.

 

I think pass is very bad and 2nt is quite bad. 2♥ is not terrible but with a 5332 13-count partner might have passed 1nt, and 5143 is more likely than 5341 now that hearts is my long suit.

[mikeh]

I adopt helene's comment re 1N as a passed hand. At most it is usually played as 'semi-forcing' by a passed hand.

 

As for what to bid, 2♠ is a 'wtp' choice.

 

Pass is silly for multiple reasons, including:

 

1) a 5-2 is probably better/safer than a 4-3, especially with 2 honours in spades

2) partner may be just short of a jumpshift and will bid again over 2♠. If so, then game is a strong favourite and is unreachable after pass

 

 

2♥ is silly because partner should pass it with a stiff, which will not result in a good contract. It is how you bid with a bad 6 card suit. Now, some might argue that you can't hold 6+ hearts and not have pre-empted, but that isn't good bridge. Imagine x Jxxxxxx Kx Qxx.

 

2n is a gross overbid.

 

so 2♠ is a standout bid.

 

I'm not sure which of 2N or 2♥ would qualify as the one of the worst bids he'd ever seen....they are horrible but he's led a sheltered life if he hasn't seen worse. Of course, maybe you did worse :P Technically, passing isn't a bid, btw.

[gszes]

Since your 1n is forcing (even by a passed hand) there is no guarantee p has 4

diamonds (5332) so passing 2d is just as scary if not more so than converting to 2s

which conceivably could be into a 42 spade fit (though never if you always have

at least 5 opposite a passed hand--strongly recommended). This hand could easily be

a mild misfit and treating it as invitational or better is a huge overbid.

[neilkaz]

I would NOT play 1NTF by a passed hand. Anyhow, here, easy 2♠ bid, Be happy that you have JT in support rather than 2 small. I'd not introduce that mediocre (at best) ♥ suit which PD should be able to pass with a stiff. Passing 2♦ might leave you in a 3-3 fit on a bad day.

 

2NT is a gross overbid and would be a candidate for worst bid seen.

[helene_t]

conceivably could be into a 42 spade fit

No, if you open 1♠ on a 4-card suit in third seat it is with the intention to pass any response. So the rebid confirms 5+ spades.

[billw55]

2♠ > pass >> 2♥ > 2NT.

 

I'm not sure which of 2N or 2♥ would qualify as the one of the worst bids he'd ever seen....they are horrible but he's led a sheltered life if he hasn't seen worse.

Agree.

[Manastorm]

2♠ is an easy choice for me. No clear support for any suit, not enough values to invite NT, dont have my own suit and 5-2 spades with JT should be ok, maybe partner finds another bid, then I got something. 2♥ is an attempt to find a miserable 5-1 fit. I dont think 2NT is as bad as some say, my 3rd choice actually.

[steve2005]

yes would like to know his bid. only 2N is completely hideous.

[TylerE]

I'm dissapointed in you guys. No yet has mentioned our obligation to show support for partner by raising to 3♦? <_<

[Bbradley62]

If we're not careful, we may set a BBO Forums record for the highest number of unanimous votes.

 

Edit: Seriously? Within an hour of my post someone voted for 2♥??

Edited October 8, 2014 by Bbradley62

[chasetb]

I disagree with most of you! I think 2NT is better than 2♥ as the third best bid -> we have some strength in both, and especially if they attack ♥ we have great stoppers. I also expect 6+ ♥ for 2♥.

 

2♠ is easily my first choice, and Pass is second. A good rule of thumb here is you should have at least 2 more cards in the second suit than the first in order to pass, or 1 more card if you have 4+ more HCP in that suit.

 

EDIT - I agree that 1NT should only be Semi-Forcing by a Passed Hand.

[mycroft]

"If you have never been passed in Blackwood, you can not win an individual." - Jeff Goldsmith

 

So, if any call you may have reasonably made is the worst call partner's ever seen, he's never won an individual...

[whereagles]

I hereby express my choice of joining the "2♠ wtp" bandwagon.

[rmnka447]

I'm also in the 2 ♠ camp.

 

If partner has 4 ♦, then you have a known 5-2 ♠ fit and a 4-3 ♦ fit. It's usually better to play in the 5-2 fit.

[silvr bull]

Thanks for all the responses. I have now added my unrepentant vote for 2♥. :D Can someone tell me how to add a signature to all my posts? I would like mine to read "I am a stranger in a strange land." :rolleyes: I expected a nearly unanimous vote, but in favor of 2♥ :unsure:

 

If my hand was weak (xx Jxxxx Qxx Kxx for example), I would have bid 2S in a flash, and hope it goes all pass. But my hand is stronger than that minimum, and I can dream that partner might have better than a minimum too. Suppose opener has something like Axxxx QJx AKxx x (or possibly Kxxxx Qxxx AKJx void). A 2♠ bid by me will end the auction, and we might eek out a plus there, but I would much rather be in 4♥. I can also imagine hands that would play well in 3NT (with a helpful contribution from my ♠JT), but partner needs to hear something forward going from me to get there. If opener has the dreaded stiff ♥ and a minimum, there will still be no problem if he does not panic about a possible misfit and pass ensuring a misfit, but bids again instead. After making what I consider to be a mildly forward going bid, I can happily pass if opener rebids his 5 card ♠ suit, and no harm would have been done by my shot at finding a good ♥ fit on the way to a sell out at 2♠. If this is a real misfit and I have the weak hand that wanted to play in 2♥, then I can rebid the suit and partner can pass with a stiff, knowing that he too did his best to avoid a bad situation. Getting one trick higher in a misfit is not desirable, but I think the possible gain from treating the 2♥ bid as forward going with a 5 card suit outweighs the possible risk.

 

After a few more replies, I will post partner's hand too so all can see how my 2♥ bid turned out. Hint, it was not pretty. :o

[mikeh]

Thanks for all the responses. I have now added my unrepentant vote for 2♥. :D Can someone tell me how to add a signature to all my posts? I would like mine to read "I am a stranger in a strange land." :rolleyes: I expected a nearly unanimous vote, but in favor of 2♥ :unsure:

 

If my hand was weak (xx Jxxxx Qxx Kxx for example), I would have bid 2S in a flash, and hope it goes all pass. But my hand is stronger than that minimum, and I can dream that partner might have better than a minimum too. Suppose opener has something like Axxxx QJx AKxx x (or possibly Kxxxx Qxxx AKJx void). A 2♠ bid by me will end the auction, and we might eek out a plus there, but I would much rather be in 4♥. I can also imagine hands that would play well in 3NT (with a helpful contribution from my ♠JT), but partner needs to hear something forward going from me to get there. If opener has the dreaded stiff ♥ and a minimum, there will still be no problem if he does not panic about a possible misfit and pass ensuring a misfit, but bids again instead. After making what I consider to be a mildly forward going bid, I can happily pass if opener rebids his 5 card ♠ suit, and no harm would have been done by my shot at finding a good ♥ fit on the way to a sell out at 2♠. If this is a real misfit and I have the weak hand that wanted to play in 2♥, then I can rebid the suit and partner can pass with a stiff, knowing that he too did his best to avoid a bad situation. Getting one trick higher in a misfit is not desirable, but I think the possible gain from treating the 2♥ bid as forward going with a 5 card suit outweighs the possible risk.

 

After a few more replies, I will post partner's hand too so all can see how my 2♥ bid turned out. Hint, it was not pretty. :o

You are guilty of allowing what you hold to influence your understanding of what 2♥ means. You'd like it to be constructive with 5 hearts. It isn't. Wishing it were doesn't make it so. The fact that you can construct hands on which partner will have bid 2♦ and 4♥ is a good contract is a snare and illusion. Until you learn that, you will never become a good bidder. You have to accept the limitations of whatever system you have agreed to play...and every system has limitations, every single one. In standard, 2♥ is a weak to constructive hand with 6+ hearts, and since you are a passed hand, that says your suit isn't appropriate for a weak 2. Partner is usually going to pass. If he bids, then he was going to bid over 2♠ so you were worried about the wrong thing. He will not be rebidding a 5 card spade suit and you are deluding yourself, again, when you entertain that possibility. At least, not if he has any basic understanding of bidding.

[fourdad]

This is only a problem because 1NT is forcing as a passed hand! Can't wait to see your partners hand, as I am betting a pass of 1NT would have been a more than reasonable, if not best, choice. 1NT forcing here begs the question, "how will you ever know if your pd opened light?" 1NT forcing is a systemic flaw that needs correcting.

[m1cha]

I agree with most here that the system bid with the S hand is 2♠. But that doesn't automatically make 2♥ such a bad bid. I see it this way (using your quote, Mike, with the strike-out being my edit[!]):

 

In standard, 2♥ is a weak to constructive hand with 6+ hearts[!], and since you are a passed hand, that says your suit isn't appropriate for a weak 2. Partner is usually going to pass

 

and continue "and from this we infer that it is usually a 6-card suit". 2♥ essentially suggests misfits in opener's suits. But if you cannot bid 2♥ with a 5-card suit, what will you do with a 1-5-2-5 hand after 2♦ from opener? Let him play 2♦ in a 4-2 fit? 2♠ in a 5-1 fit? Bid 2NT with 8 HCP or less? Or will you play 2♥ which is probably good?

 

Opposite a partner who has exactly 5 spades and denied 4 hearts, I expect the following number of cards in hearts:

3 (42.4 %)

2 (38.3 %)

1 (16.6 %)

0 ( 2.7 %)

2♥ seems to do good rather than harm in most cases, so if we bid 2♠ instead of 2♥ the reason is not so much that 2♥ is such a bad bid but that 2♠ is what most players expect us to do with a doubleton in ♠, and that I don't risk upsetting partner just in case he's really short in hearts. And yes, because partner may still have a 6-card ♠ suit. Yet, once we agreed that 2♥ CAN be a 5-card suit given the circumstances, the reason for failing to open 2♥ may be right that it actually IS a 5-card suit, so opener should be alerted.

 

From what I have read so far, I guess N hat a hand such as (a) 5-0-5-3 or (b) 6-0-4-3, passed, and things went real weird. In that case I would say - twisting your words again, Mike - N was "guilty of allowing what you [N] hold to influence your understanding of what 2♥ [by S] means." Actually, if I were N and the dummy came down after I passed 2♥ with hand (a), well, partner plays, so I get myself a snack and welcome the next board ;) . With hand (b) I would bid 2♠ over 2♥ and cross fingers.

 

By the way, with that hand of yours,

 

x Jxxxxxx Kx Qxx

I think I would open 2♥. I am aware this is not a system bid and I am aware this may go wrong sometimes. But I think partner will usually do the right thing (trying to assess my strength) while opponents will usually miscount the tricks. So I expect it will do more good than bad.

[billw55]

I think 2♥ is actually a weaker bid than 2♠. So if you are worried about missing game, this call won't help.

 

Also, agree that forcing 1NT by a passed hand is part of the problem.

[Jinksy]

Opposite a partner who has exactly 5 spades and denied 4 hearts, I expect the following number of cards in hearts:

3 (42.4 %)

2 (38.3 %)

1 (16.6 %)

0 ( 2.7 %)

 

I would like to see the calculation for this. It seems very hard to believe, when you allow that P has also shown at least 3 (maybe at least 4, depending on exact agreements) ♦s. I don't know how to do the sum, but he has five cards to draw (subject to those contraints) from an available 7♦s, 10♣s and 8♥s. Naively, I would expect marginally fewer than 5/3 ♥s in his hand.

 

I don't agree with Billw55 that 2♥ has fewer HCP than 2♠, and I think you're right that 2♥ can be on a five card suit and a misfit (what do you do with eg x AQTxx xx Kxxxx? Are you supposed to jump to 3♥?), but the misfit is the key point. You're telling P that the hands probably have no little communication and will have trouble establishing suits. Thus he's very unlikely to bid again with eg a balanced 17-18 count - which is what you want him to do here.

[msjennifer]

2 Spade is the only logical bid on this hand if the 1NT bid is 100% forcing for one round.And if partner invites with 3S,I will not hesitate to bid 4S looking at that lovely DQ and the J10 of spade and two kings will be useful in 3 NT if partner invites with 2NT.

[silvr bull]

I guess N hat a hand such as (a) 5-0-5-3 or (b) 6-0-4-3, passed, and things went real weird.

Remind me to not play poker against m1cha, because his guesses are much too good for me. :D Here is the full hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthkt764dq72ck54&w=s32hj9832dat8c983&n=sak964hdj9543caq7&e=sq875haq5dk6cjt62&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1cp1np2dp2hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Since the "system" requires that partner pass a 2♥ bid (because of the high risk that my weak hand with a long ♥ suit is a likely misfit), he saluted like a loyal trooper and passed as commanded (thereby locking us into a serious misfit). I managed to take 6 tricks for a score of -100 (-5.5 IMPs). Several Norths were plus in 1 or 2 or 3♠, 2 pairs took 10 tricks in ♦, and 3 N-S pairs took 9 tricks in NT.

 

I am not sure, but I think the fine print in the "system" contract may have been changed during my absence from the game over two decades. I do not remember from my years of playing money bridge in the 1980s having a system that focused on stopping abruptly at 2♥, instead of allowing a player to look for possible game bids when he has forward going values. I will ask partner for forgiveness from my transgression and also ask that he grant me special dispensation to look for possible game in comparable situations in the future. For example, my 2♥ bid might have had better luck if North's round suits were reversed. :rolleyes:

[m1cha]

I would like to see the calculation for this. It seems very hard to believe, when you allow that P has also shown at least 3 (maybe at least 4, depending on exact agreements) ♦s. I don't know how to do the sum, but he has five cards to draw (subject to those contraints) from an available 7♦s, 10♣s and 8♥s. Naively, I would expect marginally fewer than 5/3 ♥s in his hand.

 

Actually, we're both wrong. Sorry, I was hasty. I applied a calculation I happened to do yesterday for this different purpose but that calculation did not take account of the fact that less ♥ cards than ♣s or ♦s are available to the players. Anyway, what I did was: Write down the all hand pattern probabilities for hands with a 5-card suit (from Wikipedia), normalize the probabilities to 100 %. For 3 cards then, add up the normalized probabilities for all patterns containing 3 cards (multiplied with 2 if the pattern has two 3-card suits). Do the same for all other numbers of cards, you should get a total sum of 300 %. Then remove the numbers for 4 or more cards (for if the player had 4 ♥s, he would bid 2♥ rather than 2♦) and renormalize again to 100 %. That is how the numbers were generated.

 

Let me try an approximate correction of the numbers. They were generated assuming 28 cards in even distribution, that is 28/3 cards per suit, but actually only 8 ♥ cards are available, so the numbers before the probability values must be multiplied with 24/28. That makes a probability of 42 % for 2.57 ♥cards, for instance. This is obviously not a very useful value because the number of cards should be a whole number but unfortunately this is all I can offer in a short time.

 

Your approach will not work either, I'm afraid. Your figures would be too low because you overestimate the number of ♦ cards. You would get very few patterns with just 3 ♦ cards in the N hand. You should distribute cards first, then remove the invalid patterns.

 

I'm sure the math can be done correctly but I cannot do it in a short time. Sorry to all.