Bid these freaks

[CamHenry]

Playing 2/1, at matchpoints, N deals. At the table neither of us bid well, I think.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj964hk4dakj43c&n=shqj765dq8cakq532]133|200[/hv]

[ahydra]

1C-1S;

2C-2D;

 

Ugh. This is one of the reasons I like to play 4SF by responder only! 2H is 4SF but we could still have a heart fit, 3H is SPL in diamonds, and 4H is just crazy with such a poor suit. So I'm pretty screwed at this point. Has to be 3NT I guess. (2H might work, planning to rebid hearts to show the 6-5, but then South jumps to 3S and North bids 3NT, ending up in the same place)

 

3NT - 4NT (quant);

p (too much of a misfit)

 

ahydra

[Jinksy]

How you bid these surely depends heavily on partnership agreements about strength of reverse, continuations etc.

 

I would fidget and probably open the N hand 1♣. Then who knows? My best first effort:

 

1♣ 1♠

2♥* 3♣**

3♦*** 4♦

5♣ 5♦

Pass

 

* Yuck. I'm hoping to have the playing strength to back it up as long as he doesn't rebid ♠s. If I didn't plan to rebid this, I don't know why I opened 1♣.

** Showing ♦s.

*** Min, NF. Not happy with any of this.

 

So maybe what I should learn from that is to open 1♥ on the N hand after all. Then:

 

1♥ 1♠

2♣ 2♦*

3♣ 3♦

3N** 4♥

Pass

 

* GF

** Stuck for anything sane; Hamman's law

 

I guess it's a better MP contract, probably a better contract even at IMPs.

[Fluffy]

1♥-1♠

2♣-3♦

3NT

 

This is the right start, but this endplays south, who has a big monster and cannot bid anything descriptive except maybe 5NT pick a slam.

 

3NT-5NT

6♣-6♥

6NT

 

and diamonds are missed :(

[Jinksy]

1♥-1♠

2♣-3♦

3NT

 

This is the right start, but this endplays south, who has a big monster and cannot bid anything descriptive except maybe 5NT pick a slam.

 

3NT-5NT

6♣-6♥

6NT

 

and diamonds are missed :(

 

If you bid it that way, why can't south bid 6♦ over 6♣ saying 'pick a different slam'?

[ahydra]

You guys are right in starting with 1H. I shouldn't try to answer these while at work. :)

 

ahydra

[Fluffy]

If you bid it that way, why can't south bid 6♦ over 6♣ saying 'pick a different slam'?

 

I try to be objective on this problems, and the only way I have to do it is to bid quickly before I can realice what the ideal contract is bidding the first thing that comes to my mind. So I assumed he would focus on the majors with ♥K, but upon reflection I think you are right, the chances of 5-2 hearts being better than 5-2 diamonds is very low.

[whereagles]

1♥ 1♠

2♣ 3♦ (nat)

3NT 4NT (quant)

pass

 

or

 

1♣ 1♠

2♥ 3♠

4♥ 4NT (nat)

pass

[WesleyC]

I'd approve of 1H if the ♣/♥ HCP were reversed but on this hand I prefer 1C. Although admittedly it is a couple of points short of a full reverse, the 0526 shape and solid suit, makes up for that. Partner should also recognize that you might shade your reverse slightly once you show a 6/5.

 

I've stopped worrying about rebid problems on big distributional hands, because these days my opponents bid so much that the auction is rarely uncontested anyways. The most important idea is being able to pattern out your big 2-suiter accurately if you only get 2 bids to show it.

 

As for how the auction might go - probably not well!

 

1C - 1S

2H - 3D (natural 5+/5+, GF)

3H - 3S

3NT - 5NT (pick a slam)

6C? - 6D?

 

Maybe south should take a super conservative approach and just invite slam over 3NT with 4NT, but in reality his hand just feels too good.

[mike777]

1c=1s

2c=2d!

2h=3d

3h=3s

 

 

2d=art/gf

 

 

seems like a normal start

at mp now just 3nt and pass may be common.

 

I certainly expect missing the 5-2 diamond fit very often at MP.

[mikeh]

The fluffy disease is spreading!!!!! Now he has others suggesting that bidding QJxxx is better than bidding AKQxxx!!!

 

Wtf: doesn't anyone here ever care about maybe showing AKQxxx in a powerful playing hand? Unless you play with all kinds of secret, illegal signals, no partner is EVER going to play you for what may be 6 cashing tricks in clubs after opening 1♥

 

And the subsequent auction isn't particularly difficult, altho I see from some of the suggestions below that lots of players like to complicate their auctions....whereagle's jump to 3♠ over 2♥ being a prime example.

 

This is a perfectly sound 1♣ opener.

 

Over 1♠, personally I reverse. The suit quality is just good enough and the hand is, in terms of playing strength, a non-minimum despite the misfit.

 

Partner will then bid a game-forcing, ostensibly natural 3♦ over which I will rebid my hearts. I don't see how it is possible to play this 3♦ as 5-5 gf or anything particularly rigid, and more importantly I have no idea why anyone would want to do so, absent seeing that that is what we actually have on the hand posted.

 

He now knows I have a decent hand with 5=6 in my suits. With shape my reverse no longer promises, but doesn't deny, significant extras.

 

He has a choice now, and I would go with 3♠, getting 3N from partner. That denies a doubleton spade, so opener is 1=5=1=6 or 0=5=2=6 (with 5=7 he should bid 4♣ imo). Since opener would have bid 3♠ over 3♦, responder's 3♠ invites support with two.

 

I think S should then downgrade due to the apparent misfit, but even so I think he cannot pass, so has what I think is a reasonable quantitative 4N, which would be passed.

 

After writing the above I see that Wesley wrote along the same lines, until the end. I suggest that one think about how our hand meshes with partner and what partner will need to accept or to reject 4N, rather than looking just at S's hand and counting points.

[Fluffy]

Do you really wanna argue about a basic style issue mikeh? Nobody is gonna change their mind, but perhaps it will be useful for intermediates.

 

Would you rather face...

 

1♥-2♠-pass-4♠? or....

1♣-2♠-pass-4♠?

 

The same applies for all level of spades from opponents, and most bids from partner. But it is not the main issue here. The main issue is that 1♥ is a lot more describing, and chances of partner raising a 5 card suit at first round are above 50%, a raise is extremely descriptive and avoids a lot of possible problems since after that.is just a matter of level. After a heart raise we can assume that there will be no club loser, and that partner will often have some honnor to cover our hearts. A delayed club preference when you open 1♣ leaves you in the dark about partner's heart holding.

 

When you open 1♣ partner will rarely make a useful bid on competition, by opening 1♣ you waste partner's first round of bidding most likelly.

 

Obviously the style is not perfect, some club contracts will me missed, but for us to miss a good club contract while showing a 5-5 we will need partner to be 1-2 or 2-2 in our suits, even with 2-2 4♥ might outscore 5♣.

 

The argument about accuracy if opponents do not interfere as you can show your 6-5 is also greatly dismised by the fact that opening 1♥ improves accuracy on the other case: when you have 6-4 or 7-4. As you can reverse at 3 or 4 level if you want, with no worries about partner thinking you got the other shape.

[Stephen Tu]

Partner will then bid a game-forcing, ostensibly natural 3♦ over which I will rebid my hearts. I don't see how it is possible to play this 3♦ as 5-5 gf or anything particularly rigid, and more importantly I have no idea why anyone would want to do so, absent seeing that that is what we actually have on the hand posted.

Why not? If you are playing 2♠ as forcing 1R any strength, presumably you aren't really forced to bid 3♦ nearly ever, so you can reserve it for more extreme shapes that would be more difficult to describe otherwise. Less extreme shapes presumably would be able to support clubs or hearts directly, or bid NT after partner's rebid?

 

It makes sense to me to make 3♦, a bulky bid, describe something hard to show otherwise.

[whereagles]

I'm with gonzalo. Minors are for kids!!! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

[mikeh]

I'm with gonzalo. Minors are for kids!!! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

Must be an Iberian thing

 

Personally I have a preference for AKQxxx in a suit rather than QJxxx, but I suspect that's because I like describing my hand, and usually play with partners who know how to bid. If I played pro, as does gonzalo, I might want to hog the majors because describing my hand to partner is probably a waste of time and meanwhile I grab dummy as often as possible without letting the other two opponents have any more clue than cho has as to my hand.

 

Based on the problems you posted from your recent efforts in your team trials, your partners aren't any better than his :D

[whereagles]

If it weren't for iberian explorers, you'd be saying "what a jolly awful bid, that 1♥, partner!!" ha!

[mikeh]

Why not? If you are playing 2♠ as forcing 1R any strength, presumably you aren't really forced to bid 3♦ nearly ever, so you can reserve it for more extreme shapes that would be more difficult to describe otherwise. Less extreme shapes presumably would be able to support clubs or hearts directly, or bid NT after partner's rebid?

 

It makes sense to me to make 3♦, a bulky bid, describe something hard to show otherwise.

 

I think it depends on methods and I allowed my own biases to influence me without recognizing that fact.

 

If we play up the line in response to 1♣, then partner will have 5+ spades or at least 3 clubs, and so won't have a problem over the 2♥ call. He can rebid spades, forcing and basically a noise with 5+, or he can bid 3♣.

 

I also assume some artificial use for 2N, such that while one can use it with a good hand, it's use with a good hand should be narrowly constrained, because by using an artificial 2N, we constrain opener's rebid at his 3rd turn....with most hands he is forced to bid 3♣, telling us very little more.

 

if we play walsh or t-walsh there will be hands on which we have a decent hand with non-rebiddable spades and real diamonds. We can't bid 2N and then 3♦ because that (usually) isn't forcing. And we can't rebid spades or raise hearts or clubs. So what do we do?

 

I rebid 3♦. Maybe you have a different solution or maybe the problem never arises because you are an up the line bidder.

[Stephen Tu]

if we play walsh or t-walsh there will be hands on which we have a decent hand with non-rebiddable spades and real diamonds. We can't bid 2N and then 3♦ because that (usually) isn't forcing. And we can't rebid spades or raise hearts or clubs. So what do we do?

Bid some number of NT works OK a fairly large percentage of the time? I suppose there are some hands 4252 or 4x6x vs. 1435 that belong in 5d because of spade weakness, but I don't know that I want to reserve 3♦ to cater to those exclusively?

 

Since 2nt is forcing, perhaps one could play that 2nt followed by 3♠ (an otherwise weird sequence since you didn't rebid spades) shows bad spades long diamonds and a suggestion to try a minor if opener has a small stiff.

[rmnka447]

I'd completely agree with mikeh's original post through 3 NT. But when you both have 6-5 hands in the suits that partner doesn't have, transportation between hands will be a HUGE problem. So forcing to slam is a bit aggressive.

 

I'm not so sure I'd find the 4 NT invite at the table.

[the hog]

I'm with gonzalo. Minors are for kids!!! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif

 

I am with both of you.

[WesleyC]

Do you really wanna argue about a basic style issue mikeh? Nobody is gonna change their mind, but perhaps it will be useful for intermediates.

 

Would you rather face...

 

1♥-2♠-pass-4♠? or....

1♣-2♠-pass-4♠?

 

The same applies for all level of spades from opponents, and most bids from partner. But it is not the main issue here. The main issue is that 1♥ is a lot more describing, and chances of partner raising a 5 card suit at first round are above 50%, a raise is extremely descriptive and avoids a lot of possible problems since after that.is just a matter of level. After a heart raise we can assume that there will be no club loser, and that partner will often have some honnor to cover our hearts. A delayed club preference when you open 1♣ leaves you in the dark about partner's heart holding.

 

It's funny that that you brought up the (2S)-(4S) auction as an example where opening 1H is better. I would use the same sequence that to suggest opening 1C! I'm planning to bid 4NT over 4S, and I want partner to preference clubs. I guess the difference is that you're treating this as a one bid hand, whereas i'm mostly planning to pattern out with a second bid if the opponents compete in spades.

 

Another point no-one has mentioned, is that constructive auctions which start: 1H 1S 2C make me feel pretty sick. If partner now bids 2H or 3NT i'm worried that we've missed a good game/slam because partner has downgraded a 'misfitting hand'.

 

As you point out, canape majors are a basic style idea but even though I agree with that idea in principle, the playing strength and suit disparity of this hand make it worth discussing.

[whereagles]

I am with both of you.

 

The antipodes attract http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

[the hog]

The antipodes attract http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

 

Not just the Antipodes. Steve Robinson, the whole Polish Nation etc etc

[Fluffy]

Personally I have a preference for AKQxxx in a suit rather than QJxxx, but I suspect that's because I like describing my hand, and usually play with partners who know how to bid. If I played pro, as does gonzalo, I might want to hog the majors because describing my hand to partner is probably a waste of time and meanwhile I grab dummy as often as possible without letting the other two opponents have any more clue than cho has as to my hand.

It is a style issue, not a pro thing, my father taught me to open 1♥ so I know nothing else. His first argument was that you don't have space to show 11 cards, so you should focus on showing 10 properly. I haven't ever contested it, although years on the forums have taught me that the other style is playable, and some suit quality could make me do reversed (but never with the reds)

 

I had a funny lucky had partnering a foreigner last month where he didn't follow my style. We ended up playing 4 spades on a 4-2 fit with this holdings on te majors:

 

♠Qx

♥xx

 

vs

 

♠AKJx

♥xx

 

+650 was totally uncontested :)

[whereagles]

I actually prefer the following style with a 6-5, where the 5-carder is higher ranked:

 

With min/med hand (4-5 losers or more): open the 5-carder, bid the 6-carder twice.

With max hand (up to 3-4 losers max): open the 6-carder, reverse and bid the 5-carder twice.

 

This way you (1) get to show first the 5-card major when not strong enough to bid like crazy, and (2) tell your shape/strength very accurately when holding a strong 6-5, which is important when responder has a few cover cards and is slam-bound.