Horrible misfit

[Jinksy]

[hv=pc=n&w=sha9dakq86cj98752&e=sakj987hq6432d7c3&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p]266|200[/hv]

 

IMP pairs.

 

Not posting this with a specific question - or rather, I have *all the questions*. It just seemed like the proverbial interesting bridge hand. So, points for discussion:

 

1) What would your actual auction be?

 

2) Looking at both hands, what contract would you choose to be in?

 

3) How would you play that contract -

a) If they begin by cashing a top club (S would lead the A, N would lead the 6 to S's Q) and then switching to a D?

b) If they begin by leading a diamond? (S would lead the 3, N playing the 5 under your honour, N would lead the J)

[Cyberyeti]

I suspect I would get to a revolting 4♥, which I might just get away with if ♥Kxx are onside and the spades are compliant

[Fluffy]

1♠-2♦

2♥-3♣

3♥-3NT

4♠

 

ooops

[rmnka447]

Assuming 2/1, Opener has a couple ways to possibly show the hand. After

 

1 ♠ - 2 ♦

2 ♥ - 3 ♣

?

 

the question is whether you show the hand as at least 5-5 or at least 6-4. With ♥ such a terrible suit and responder showing a minor hand, I'd be more apt to opt for a 3 ♠ rebid than rebid the ♥. After the 3 ♠ rebid, I think responder should PASS. With such a terrible misfit hand, the normal game force cannot apply. This is one of the rare hands where 3 of major or 4 of a minor could be the final contract when playing 2/1. Such hands come up very rarely maybe once every 3-4 years but they do come up. They are always the result of badly misfitting hands which are likely to play much worse then the point count indicates.

[Cyberyeti]

Assuming 2/1, Opener has a couple ways to possibly show the hand. After

 

1 ♠ - 2 ♦

2 ♥ - 3 ♣

?

 

the question is whether you show the hand as at least 5-5 or at least 6-4. With ♥ such a terrible suit and responder showing a minor hand, I'd be more apt to opt for a 3 ♠ rebid than rebid the ♥. After the 3 ♠ rebid, I think responder should PASS. With such a terrible misfit hand, the normal game force cannot apply. This is one of the rare hands where 3 of major or 4 of a minor could be the final contract when playing 2/1. Such hands come up very rarely maybe once every 3-4 years but they do come up. They are always the result of badly misfitting hands which are likely to play much worse then the point count indicates.

 

So partner had AKQJxx, Kxxxx, Jx, void and you make 7, you cannot pass 3♠.

[ggwhiz]

 

1 ♠ - 2 ♦

2 ♥ - 3 ♣

?

 

My auction proceeds 3♥ - 4♥. 4♣ is passable despite the 2/1 start in my partnership but I wouldn't bid it here.

 

Getting to 3nt and playing it there is a common but BIG error on this shape and such a crummy 6 card suit. 4 hearts plays well enough on a crossruff and should scramble enough winners to avoid disaster most of the time even on a trump lead that is called for but not always found.

 

3 diamonds, 2 spades, 2 club ruffs, 2 spade ruffs (one with the Ace) and sit back with the ♥Q to endplay somebody is the apple pie on a diamond lead or a club followed by a (brain dead?) non trump shift and a lot of luck.

[shyams]

1♠-2♦

2♥-3♣

3♥-3NT

4♠

 

ooops

If I held the East hand, I'd also bid like this. And we'd reach an unfortunate 4♠

 

However, if I held the West hand, I might (not saying will) raise 3♥ to 4♥ instead of bidding 3NT.

[mike777]

ugly perhaps:

 

P=1d

1s=2c

2h=3c

3h=4h?

----

 

 

option2 is also ugly, perhaps:

 

2s?=P?

 

I dont mind opening with a side suit and that heart suit sort of looks like 4 cards but certainly NOT a standard weak 2 bid and partner needs to know and agree.

 

Responder has a great hand but will the void in spades slow him down?

 

Not proud of either auction. :)

[mikestar13]

I have no idea what is right with this hand--this is one hand type that 2/1 will get you too high and it is a pure guess what game goes down less. Or is this a crazy hand where a pair uses some obscure bidding technique to stop in a partial and gets a bottom board because opponents' cards split perfectly and all games make?

[Finch]

I would get too high.

 

1S - 2C

2H - 2NT

3H - 3NT

P

 

I wouldn't respond 2D to 1S. That seems to be a great way to miss 6C

 

On a really good day responder might take the view that opener has denied extra values (in our methods, 1S-2C-3H shows a 5-5 14+) and pass 3H. But that is resulting somewhat, because opener could still have Axxxx KQJxx Jx x

[1eyedjack]

So partner had AKQJxx, Kxxxx, Jx, void and you make 7, you cannot pass 3♠.

I don't think that follows. If the hands where 3 is the limit (or perhaps even now too high) outgun the hands where game or slam is making, by sufficient magnitude as to outweigh the potential game/slam bonuses (which are also counteracted in part by the fact that you have not YET been doubled, which double increases dramatically in likelihood as your level increases and as you already commit to game), then there is a statistical case for passing. I am not sure whether this is a case in point, but the fact that it is possible to construct a hand where passing is bad is inconclusive. Perhaps you disagree with the auction up to 3C?

[Cyberyeti]

I don't think that follows. If the hands where 3 is the limit (or perhaps even now too high) outgun the hands where game or slam is making, by sufficient magnitude as to outweigh the potential game/slam bonuses (which are also counteracted in part by the fact that you have not YET been doubled, which double increases dramatically in likelihood as your level increases and as you already commit to game), then there is a statistical case for passing. I am not sure whether this is a case in point, but the fact that it is possible to construct a hand where passing is bad is inconclusive. Perhaps you disagree with the auction up to 3C?

 

I would expect the bulk of the field to be bidding game here, I have a 14 count opposite an opening bid after all, I don't think I want to go against just in case there is a lucky lie of the cards.

 

Fractionally better intermediates (a major suit 10 even) and game is not that bad opposite the minimum horrible misfit that is there and the hand can be much better than that. If as the previous poster suggested you don't rebid your heart suit, you could be 6-4, then AKxxxx, Kxxx, Jx, x/AKxxxx, KQxx, xx, 10 type hands come into the frame where 3N just requires diamonds 4-2 or better.

[SteveMoe]

1♠ - (P) - 2♦ - (P)

2♥ - (P) - 3♣ - (P)

3♠ - (P) - 3N - AP

[Phil]

1S 2C 2H 3D 3H...not sure what happens now but in 4H I might be able to scramble 2s 3D 2 trump in dummy. If I can ruff 2 clubs in my hand and exit a spade in the endgame score it up.

[johnu]

After the 3 ♠ rebid, I think responder should PASS.

 

There are some words to describe passing in this game forcing auction.

 

Result merchant (offense intended to result merchants)

Standard American (no offense intended to those playing SA)

Acol (no offense intended to those playing Acol)

...

 

Passing below 3NT is not part of game forcing 2/1

[johnu]

duplicate

[Cyberyeti]

There are some words to describe passing in this game forcing auction.

 

Result merchant (offense intended to result merchants)

Standard American (no offense intended to those playing SA)

Acol (no offense intended to those playing Acol)

...

 

Passing below 3NT is not part of game forcing 2/1

 

You missed out new partner asking bid, Acol doesn't pass this either.

[1eyedjack]

Bridge partnerships can be categorised any number of ways, but one possibility is the binary division of

 

on the one hand

 

1) those who so fear the solidity of the foundation of their partnership that they will eschew a rational departure from doctrine on a particular hand that might risk that partnership trust

 

and on the other hand

 

2) those whose partnership trust is sufficiently entrenched that both partners acknowledge the weaknesses of all bidding systems, including that certain hand types are ill suited to the system adopted.

 

All other factors being equal, I know which partnership I would bet on, and you can assign "words to describe them" if you wish.

[Cyberyeti]

Bridge partnerships can be categorised any number of ways, but one possibility is the binary division of

 

on the one hand

 

1) those who so fear the solidity of the foundation of their partnership that they will eschew a rational departure from doctrine on a particular hand that might risk that partnership trust

 

and on the other hand

 

2) those whose partnership trust is sufficiently entrenched that both partners acknowledge the weaknesses of all bidding systems, including that certain hand types are ill suited to the system adopted.

 

All other factors being equal, I know which partnership I would bet on, and you can assign "words to describe them" if you wish.

 

Yes but a 14 count which doesn't know it isn't opposite a 17 count isn't one of these "rational" situations

 

How would you bid say AKxxxx, KQJx, Jx, K on an auction of 1♠-2♦-2♥-2N/3♣ playing 2/1, I'd suggest you bid 3♠ to shape out and show the 6th one as you're in as GF auction and partner can easily have 2 spades.

[1eyedjack]

I don't have an issue with that. I don't have a strong opinion on whether in the long term passing below game wins more than it loses. I take issue only with those who say that passing must be wrong for no reason other than that systemically it is forcing or that they can construct a hand where it loses to pass.

[mike777]

At this point in the conversation I am starting to like opening a weak 2spades more and more. Of course partner and the opp need to know I can have this hand type. :)

 

 

I understand if you feel it is too risky to miss game compared to all who open 1s.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't have an issue with that. I don't have a strong opinion on whether in the long term passing below game wins more than it loses. I take issue only with those who say that passing must be wrong for no reason other than that systemically it is forcing or that they can construct a hand where it loses to pass.

 

I think 2/1 has more of a problem in this sort of auction than Acol does. Because the game force is set really early, you can bid big hands slowly, hence it's much more difficult to know that partner doesn't have a lot more than he's shown, whereas in Acol sometimes you do know that.

[johnu]

I don't have an issue with that. I don't have a strong opinion on whether in the long term passing below game wins more than it loses. I take issue only with those who say that passing must be wrong for no reason other than that systemically it is forcing or that they can construct a hand where it loses to pass.

 

The problem with passing isn't on this particular hand, but on future hands where opener remembers that responder will pass forcing bids and feels required to unilaterally pick a game or make a questionable slam try instead of continuing the flow of the auction.

 

I can see a pattern of mutual destruction coming in the future. Opener just takes a flier to a final contract whenever they think responder will pass a forcing bid. Responder is even more likely to pass forcing bids when opener makes a minimum forcing bid because with more than a minimum opening bid, opener would usually not make an opening bid. This all assumes there is a future for this partnership.

[bigbenvic]

At this Vul I would open 1♠ if red I would open 2♦ (4+4+ H+S)

I also think I must be out of step with everyone as my bidding would (sadly) go

 

1S 2D

2H 3C* 4SF as 2/1 isn't a GF for me

3S* showing the 6th spade with the plan to pull 3NT to 4H to show the 6-5 and play in 1 of my suits.

 

At this point as responder I now hate life, bid 3nt on a 0265, bid a 6-0 fit a 4-2 fit or try for 1 of my suits? Clubs is an awful suit to bid but stands a better chance to find the right spot than diamonds as I must be 1165 or worse here to not bid 3nt. Only issue is if partner thinks we are slam hunting!

 

4C

4H P and prey we aren't too high.

 

It seems weird but maybe passing in first seat and biding my time is the best move as I have both majors and a 10 count. I'd never think of it at the table but I wonder...

[1eyedjack]

The problem with passing isn't on this particular hand, but on future hands where opener remembers that responder will pass forcing bids and feels required to unilaterally pick a game or make a questionable slam try instead of continuing the flow of the auction.

 

I can see a pattern of mutual destruction coming in the future. Opener just takes a flier to a final contract whenever they think responder will pass a forcing bid. Responder is even more likely to pass forcing bids when opener makes a minimum forcing bid because with more than a minimum opening bid, opener would usually not make an opening bid. This all assumes there is a future for this partnership.

Yes, you are describing players who fall into the first of the two categories of partnerships that I identified. Clearly I omitted to state the obvious, that this tactic is not recommended for such partnerships.