Not doing hands justice

[Cyberyeti]

Two hands appeared in our local league that almost nobody in the room (6 tables) managed to get right, should we do better on either ? in both cases south deals

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa5hqj5dj52ckqj84&n=skt7632h62dakcat5]133|200[/hv]

 

We simply bid 1N(12-14)-2♥-2♠-4♠ and went off when the spades were 4-1. The entire room was in 4♠-1 with 3N cold.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq52h4dt532cakq5&n=sk43h63dakj84c862]133|200[/hv]

 

On this one with 5♦ cold and 6 actually making with ♦Qx onside, the most common result was a diamond partial.

 

We bid:

 

1♦-2♦(inverted 9+ with 5 or 10+ with 4, not denying 4M)

2♠(nat, 4)-3♦(minimum NF)

P

 

S visualised something like xxx, Kxx, AKxx, xxx where you're not even safe at the 4 level, and N visualised AQJx, Qx, Qxxxx, Qx. N has the additional problem that it's not clear what he should bid over 2♠ as 3♠ would show 4, he has no club or heart stop to show, and is not sure he wants to commit to 4♦. Of course spades are 3-3 so 12 tricks are available there too, but I suspect our one declarer that played in spades pitched on the second heart so made 11.

[broze]

On hand 1 it just seems like a systemic issue. If North can show 6S and offer 3N, or if S can offer 3N at any point then both players will clearly sit. If you don't have that option then you are going to struggle.

 

Hand 2 both players were very pessimistic. From South's point of view game is good opposite xx xxx AKxxx xxx so I think he is worth another move over 3D. For me 3H would be a general try. As North I might have tried 3C over 2S as I feel very uncomfortable showing a minimum with an extra trump and all my points working.

[Cyberyeti]

Actually there was a third hand where nobody bid 6♣/♥, everybody played in 4 or 5♥.(this time held by opps)

 

W opens 2♠ weak, all vul, teams: (E may raise spades, but how far will vary)

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sq3hak952daqjc652&n=s6hqt7dt97cakqj74]133|200[/hv]

[Tramticket]

I might open 1C on the first one, valuing it as a 15 count, but I would still expect to get to 4S.

 

On the second, I think it is easier if the inverted raise denies the four-card major. It feels like you are over-loading this tool. Now after 1D, 2D; 2S north can jump to 4D, knowing there is no heart stop.

[Cyberyeti]

I might open 1C on the first one, valuing it as a 15 count, but I would still expect to get to 4S.

 

On the second, I think it is easier if the inverted raise denies the four-card major. It feels like you are over-loading this tool. Now after 1D, 2D; 2S north can jump to 4D, knowing there is no heart stop.

 

I thought about 1♣, if I do that, the auction goes 1♣-1♠-1N-2♣-2♦ and since I'm denying 4 hearts and 3 spades and we open 1♦if 4-4 in the minors, my shape is marked as 2335 unless I have 6 clubs or 5♣/4♦ and have bent it a bit, not sure if that causes a rethink, 5♣ will make although is a little fiddly (spades and clubs both 4-1)

[apollo1201]

IMO, opening 1C rather than 1D on the 2nd hand will undoubtedly help find 5D. I think it is a better anticipation, if opps buy the hand, we want C led, if partner bids 1S, we have an easy 3S and partner won’t be disappointed by our suit texture, and if she bids 1H, 1S rebid is quite easy too.

 

My sequence:

 

1C-1D

3D-3S (strength or natural)

4S-5D (now we know partner’s singleton is in H, but N lacks a bit to try 6, xxxC not the best holding and overall minimum hand, on a pure HCP basis we lack AKQJ H plus potentially one goodie, and worse if partner has a stiff H honor).

[Tramticket]

IMO, opening 1C rather than 1D on the 2nd hand will undoubtedly help find 5D.

 

I agree 100% with this. (I should have mentioned in my last response). I think that is generally the better bid with this shape, but with this disparity in suits it must be better to open 1C.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&b=1&d=S&s=sa5hqj5dj52ckqj84&n=skt7632h62dakcat5&a=1N(12-14)P2H(TRF)P2SP4SPPP]200|200|

Cyberyeti writes "Two hands appeared in our local league that almost nobody in the room (6 tables) managed to get right.

Should we do better on either?4♠ went off when the spades were 4-1.

The entire room was in 4♠-1 with 3N cold."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

IMO, CyberYeti's auction seems reasonable.

Bidding isn't an exact science.[/hv][hv=pc=n&b=2&d=S&s=saq52h4dt532cakq5&n=sk43h63dakj84c862&a=1DP2D(F/1 9+ 5 !Ds or 10+ 4 !Ds might have 4-card M)P2S(NAT)P3D(N/F MIN)PPP]200|200|

 

"On this one with 5♦ cold and 6 actually making with ♦Qx onside, the most common result was a diamond partial.

S visualised something like xxx, Kxx, AKxx, xxx where you're not even safe at the 4 level, and N visualised AQJx, Qx, Qxxxx, Qx.

N has the additional problem that it's not clear what he should bid over 2♠ as 3♠ would show 4,

he has no club or heart stop to show, and is not sure he wants to commit to 4♦.

Of course spades are 3-3 so 12 tricks are available there too, but I suspect our one declarer that played in spades pitched on the second heart so made 11."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's hard to find out about the lack of ♥ duplication but South has extra shape and North has a fitting ♠K.

I too would open 1♣ with the South hand.[/hv][hv=pc=n&b=3&d=W&s=sq3hak952daqjc652&n=s6hqt7dt97cakqj74&a=2S(NAT weak)?]200|200|

"Actually there was a third hand where nobody bid 6♣or 6♥, everybody played in 4 or 5♥.

(this time held by opps). W opens 2♠ weak, all vul, teams: (E may raise spades, but how far will vary)"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

It's difficult to evaluate the trick-taking power of the double-fit,

especially when opponents are crowding the auction.

If North overcalls 3♣, East passes, and South fit-jumps in ♥s then

North might risk a 4♠ cue-bid.[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

We have hard rules about what we open with what shape, and I will almost inevitably show a 5th club I don't have if I open 1♣ on the 4144.

[Tramticket]

We have hard rules about what we open with what shape, and I will almost inevitably show a 5th club I don't have if I open 1♣ on the 4144.

 

Does 1D, 1H; 1S or 1D, 1NT; 2C show (or strongly imply) a 5th diamond? Whenever you bid two suits with a 4441 shape you imply a fifth card in the first suit - this is why the shape is so difficult. Note that the second auction (1D, 1NT, 2C) is particularly problematic. You could pass 1NT, knowing that the opponents have nine or ten hearts or rebid 2C (and imply a minor suit hand). If instead you start 1C, a 1NT response is easy to handle, since it promises club support.

[Cyberyeti]

Does 1D, 1H; 1S or 1D, 1NT; 2C show (or strongly imply) a 5th diamond? Whenever you bid two suits with a 4441 shape you imply a fifth card in the first suit - this is why the shape is so difficult. Note that the second auction (1D, 1NT, 2C) is particularly problematic. You could pass 1NT, knowing that the opponents have nine or ten hearts or rebid 2C (and imply a minor suit hand). If instead you start 1C, a 1NT response is easy to handle, since it promises club support.

 

1♦-1♥-1♠ shows 4144 or 5 diamonds

1♣-1♥-1♠ GUARANTEES 5 clubs

 

1♦-1N-2♣ guarantees 5 diamonds OR a (14)44 but there is a known 8+ card fit here in one of the minors and most of the time we're playing 2/3m so it doesn't really matter

[rmnka447]

Hand #1 is a normal bidding sequence. Bidding isn't an exact science.

 

Hand #2 is a hand where South has extras opposite a partner who has 4+ (and often 5) ♦ and 10+ points. Passing 3 ♦ is pretty conservative especially with a 4 loser hand. South should be able to see that a lot of tricks will be taken between the 2 hands. South can ruff North's ♥ losers. How about one more try with a 4 ♣ or 4 ♦ bid?

 

 

Hand #3 shows preempts work. If new suits are forcing over an overcall 3 ♥ raised to 4 ♥ seems normal.

[Tramticket]

1♦-1♥-1♠ shows 4144 or 5 diamonds

1♣-1♥-1♠ GUARANTEES 5 clubs

 

Since we systematically open 1♣ with this shape, we reverse these. But we are not dogmatic about which minor to open and a very significant difference in strength would persuade us to open the stronger minor (e.g. swap the diamonds and clubs in your example hand and we will open 1♦).

[Cyberyeti]

Since we systematically open 1♣ with this shape, we reverse these. But we are not dogmatic about which minor to open and a very significant difference in strength would persuade us to open the stronger minor (e.g. swap the diamonds and clubs in your example hand and we will open 1♦).

 

We like the fact that there is no ambiguity (see the extra inference you get from 1♣-1♠-1N-2♣-2♦ above).

[Tramticket]

We like the fact that there is no ambiguity (see the extra inference you get from 1♣-1♠-1N-2♣-2♦ above).

 

Our response structure to the 2♣ inquiry is different: 2♦ any 15 HCPs (doesn't deny four hearts / three spades); 2♥/2♠/2NT 16/17HCP; three-level bids 18 HCPs.

[HardVector]

Imo, I think that inverted minors should deny having a 4 card major. That understanding makes the bidding easier as you don't have to worry about missing a spade contract after 1d - 2d. Now you can bid 3h, splinter with an above average hand.

[Cyberyeti]

Imo, I think that inverted minors should deny having a 4 card major. That understanding makes the bidding easier as you don't have to worry about missing a spade contract after 1d - 2d. Now you can bid 3h, splinter with an above average hand.

 

It's an above average hand with a shitty trump suit, the splinter can get you to hopelessly the wrong spot.

 

Playing 4 card minors and a weak NT you can deal with 4M in an inverted raise pretty well, this hand has 2 issues, valuation by both partners (and clearly it's not just our issue, nobody in the room bid 5♦ although one bid 4♠), and the fact that responder had nothing to bid in clubs or hearts which is what happens 90%+ of the time if he's non minimum.

[gszes]

hand 1 3n becomes a much more viable contract with the 5 card club suit but the backs of the cards make this impossible for north to see so they chose the far less radical idea of 4s vs 3n. That's life.

hand 2

1d I would open 1c but that's me

 

2d inverted minor does not deny 4 card major

 

3h splinter the key to this bid says there is enough power to force to game and maybe just maybe we can find a slam. It is important to note the 3h bidder must be willing to accept 3n so it seems imperative to have clubs and spades stopped or else embark on a different sequence. Note that there is no huge hurry to bid spades

if 3n is not viable then spades can be introduced on the way to 4/5/6 or higher diamonds.

 

5d easy bid with 10 count < dia J an iffy value at best> outside hearts and let partner decide how high to go.

 

 

pass singleton with 25 hcp outside short suit should stop at 5 level w/o some sort of extra length somewhere but its a close decision since slam is probably no worse than a finesse if the partnership does not put much faith in jacks for slam hands:)

 

 

hand 3 after 2s

 

3c

 

3s NT still primary task

 

4s short p should have a decent hand for 3s bid and this hand improves a LOT when p cannot bid 3n

 

5h offering alternative contact in case of 53 fit partners clubs have to be pretty darn good to force to 5 level over 3s

 

6c 6h is ok but that preempt seems to increase the odds of a 41 heart split so 6c seems safer with any spade ruffs shortening trump suit and eliminating a safe search for 41 spit.

[HardVector]

It's an above average hand with a shitty trump suit, the splinter can get you to hopelessly the wrong spot.

 

Playing 4 card minors and a weak NT you can deal with 4M in an inverted raise pretty well, this hand has 2 issues, valuation by both partners (and clearly it's not just our issue, nobody in the room bid 5♦ although one bid 4♠), and the fact that responder had nothing to bid in clubs or hearts which is what happens 90%+ of the time if he's non minimum.

I think you fail to appreciate the strength of the controls you have for a diamond contract. The clubs are great, the spades are great if partner has the K, and the hearts are not a problem. All you need is for partner to have some decent diamonds, and they DID just make an inverted minor bid. The splinter basically asks the question "Do you have the hearts to play in 3n"? If not, go for 5 diamonds with 6 diamonds a possibility. Of course, you will reject all this if you want to continue with the idea of having a 4 card major when you make an inverted minor bid.

[cherdano]

Hand 1 I cannot see North offering 3NT with these cards.

 

On hand 2, would North have been able to bid 2N with a 3343 minimum? Your 2♦ carries a lot of load - it is weaker than normal, seems to carry 4-card raises more often than others, and also can include 4-card majors; if you still can't distinguish on the 2nd round, that sounds pretty hopeless. E.g. your example hand xxx Kxx AKxx xxx should surely bid 2N? If this is possible, and if 3♦ usually has a 5-th diamond, then South was nuts to pass it out IMO - game is fabulous opposite xxx xxx AKxxx xx.

[Cyberyeti]

Hand 1 I cannot see North offering 3NT with these cards.

 

On hand 2, would North have been able to bid 2N with a 3343 minimum? Your 2♦ carries a lot of load - it is weaker than normal, seems to carry 4-card raises more often than others, and also can include 4-card majors; if you still can't distinguish on the 2nd round, that sounds pretty hopeless. E.g. your example hand xxx Kxx AKxx xxx should surely bid 2N? If this is possible, and if 3♦ usually has a 5-th diamond, then South was nuts to pass it out IMO - game is fabulous opposite xxx xxx AKxxx xx.

 

3♦ is the default rebid on a minimum that can't sensibly bid anything else. 2N would suggest the stops (which given my clubs he won't have).

 

AKxxx and out would not start with 2♦, this hand prompted discussions, I feel the 5th diamond is enormous and it's not close to minimum.

 

Bear in mind our 1♦ GUARANTEES 4 so 4 card raises are normal and several times more common than 5.

[Cyberyeti]

I think you fail to appreciate the strength of the controls you have for a diamond contract. The clubs are great, the spades are great if partner has the K, and the hearts are not a problem. All you need is for partner to have some decent diamonds, and they DID just make an inverted minor bid. The splinter basically asks the question "Do you have the hearts to play in 3n"? If not, go for 5 diamonds with 6 diamonds a possibility. Of course, you will reject all this if you want to continue with the idea of having a 4 card major when you make an inverted minor bid.

 

We've been playing this system for 20 years, this is the first time it's really caused a problem, and we could have got round it with different views on valuation.

 

I really don't want to splinter and get to some terrible 3N/5♦ contracts. What is partner expected to do with say KJx, Kxxx, Kxxx, xx or Kxx, KJx, Kxxxx, xx, I'm happy to be in 3♦ opposite those.

[apollo1201]

 

What is partner expected to do with say KJx, Kxxx, Kxxx, xx or Kxx, KJx, Kxxxx, xx, I'm happy to be in 3♦ opposite those.

Bid 1NT to play the hand and protect all those K’s?

[Cyberyeti]

Bid 1NT to play the hand and protect all those K’s?

 

too good, we never bid 1N on 10 counts (unless downgrading and these are not downgrades).

[rmnka447]

Part of the problem with hand 2 may be the system if you allow inverted raises with a 4 card major. Now opener must rebid 2 ♠ to avoid potentially missing a 4-4 ♠ fit. After that, 3 ♦ by responder pushes you out of being able to consider 3 NT as a landing place.

 

Without a possibility of a 4 card major in responder's hand opener might consider rebidding 3 ♣ instead of 2 ♠. Then if responder rebids 3 ♦ opener can rebid 3 ♠ which would give responder the option of bidding 3 NT with ♥ stopped or trying for 5 ♦. The 3 ♠ bid after 3 ♦ has to show extras. If responder instead rebids 3 ♥, then opener can try

3 NT.