BPO-003D

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=saqthkdat62cajt92]133|100|Scoring: IMP

BPO-003D

 

South WEST North EAST

  1♣   (1♦)   1♠   (pass)

?

 

Your bid as South. submitted by cherdano [/hv]

[hrothgar]

BPO-003D: 2D

 

I have a VERY hard hand to describe. I don't have any picture bids to show my hand. (Really not reasonable to dedicate many bids to show a hand that wants to reverse into a suit where LHO overcalled). Bidding NT seems flawed. I more worried about suppressing my Spade support than the stiff King.

 

2D does NOT show a Diamond reverse, however, it has the unmistakable benefit of being the cheapest forcing bid available to me. 2D should probably tend to deny 4+ card Spade support since most of those hands have other ways to advance.

[joker_gib]

2NT

 

Oh I have stiff ♥K, did not see it :-) :)

 

Alain

[P_Marlowe]

2S.

 

A slight underbid, but if partner passes, we wont

miss game to often.

 

Marlowe

[mr1303]

I bid 2D at the time, but now prefer 2NT. As Alain said, I'm putting down a diamond in my heart suit by mistake...

[Blofeld]

I liked the 2♦ bid.

[ochinko]

I believe 2NT describes my hand in the best possible way: 18-19 HCP and a diamond stopper. It does not necessarily mean that we'll land in a NT contract. LHO doesn't seem to have five cards in hearts. If he decides to lead under his Ace there even Qxx from partner would create two stoppers. On a spade game LHO would never underlead from his HA.

 

If partner doesn't have a heart stopper, then 4Sp are not less fragile than 3NT because partner will have to ruff with the high spades from the table.

 

I'm not sure if this corresponds with the BBO Adv. System but I'll treat 3C from partner as a puppet Stayman now, and bid 3Sp.

 

Petko

 

--Added--

If we stop at 3NT, it would be rightsided both because the stronger hand will play it, but also because opps' stronger hand will be on the lead. If I bid 2D and partner goes to 2NT, our NT game will be in jeopardy.

[Guest Jlall]

heh i anticipated a tight race between 2D and 2N with maybe some 3S bidders in the mix. Should be interesting to see.

[badderzboy]

oh dear 4♥ splinter !

[han]

I voted 2NT, only other bid I considered was 2D.

[kgr]

I voted 4♠ :)

(I play that 2♠ shows a 5-card...I know that this is probably not the best treatment).

I would now vote 2♦

[pclayton]

2♦ - only since my hand is rather suit oriented. I'll probably never play NT on this, because if pard has 4 hearts, he has at least 5 spades.

 

We may want to clarify in this poll that 1♠ only promises 4. I think there are some out there that make a neg x with a hand without a 5 card major, but I don't believe thats standard.

[mike777]

2D

 

cuebid or x always good way to solve difficult hands. For once I do not want to dbl my partner's response. B)

[HeartA]

I liked the 2♦ bid.

me 2

[Double !]

2 diamonds is my choice, it says to partner, "tell me more", and permits P to rebid 5-card spade suit, introduce hearts (suggesting 5 spades), etc., etc. Just seems like the most flexible bid. Anything, I say ANYTHING else is taking a view on the hand, a no/no.

[Winstonm]

I'm thinking "practical" here. That's my key word in impossible situations. Hence: 2N.

 

WinstonM

[luke warm]

i voted for 2♦

[Rebound]

I chose 2♠, but I believe it is an underbid and am very interested to see what the panel suggests as an alternative

[Fluffy]

heh i anticipated a tight race between 2D and 2N with maybe some 3S bidders in the mix. Should be interesting to see.

I beleived in a unanimous 2NT rebid, but I am normally awful at anticipating what people will do. I eed to buy a better crystal ball.

[Walddk]

I beleived in a unanimous 2NT rebid, but I am normally awful at anticipating what people will do. I eed to buy a better crystal ball.

You are absolutely right. There will not be a unanimous decision among the panelists either.

 

Roland

[Dwingo]

I am probably in the minority here. My 4S bid was based on my understanding that 1S promises atleast 5 cards. If this is not , then I have to find another bid.

 

For all the 2D bidders, won't 2D deny ♠ support, though it sets up a force.

 

Godwin

[Elianna]

I am probably in the minority here. My 4S bid was based on my understanding that 1S promises atleast 5 cards. If this is not , then I have to find another bid.

Well, BBO-Advanced doesn't address whether 1♠ in this auction is four or five cards, but I know that I for one would treat it as four cards, and a negative double as promising at least four cards in BOTH majors . In an earlier post, Phil (Pclayton) says that this seems to be "standard", and I know that this treatment is the only one I've actually seen used.

 

This allows you to show your suit (as opposed to if double could be just ONE of the majors left), especially if your LHO raises his partner's suit (CHO will be better positioned to know where a fit is, or if there is none.

 

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[kgr]

I am probably in the minority here. My 4S bid was based on my understanding that 1S promises atleast 5 cards. If this is not , then I have to find another bid.

Well, BBO-Advanced doesn't address whether 1♠ in this auction is four or five cards, but I know that I for one would treat it as four cards, and a negative double as promising at least four cards in BOTH majors . In an earlier post, Phil (Pclayton) says that this seems to be "standard", and I know that this treatment is the only one I've actually seen used.

 

This allows you to show your suit (as opposed to if double could be just ONE of the majors left), especially if your LHO raises his partner's suit (CHO will be better positioned to know where a fit is, or if there is none.

 

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Also 4S from me thinking that partner did show 5-card. (...or should I say NOT thinking...)

There has been a question like this on rgb:

1C-(1D)-DBL

Most respondents say that it shows 2 4-cards M and with a 5-card you just bid it. So, that can be considered as the standard.

[luke warm]

For all the 2D bidders, won't 2D deny ♠ support, though it sets up a force.

no, though it *might* deny 4 card support... i'm not even sure of that

[inquiry]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=saqthkdat62cajt92]133|100|Scoring: IMP

BPO-003D

 

South WEST North EAST

1♣ (1♦) 1♠ (pass)

? Your bid

 

submitted by cherdano [/hv]

 

Once again the panel split 6-4 between the two obvious votes. After the free bid of 1♠, it is difficult to imagine you not getting to game. The panel choose between two bid. The majority went with the somewhat mildly off-shape 2NT, the minority with an unassuming cue-bid. I think the majority got this one right, see if you agree that their logic and the fact that the subsequent auction will be simplified after 2NT versus 2♦.

 

Fred 2NT. Perfect except for the missing X of hearts. The alternatives have created flaws in my view. We can still get to 4♠ if we belong there.

 

 

Ritong 2 NT I can hardly imagine my part passes after his free bid of 1 spade.

 

Jlall 2NT. 18-19 balanced, wtp? Ok...maybe not so balanced lol. This bid comes closer than any other bid at describing my hand. I'm not worried about the hearts, even if partner has nothing in hearts AND the opps lead one lho probably has the ace. This describes my values perfectly, and almost the shape. 3S, the other option is a slight underbid and is missing a trump. We can always find a 5-3 spade fit after 2N anyways, and I don't think the moysian will necessarily play better than 3N. Again, I hate a 2D bid as it doesn't describe my hand, is an overbid, and is misguided.

 

Fluffy 2NT, I want to be in game, and these bid is the best describing one, we can find about ♠ fit if it's there

 

Cherdano2NT. I would like to show stoppers, my values (despite the singleton king, I like this hand and think it is worth 18 pts), and 3-card support. 2NT shows two of them, and partner can easily find about the third (3-card support) afterwards.

 

Cascade 2NT Partner can checkback for spades

 

The minority view was to start with 2♦ and then figure out where to go from there. Rich simply voted for 2♦ without explanation. The others explained their bids as follows.

 

Luis 2♦. Many options in this hand but an unassuming cuebid should be the most flexible way to handle this strange combination of cards. I guess we'll have a much more interesting problem in our next round of bidding.

 

nG 2♦. It promises: 1. Good hand with 3 card spade support. OR 2. Good hand without diamond stopper (and max 3 hearts).

 

Walddk 2♦. Forcing with no clear direction, usually with 3-card support for spades. Since LHO rates to have KQ in diamonds, all values partner have look valuable. The hand is too good for a simple spade raise (even ♥K may turn out to be useful), and I don't like 3♠ with only 3. A jump support should guarantee a fit. Take ♥K away and I would just bid 2♠. Finally, 2♦ is not game forcing by any means, just a hand with extras and no clear bid available.

 

I think the agreement is 2♦ promises a spade fit, so while the 2NT bidder all expressed the possibility to get back into spades, it is not so clear the 2♦ bidders can get out of spades and into notrump. Roland, for example, never even mentions a possible NT contract (one is implied by the comment that the heart king might be valuable). Usually a cue-bid is the most flexible bid, but here, I agree with the panel that after partners free bid, 2NT is the best way to find the right spot. Therefore, similar to the last hand, unlike the last time where I upgraded the second place vote from 70 to 80, this time I have down graded the second place vote from 70 to 60. The reason my feeling that 2NT is more likely to make it easier to get the rest of the auction right as oppossed to 2♦.

 

Panel votes are also in table format on this link...

BBO-003 question post

 

VOTES  Panel  Score

2NT        6      100

2♦       4       60

3NT        0      30

3♠        0      20

4♠        0      10