Hand Two - 1981 Bermuda Bowl

[Winstonm]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthat962dqt853c2&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1sp1np2cp2sp3dp]133|200[/hv]

 

What do you bid and where is this going? (Imposed system is plain 2/1 and 1NT is still forcing by a passed hand.)

[Cyberyeti]

What's the system here ? were 1N/2♣ forcing ?

[Winstonm]

What's the system here ? were 1N/2♣ forcing ?

 

Yes, sorry. The system imposed is a plain 2/1 so 1NT even as a passed hand is forcing. Everything else in this sequence is natural.

[mw64ahw]

I guess 5134/5044/5035 with 17+hcp.

 

With the singletons working I bid 4♦ looking for the marginal slam if North has extras

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, sorry. The system imposed is a plain 2/1 so 1NT even as a passed hand is forcing. Everything else in this sequence is natural.

 

I'm struggling with a hand that bids a NF 2♣ then what looks like a GF 3♦ when I haven't shown any extras.

[DavidKok]

I guess 5134/5044/5035 with 17+hcp.

 

With the singletons working I bid 4♦ looking for the marginal slam if North has extras

For me 4♦ would be NF here. I'll bid 4♣, confirming diamonds.

 

I'm struggling with a hand that bids a NF 2♣ then what looks like a GF 3♦ when I haven't shown any extras.

I think you can pass 3♦ (without prior agreement, alternatively 3♦ could be a probe for 4♠ with, say, 6=0=3=4) and then it should be forcing), or opt for 3♠ NF.

[mw64ahw]

I'm struggling with a hand that bids a NF 2♣ then what looks like a GF 3♦ when I haven't shown any extras.

Good point - possibly a distributional strong, but hcp light hand i.e. 5044 with 15/16 hcp

 

 

 

[nullve]

I guess 5134/5044/5035 with 17+hcp.

 

With the singletons working I bid 4♦ looking for the marginal slam if North has extras

With 5134 and INV values only: 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♠; 2N = INV, 5S4C3-H

 

With 5134 and GF values: 1♠-1N; 3♣ = NAT GF

 

With 5044 and INV values: either as with 5134 or 1♠-1N; 2♦, intending to rebid either 2N (INV, 5S4D3-H) or 3♣ (INV, 5044?)

 

With 5044 and GF values: either as with 5134 or 1♠-1N; 3♦ = NAT GF

 

With 5035 and INV values: 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♠; 3♣ = INV, 5+ C

 

With 5035 and GF values: 1♠-1N; 3♣ = NAT GF

 

-------

 

My guess is that partner intended 3♦ as F3♠ with 6034 (e.g. AKxxxx-void-Axx-Axxx).

 

My call: 4♠.

[eagles123]

4H

[mw64ahw]

With 5134 and INV values only: 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♠; 2N = INV, 5S4C3-H

 

With 5134 and GF values: 1♠-1N; 3♣ = NAT GF

 

With 5044 and INV values: either as with 5134 or 1♠-1N; 2♦, intending to rebid either 2N (INV, 5S4D3-H) or 3♣ (INV, 5044?)

 

With 5044 and GF values: either as with 5134 or 1♠-1N; 3♦ = NAT GF

 

With 5035 and INV values: 1♠-1N; 2♣-2♠; 3♣ = INV, 5+ C

 

With 5035 and GF values: 1♠-1N; 3♣ = NAT GF

 

-------

 

My guess is that partner intended 3♦ as F3♠ with 6034 (e.g. AKxxxx-void-Axx-Axxx).

 

My call: 4♠.

I play the 2♣ as a relay with the relay break of 2♠ showing weak with 3+♠. Then 3♦ 5134, 3♥ 5314 & 3♣ other shapes.

 

In this case 2♣ is NF so a bit of a guess as to the meaning of 3♦

[LBengtsson]

difficult. 3♥ looks good bid. partner should know that if you had a 6♥ bagger with your 1NT bid then you would have bid it after his 2♣ other than preference to 2♠. or alternative, you might have opened 2♥ weak vul. I think, by inference, 3♥ in this sequence shows control, good fit for ♦ and a bit more than minimum 1NT response. Slam needs specific cards and luck I feel but partner might prefer 5♦to 4♠ with good 5044/5134 shape. If I had good 6♠ card suit as opener I would rebid it, not bid 2♣ btw.

[Winstonm]

difficult. 3♥ looks good bid. partner should know that if you had a 6♥ bagger with your 1NT bid then you would have bid it after his 2♣ other than preference to 2♠. or alternative, you might have opened 2♥ weak vul. I think, by inference, 3♥ in this sequence shows control, good fit for ♦ and a bit more than minimum 1NT response. Slam needs specific cards and luck I feel but partner might prefer 5♦to 4♠ with good 5044/5134 shape. If I had good 6♠ card suit as opener I would rebid it, not bid 2♣ btw.

 

Justin was one of the responders in this quiz. He bid 3H:

 

 

Justin Lall: Wow, I have a great hand now. I'll give up on 3 NT and make an advance cue-bid; next I'll bid diamonds.

[Winstonm]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthat962dqt853c2&w=s74hq8d742cqt9853&n=sakq83h5dkj9ckj76&e=s9652hkj743da6ca4&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1sp1np2cp2sp3dp5dppp&p=h4hah8h5c2c3cjcah3h2hqd9ckc4h6c5s3s2sts4sjs7s8s5h9c8djh7c6d6d8c9htctdkhjc7dad3cqs6d5d7sqd2skhkdtdqd4sa]399|300|For a bonus, try to guess what card was the setting trick after heart lead. [/hv]

 

Once again Bobby Levin was sitting in the hot seat - North. East was Zia.

[bluenikki]

Good point - possibly a distributional strong, but hcp light hand i.e. 5044 with 15/16 hcp

Doesn't 5=0=4=4 bid 2♦ at second turn? 2♣ loses the diamond suit unconditionally.

 

Carl

[Winstonm]

Doesn't 5=0=4=4 bid 2♦ at second turn? 2♣ loses the diamond suit unconditionally.

 

Carl

2C allows partner to introduce diamonds with a 6-bagger but 2D shuts out a 6-card club suit. You could end in the 4-3 diamond fit instead of the 6-4 club fit.

[Gilithin]

Justin was one of the responders in this quiz. He bid 3H:

This one seems like a matter of partnership agreement. For some an immediate 4♦ would be invitational while 3♥ followed by 4♦ would be a slam try. For others the immediate 4♦ would be a slam try while 3♥ followed by 4♦ (at least after a non-3NT call) would be passable. Finally Justin apparently plays a direct 4♦ as a slam try without a ♥ control and 3♥ followed by 4♦ as a slam try with a ♥ control.

 

I prefer Method 2 generally, since in many auctions (albeit not this one) it keeps 3NT in the picture opposite a stopper when I do not have enough for 5♦ otherwise. So my choice is 4♦ but playing either of the alternative methods obviously 3♥ would then be better. I very much dislike Levin's 5♦!