BBO Discussion Forums: Where did we go wrong? - BBO Discussion Forums

Playing in an IMP Pairs game, with a partner I hadn't played with for over a year, we had this auction to 4♥, missing a solid slam, with play for 7:



Making 7 when the ♣Q appeared onside.

Where could we have done better?

west was fine. east was silly.

the east hand is far too strong for 2♣. quite what you do it a little tricky though after partner responds in your void. 3♣, 4♥ and even a conservative 3♥ all have more merit than 2♣.

fortunately for him his partner jumped to 3nt which showed his strength and gave east a 2nd go. he could now just jump to 6♥.

Quartic, on 2012-February-07, 11:25, said:

I do not mind 2c hugely, as if it gets passed its a virtual certainty that 4h has no play, however, it has significantly understated your values. East needs to catch up somehow. If east bid 3C instead of 2c partner will FP to 3H and now he can cuebid 4d. That will get you off to a good start. West can basically drive a slam from here.

Going along mostly with Wank on this one. This is not a case where we get to blame auctions which start 1H-1S and get to extoll the virtues of manufacturing a 2/1 at our first opportunity.

This is all on East.

Looking at the 2 hands, it seems silly to stop in game, yet this is a hand on which it is easy to lose one's way.

I think the fault lies with East, and is the result of some point counting issues. The East hand is way short of the 'points' needed to force to game over 1♠. And partner bidding our void isn't usually a reason to get excited. But this hand is worth a gf once partner responds...at least, in my view.

The next question is whether the gf be shown by 4♥ or 3♣.

The hand is all about hearts at the moment, but as little as Kxxx in clubs and nothing else gives a (bad) play for slam, so it behooves us to show the clubs....we can always bid 4♥ next, to stress the heart suit.

So 3♣ it is.

Now, West has a huge hand....the diamond Ace and 2 working kings, so he will/should get excited.


1♥ 1♠
3♣ 3♥
4♥ ?

I don't think opener is worth more than 4♥, having forced to game and getting what is often only a preference. Responder has too good a hand to pass, but can't keycard, in my view.

I think 5♣ seems best....partner will surely want to hear about the club K.

This has the added advantage, on this hand, of telling opener that responder lacks the spade A....and thus opener can in turn get excited....responder has slammish values with no spade A...surely he has the heart K and the Diamond A and the club K (or unexpected heart length and a stiff club...the K is more probable). In this case, grand is possible, since responder is unlimited. Opener cues 5♦ and over a 5♥ signoff (?) can bid 6♥....responder can't have diamond A, club KQ (or equivalent Kx with an extra heart or two) and the heart K.

phil_20686, on 2012-February-07, 11:53, said:

You don't feel 4♥ has any play opposite xxxxx, x, xxx, KQx ? (or similar with a void heart)

But over 3N, you need to be bidding 6♥, it's unlikely to be bad although it may not be very good (try reversing partner's pointed suits).

I would probably bury the club suit and bid 3♥ playing standard.

Playing what I actually play:

1♥-1♠
2N(GF unbal)-3♣(forced without exceptional distribution)
3♥-4♣(cue)
4♦(cue)-4♠(kickback)
5♠(2+Q♥+♠void)-6♦(Q♦ no Q♣, all keycards held)
6♥(not enough)

We would bid the grand with the Q♣ or maybe opposite ♦KJ (we would know it was cold opposite 4 diamonds, would need a club hook opposite 3).

All the blame to opener here who failed to express his values and seemed to be, as mikeh in his xlnt post says, a victim of point countitis. Opener needs to do more.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-07, 12:18, said:

Sure you can construct these hands, I didnt say it was impossible. But even here a spade lead could easily bury you. Even this carefully constructed hand will go off if both red suit finesses are wrong, or if the clubs are 5-1, or if the hearts are 4-1.

I would bid 3c, don't get me wrong, but I dont think 2c is a horror, its just mildly inferior and likely to complicate matters later.

1h-1s
4h should not be a hand this strong as standard.

In otherwise natural systems it is good to play 1h-1s-3N as a single suited too good for 3H. This hand would qualify imo, if you chose to suppress the clubs. I would not rebid a non forcing 3h, for much the same reason I would not rebid a NF 2c.

aguahombre, on 2012-February-07, 12:01, said:

Re: "Extolling the virtures.... "

If playing 2/1 GF ( and I'm not sure OP was ), why respond 1♠ when you have a perfectly good 2♦ bid .
If you have a 4-4 Sp fit, you will find it since a 2♠ rebid by Opener will show 4 cards but not necessarily reverse strength ( in most cases .... unless you have a special treatment to show extras ).

In this case:
1H - 2D!
3H ( sets trump and demands cuebids ) - 4C ( cue, denying a Sp Ctrl )
4NT ( RKC; partner has already denied the ♠A ) - 5H ( 2 - ♥Q )
6C! ( 3rd Rnd Ctrl-ask; partner has already shown the ♣ K ) - 6H ( don't have it )
pass

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-February-07, 13:51, said:

I think the idea of suggesting that we have a 'perfectly good 2♦ bid' in the B/I forum is unsound.

It may be a debatable idea for the A/E forum or the non-natural forum, but when someone posts an ATB post in this forum, they are entitled to have the discussion focus on mainstream methods.

We have seen a number of threads extolling the notion of what is essentially an artificial 2♣ response to 1M, but even that is not mainstream and doesn't belong in this forum. Expanding that to 2♦ is weird, and calling the unorthodox call 'perfectly good' is misleading. Some B/I's might be given the mistaken impression that this is a normal approach.

In addition, it isn't even that good an idea, imo.

After 1♥ 1♠, 2♥ unambiguously promises 6. After 1♥ 2♦, 2♥ for many is neutral as to length, so we have wasted bidding space unnecessarily.

And 1♥ 1♠ 1n is always a better start than 1♥ 2♦ 2N

And 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ isn't a start we want to see if opener is allowed/compelled to do this with as few as 3 cards in support.

There are other negatives as well...even if you play that opener's 2♠ doesn't show extras....and that is NOT universal.....having to bid 3♠ on a 4-4 hand leaves partner, who is now at a high level in the auction, not expecting a 4432 shape....I mean, how would you have bid with 4=5 or 4=6?

mikeh, on 2012-February-07, 15:16, said:

Go ahead... and "pile on" .
Good thing there aren't any "down votes" anymore.
I am still writhing from the 4 that I got for mentioning a SPLINTER in the B/I .

Respectively,
I didn't realize you have to promise at least 5 cards for a 2/1 GF ? ( if you do in SAYC, then I apologize ).

I promise 4+ cards for a 2/1 GF Response ( for ♣ or ♦ ) and of course 5+ for ♥.

I wouldn't call A Q x x of ♦ holding as "weird" or "unorthodox" for a 2/1 and setting a GF immediately.

And 1♥ - 2♦ - 3♦= would promise at least 4 cards in my world ( small as it may be ) .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And I share Hog's view regarding the prevailing condescending attitude toward the B & I's ....

Even though this hand only has 14 HCP, it's just shy of a 2♣ opening bid in my book. (3 QT's and 4 losers, or 3.5 losers, depending on how you count them; I require 4 QT's at minimum for 2♣ and 4 losers maximum.) Game is practically guaranteed opposite as little as ♠98765 ♥987 ♦Q98 ♣98. Since he responded, game will make unless partner has zero high cards outside of spades.

The key question isn't so much how many values partner has; it's where the values are located. And the 1♠ bid, while expected, does nothing to make me happy. So I think bidding clubs next is good, because partner could have 5 spades, 4 diamonds, 4 clubs and a heart void. If 2♣ isn't forcing in your system, I'd force with 3♣ and then, over the expected 3NT, bid 4♥. If partner passes 4♥ then a slam is unlikely. If partner can look at that hand and not at least investigate slam after your jump rebid, followed by a 2nd ♥ bid, then you need a partnership tune-up!

True, your pointed suits could be reversed, but even if they are, 6♥ still should have a play and could be ice cold.

phil_20686, on 2012-February-07, 11:53, said:

( What does "FP" mean? )

Anyway, the first cuebid ( after ♥ agreed ) should be 4C ( not 4D ). Sure, the 3C SJS would imply a Ctrl or two, but 4C will leave room for Responder to show ( or deny ) a Diam Ctrl.
But now it gets "sticky" . How can Opener "ask" ( RKC ) with a Sp-void ?
Enter Meckwell:
... 4S! would be kickback-RKC for Hts and
... 4NT! would be Exclusion-RKC for Hts, excluding the Sp Ace .

1H - 1S
3C - 3H
4C - 4D
4NT! - 5H ( 2 - hQ )
6C! ( cQ-ask, ie. 3rd Rnd Ctrl-ask; since 5NT=K-ask was by-passed ) - 6H ( no cQ or xx doubleton )
pass

@TWO4BRIDGE

but 3♥ doesn't agree hearts so there's no reason for 4♣ to be a cuebid. on the other hand, 4 ♦ is a cuebid as it can't be natural.

it seems to be a common error in B&I land to think that simple preference which is often just a temporising measure sets trumps (the other side of the coin being that they refuse to jump support in GF auctions)

and FP means false preference in this context

I was East - I think my biggest problem on this hand was I allowed myself to be too discouraged by partner's 1♠ response, so I didn't realise I was worth a GF at this point. I also thought I wanted to keep the bidding low, so chose 2♣, but then I had a lot of trouble catching up again after 3NT.

wank, on 2012-February-07, 17:09, said:

I hope you are not saying that a "FP" of 3H could be a singleton ?
( I play that 3H could be as little as 2 card support and denys 4 cards in the 2nd suit, Cl ) .

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-February-07, 17:35, said:

Kokish might argue with you: I am morally certain that he has advocated a temporizing preference on a singleton in these auctions....obviously that is dependent on the precise layout.

And I suspect that a significant faction within the bridge community would reject your limitation that the preference denies 4 clubs.

It is common....indeed it was discussed in the first bidding texts I ever read....to use 1M 1x 3♣ as potentially a 3 card suit. Axx AKJxxx x AQx is a fairly standard 3♣ jumpshift...what else are you bidding over 1♠?

I agree that the FP on a stiff is non-standard....but a better player than you or me thinks its a good idea