[msjennifer]

---

[nige1]

MsJennifer's bidding problem
++++++++++++++++++++++

Deal rotated
- 1♠ = Brave but, IMO, with 3 quick tricks, Pass is unthinkable.
- 2♦ = Impeccable.
- 2♥ = What else?
- 3♣ = 4SF but 2N might be better.
- 3♥ = Pattern out but 3♦ is an alternative.
Hope opponents don't attack ♥s

---

[FelicityR]

3♣ seems a superfluous bid. Was East hoping that West was 5-4-0-4 shape and a slam in ♣s was possibly going to be missed if he/she didn't bid 3♣? I agree with Nigel: 2NT was a far better bid here.

Even after 3♣ instead of 2NT, West is never going to raise the bidding above 3NT as 3♣ is invariably seen as 4th suit forcing, not a new playable suit. Maybe a slight flaw with bidding a minor suit as 4th suit forcing at the three level in this type of auction.

[msjennifer]

 FelicityR, on 2020-April-25, 05:23, said:

3♣ seems a superfluous bid. Was East hoping that West was 5-4-0-4 shape and a slam in ♣s was possibly going to be missed if he/she didn't bid 3♣? I agree with Nigel: 2NT was a far better bid here.

Even after 3♣ instead of 2NT, West is never going to raise the bidding above 3NT as 3♣ is invariably seen as 4th suit forcing, not a new playable suit. Maybe a slight flaw with bidding a minor suit as 4th suit forcing at the three level in this type of auction.

Madam,/Sir,
i, too ,would agree that considering the misfits a 2NT bid is a better bid.In fact,(I was a kibitzer),when I asked why she bid 3C here is her reply. "it may be right or wrong but the 2D bid is not forcing to game but only upto 3 of a suit or 2NT.Any NEW suit bid at 3 level
(which may not necessarily be the 4th suit )




by either is a GF." As also she wanted to find out a game in one of the minors or 3NT after she hears what opener bids over 3C which was the only GF bid left.Indeed all the members in that club agreed with the bidding that far.. 3NT had no chance on the natural heart /spade lead with a spade/heart shift.I ,therefore, am interested in finding out a better auction (1)at the table and (2)double dummy on seeing the 26 cards.THANKS.Sorry for the typing mistakes.

[FelicityR]

 msjennifer, on 2020-April-25, 07:18, said:

Madam,/Sir,
i, too ,would agree that considering the misfits a 2NT bid is a better bid.In fact,(I was a kibitzer),when I asked why she bid 3C here is her reply. "it may be right or wrong but the 2D bid is not forcing to game but only upto 3 of a suit or 2NT.Any NEW suit bid at 3 level
(which may not necessarily be the 4th suit ) by either is a GF." As also she wanted to find out a game in one of the minors or 3NT after she hears what opener bids over 3C which was the only GF bid left.Indeed all the members in that club agreed with the bidding that far.. 3NT had no chance on the natural heart /spade lead with a spade/heart shift.I ,therefore, am interested in finding out a better auction (1)at the table and (2)double dummy on seeing the 26 cards.THANKS.Sorry for the typing mistakes.

My apologies. I always assume a 2/1 auction except if stated. However, the only way I feel that game does not get reached is if West fails to open. That is, if someone is still playing Goren standard

Have to agree with Nigel again that even with 11 HCPs, 3 quick tricks make it an opening hand. Kaplan & Rubens evaluator for what it's worth puts it a tad over 12. Once West opens, East staying out of game seems impossible. Furthermore, East is probably thinking that she is bringing a few goodies to the party with the ♠Q and ♥Ax in her partner's suits. It's just one of those hands where 100% of modern players will end in game, but game cannot be made if the opponents find the right lead/defence.

[pescetom]

 nige1, on 2020-April-25, 02:21, said:

- 1♠ = Brave but, IMO, with 3 quick tricks, Pass is unthinkable.
- 2♦ = Impeccable.
- 2♥ = What else?
- 3♣ = 4SF but 2N might be better.
- 3♥ = Pattern out but 3♦ is an alternative.

I agree that opening was quite a hazard, but (assuming 2/1 here) not with the comment on 3♣.
2♦ created an unconditional game force, so 4SF is not applicable and 3♣ is both natural (even though requiring something extra) and sensible here IMO.
I agree that patterning out those terrible majors is looking for trouble, AK♦ looks a better hope if 2♦ promised 5+cards as it should.
So for us after that it might go:
3♦ - 4♦
5♣* - 6♦
p.

* denies control of hearts and spades, shows control of clubs, shows 3 keycards in diamonds

Of course it's going to finish badly, but that's life

[Tramticket]

I see no reason to open that South hand. And I open almost all 11 counts.

[TylerE]

i detest a 2NT rebid with 1=2=6=4. It's a gross misdescription.

[mikeh]

I find the notion of opening 1S and rebidding hearts, probably twice to show the length, makes pass a very attractive alternative to 1S. Indeed, I think it best, and I currently play in partnerships that open virtually all 11 counts and a fair numbner of 10 counts.

Aces and Kings are assigned their point count not simply because they rate to take a trick, but also because they promote lesser cards held in the same suit. Here, we have NO lesser minor card, and partner will NEVER cater to a zero count in the majors.

As for responder, again simply counting hcp can lead one seriously astray. 3C at the second turn, to establish a gf opposite someone who opens that major suit hand (even with say Axxxx 10xxxx AK x, as an example of a far better hand), seems to ignore the weakness in the diamond suit, and the misfit...and what, pray tell, is responder expecting to do next? After all, with those clubs and that auction, opener may well be end-played with some 5=4=1=3 hand and no club stopper. 2N should be aggressively accepted at imps and at mps missing close games is not often terrible.

IMO, the thread is about hand evaluation, and both players count hcp and ignore honour location and suit texture.

(if playing a big club, I take back the criticism of 1S but the criticism of 3C is strtengthened)

[mikeh]

 TylerE, on 2020-April-25, 21:35, said:

i detest a 2NT rebid with 1=2=6=4. It's a gross misdescription.

Of course, the fact that 2N is a better bid than 3C ought to persuade you to change your mind....of it you think this soft 13 count, with a terrible suit and no fit is worth a gf, then make the spade Q the 2. What now?

Btw, in what universe do you miss clubs with 2N o, for that matter, diamonds?

[KingCovert]

 mikeh, on 2020-April-25, 23:11, said:

I find the notion of opening 1S and rebidding hearts, probably twice to show the length, makes pass a very attractive alternative to 1S. Indeed, I think it best, and I currently play in partnerships that open virtually all 11 counts and a fair numbner of 10 counts.

Aces and Kings are assigned their point count not simply because they rate to take a trick, but also because they promote lesser cards held in the same suit. Here, we have NO lesser minor card, and partner will NEVER cater to a zero count in the majors.

As for responder, again simply counting hcp can lead one seriously astray. 3C at the second turn, to establish a gf opposite someone who opens that major suit hand (even with say Axxxx 10xxxx AK x, as an example of a far better hand), seems to ignore the weakness in the diamond suit, and the misfit...and what, pray tell, is responder expecting to do next? After all, with those clubs and that auction, opener may well be end-played with some 5=4=1=3 hand and no club stopper. 2N should be aggressively accepted at imps and at mps missing close games is not often terrible.

IMO, the thread is about hand evaluation, and both players count hcp and ignore honour location and suit texture.

(if playing a big club, I take back the criticism of 1S but the criticism of 3C is strtengthened)

My preferred system happens to be a strong club system that opens possibly every 10+ HCP hand... So, I'm probably being a little hypocritical in saying that I agree that pass looks rather attractive on this hand.

1) It has defensive strength against virtually every contract the opponents could play
2) It holds both the majors, so, it's a rather easy to compete later

Of course, I'm opening it 100/100. So, it's easy for me to say this with hindsight...

[Cyberyeti]

The interesting thing is that an auction like 1♠-2♦-2♥-2N-3♥-3N makes a club lead quite likely whereas if you only bid hearts once, the killing heart lead is more likely.

We would bid 1♠-2♦(not GF)-2♥-3N I suspect

[AL78]

1♠* - 2♦
2♥ - 3NT
pass

This is likely what would happen at my table, this is playing an Acol variant.

*I would consider passing with 11 HCP and none of them in either of my suits.

[KingCovert]

I suppose I didn't provide an auction for this hand. It would go:

1♠ = 10-14 (in 1st/2nd seat) 4+♠.
2♦ = Invitational or better with ♦. Forcing to at least 3♦.
2♥ = 5+♥.
3♦ = Narrows the 2♦ bid to invitational values with 6+♦.

Seems like a good place to stop.

[Cyberyeti]

 KingCovert, on 2020-April-27, 10:32, said:

I suppose I didn't provide an auction for this hand. It would go:

1♠ = 10-14 (in 1st/2nd seat) 4+♠.
2♦ = Invitational or better with ♦. Forcing to at least 3♦.
2♥ = 5+♥.
3♦ = Narrows the 2♦ bid to invitational values with 6+♦.

Seems like a good place to stop.

Well it is a good place to stop except that partner's actual hand is K109xx, K109xx, x, Ax and you lose 4 diamonds and a spade, with ♥ playing much better (if you bid that hand differently partner's diamonds will be better).

[AL78]

 KingCovert, on 2020-April-27, 10:32, said:

I suppose I didn't provide an auction for this hand. It would go:

1♠ = 10-14 (in 1st/2nd seat) 4+♠.
2♦ = Invitational or better with ♦. Forcing to at least 3♦.
2♥ = 5+♥.
3♦ = Narrows the 2♦ bid to invitational values with 6+♦.

Seems like a good place to stop.

You are really going to know to stop in 3♦ with a 13 count opposite an opening bid? The only reason game doesn't make is because partner holds just about the worst minimum opening hand possible.

[KingCovert]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-April-27, 11:06, said:

Well it is a good place to stop except that partner's actual hand is K109xx, K109xx, x, Ax and you lose 4 diamonds and a spade, with ♥ playing much better (if you bid that hand differently partner's diamonds will be better).

The player taking the pass is the hand with two rag majors, AK♦, and A♣ of course. So, they know full well what their hand is when they decide to pass.

 AL78, on 2020-April-27, 11:30, said:

You are really going to know to stop in 3♦ with a 13 count opposite an opening bid? The only reason game doesn't make is because partner holds just about the worst minimum opening hand possible.

Given that the opening bid is 10-14, game forcing values are somewhere around a good 13+ for responder. Obviously, things like suit texture and distribution can influence whether responder thinks their hand is game-forcing or not when they hold less.

The point is though, systemically, this is a minimum on strength for responder. Add in a singleton queen, admittedly in a suit that partner is known to hold, and the fact that you hold 10 minor suit cards and partner holds at least 9 major suit cards, and I think it's a pretty clear downgrade to an invitational hand. This hand is seemingly a misfit, and hands like this usually do horrible in no-trump. So, responder would rebid diamonds to show invitational values with diamonds in my system.

Now that responder has shown invitational values, and remember it's invitational opposite 10-14 so it's not a mediocre hand by any stretch. Yet, I don't really see how anyone is being fair in saying that opener choosing pass here is unreasonable. If anyone looks at that hand with two rag majors, and knows that their hand is limited to 10-14 HCP, and decides that this hand is supposed to drive to game... Well... I fail to see the justification for it.

Perhaps in your methods you'd be forced to play game, and I sympathize with that, but, not in mine.

[Cyberyeti]

 KingCovert, on 2020-April-27, 12:17, said:

The player taking the pass is the hand with two rag majors, AK♦, and A♣ of course. So, they know full well what their hand is when they decide to pass.

You completely misunderstand the point I'm making. I'm saying that bidding 3♦ would work well on this hand, but partner also passes on some other heaps where it's less successful thinking you actually have a diamond suit like QJ1098x(x) which won't have 4 losers opposite a stiff much of the time.

[KingCovert]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-April-27, 14:34, said:

You completely misunderstand the point I'm making. I'm saying that bidding 3♦ would work well on this hand, but partner also passes on some other heaps where it's less successful thinking you actually have a diamond suit like QJ1098x(x) which won't have 4 losers opposite a stiff much of the time.

Okay, it's an interesting point that is definitely worthy of discussion. Essentially, your position is that responder's diamond suit is so bad that even they don't want to play diamonds. I have a few questions:

1) What alternatives do you suggest to 3♦?
2) For each possibility in #1, and given that every alternative establishes a game-force, explain the rationale that would lead you to prioritize that option over 3♦ given that your hand is this bad.
3) Almost all, if they believe South's hand to be an opening hand, will open 1♠, and will rebid 2♥ on it. Why does suit quality not matter there, but, it now matters when making the weakest, and most correctly descriptive, possible bid in a forcing auction?


Those questions are leading, but, I'm certainly not agnostic on this decision. And, to highlight why I believe that 3♦ is correct, I'll just make a few observations:

1) South still has a bid, it's an invitational sequence, it certainly doesn't force South to pass. If South felt their hand warranted a correction back to hearts, they could certainly do so. Clearly this hand doesn't though, so we'd have to consider hands that would warrant such a correction.
2) All systems will contain sequences in which the correct bid, by agreement, will force you to bid some suits you'd rather not. The failure to do so will often erode partnership trust. I'd sigh and accept down 1 on the hand that you describe, but, I'd question the skill of any partner that game forces with North's hand given the agreements. This is a far worse outcome.
3) And, for the sake of argument, it's not clear to me that the hand you describe plays much better in hearts, possibly only a trick better. Or not at all. You were more than generous giving yourself as many spots as you did as well.

[Cyberyeti]

 KingCovert, on 2020-April-27, 15:26, said:

Okay, it's an interesting point that is definitely worthy of discussion. Essentially, your position is that responder's diamond suit is so bad that even they don't want to play diamonds. I have a few questions:

1) What alternatives do you suggest to 3♦?
2) For each possibility in #1, and given that every alternative establishes a game-force, explain the rationale that would lead you to prioritize that option over 3♦ given that your hand is this bad.
3) Almost all, if they believe South's hand to be an opening hand, will open 1♠, and will rebid 2♥ on it. Why does suit quality not matter there, but, it now matters when making the weakest, and most correctly descriptive, possible bid in a forcing auction?


Those questions are leading, but, I'm certainly not agnostic on this decision. And, to highlight why I believe that 3♦ is correct, I'll just make a few observations:

1) South still has a bid, it's an invitational sequence, it certainly doesn't force South to pass. If South felt their hand warranted a correction back to hearts, they could certainly do so. Clearly this hand doesn't though, so we'd have to consider hands that would warrant such a correction.
2) All systems will contain sequences in which the correct bid, by agreement, will force you to bid some suits you'd rather not. The failure to do so will often erode partnership trust. I'd sigh and accept down 1 on the hand that you describe, but, I'd question the skill of any partner that game forces with North's hand given the agreements. This is a far worse outcome.
3) And, for the sake of argument, it's not clear to me that the hand you describe plays much better in hearts, possibly only a trick better. Or not at all. You were more than generous giving yourself as many spots as you did as well.

I totally don't understand your system, a natural invitational 2N would seem obvious so clearly you don't have one available. Partner has shown 5-5 majors, if he has that and a minimum, I don't see what he would bid other than pass if 5512 with non stellar suits. I gave the hand the spots because it was rock bottom minimum, and you might pass with K5432 twice.