[ggwhiz]

Stephen Tu, on 2015-August-28, 00:52, said:

Is responding with the North hand really all that clear?

I think so. For every time you land on your head there are many more losses from letting the opponents in too easily.

I've had better success showing clubs next so partner can evaluate their meager holdings.

If you bid 3♣ that should wake him up but after having passed first, I doubt it.

[kenberg]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-August-28, 08:21, said:

For us, X shows 4 clubs, 3♣ shows 6+/5+ and not enough to bid 3♣ the round before.

I can see the point of this.

I have not discussed this auction with any current partner, so my thinking would be "If I bid 3C, I imagine we will be playing in clubs or hearts, that's fine". Not terribly precise, but probably workable. But if we were to discuss it, I would consider playing it as you suggest.

[PhilKing]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-August-28, 08:21, said:

For us, X shows 4 clubs, 3♣ shows 6+/5+ and not enough to bid 3♣ the round before.

The chances of us holding a weak 65 on this auction are as close to zero as makes no difference.

[kenberg]

PhilKing, on 2015-August-28, 13:03, said:

The chances of us holding a weak 65 on this auction are as close to zero as makes no difference.

I also had thoughts along this line. They went:
1. Surely this auction would never happen when I am 6-5 with modest values.
2. But it did happen when I was 7-4.
3. But it shouldn't have happened, and wouldn't have if i were S, since I would have bid 3H not 2H.

Then, looking again, I thought the whole auction a bit weird. The hands:

---

After S bid 2H, West passed? Sure, the balancing 2D doesn't promise much but he has QTxx. That should fill in any holes. And he has the AQ of spades, with his lho passing on the first round. That seems like a good bet for two tricks. Maybe 3 if needed, since he has the T also. If a call is available to show four spades and diamond support that would be nice, but lacking that (and I would be lacking that) I think I could scrape up a 3D bid. With a little care in the play I think it is down one.

Note: I think if W bids 2S over 2H it must show some sort of diamond support since, not having bid 1S over 1H, the bid does not make sense w/o some diamonds. But I would be wary of making this call without five spades.

So: As S I would have bid 3H over 2D, as W I would have bid 3D over 2H, as N I would have bid 3H after partner's 2H. And some, though not me, would have bid with the N hand on the first round. With my 7-4 the given auction happened, but it seems to me everyone except E was being extremely cautious.Maybe W brilliantly figured that 4H was on and did not want to push them into it.

[Jinksy]

I don't see any reason for N to raise 2♥ to 3. P's rebid doesn't suggest any extras (which is why it's such a terrible call), so you've got no game interest, no confidence of making 9 tricks, and no special desire to compete, even you knew they were going to re-protect, which you don't.

[BillPatch]

BillPatch, on 2015-August-27, 17:33, said:

Oh, I forgot to assess relative blame. 50-50. Both errors were equally atrocious. But if I had to make the decision which error was worse failure to respond to the opening bid with 6 HCP seems to be more a beginner error.

I seem to have miscounted the HCP before posting. It is my style to promote most 5 HCP with a 4+ major to a response. Then since I "knew" I had a response, I thought I had 6 HCP. The initial pass was not an atrocious error, though I still don't like it. If your bidding philosophy prefers the pass, with a maximum pass and 2 card support I think a raise of 2♥ to 3 on the next round is preferable to that pass. Game was still possible in normal bidding if opener had extra values and a non-semi-solid six or seven card suit improved by the prospect of the semi-fit.

So, Opener's free rebid of 2♥ with his Acol 2 bid was clearly the worst error. I therefore reassign the blame 40% N, 60% S.

[Cyberyeti]

PhilKing, on 2015-August-28, 13:03, said:

The chances of us holding a weak 65 on this auction are as close to zero as makes no difference.

This may well be true, but this interpretation is part of a blanket agreement which saves a lot of brainpower and covers a lot of situations where it's much more likely.

[kenberg]

Jinksy, on 2015-August-29, 08:44, said:

I don't see any reason for N to raise 2♥ to 3. P's rebid doesn't suggest any extras (which is why it's such a terrible call), so you've got no game interest, no confidence of making 9 tricks, and no special desire to compete, even you knew they were going to re-protect, which you don't.

Well, largely I agree. When I first mentioned my responses back a bit, I said I would, as South, have bid 3H over 2D but I only said, as North, that I thought I would have raised 2H to 3H as N.

My thinking was that most likely if I pass E will do something. I am then going to compete to 3H. If I do it right away, partner will take me for having the top of my previous pass. If I wait and do it next time, partner will figure such a 3H could be on anything.

Of course one could decide to pass 2H and then pass again unless forced. Reasonable, but then when partner doubles the 2S it puts me in a real bind. Passing 2H but jumping to 4H after the double seems weird. But bidding only 3H? I would do that with no points at all.

So really the 2H seems to be the source of all the trouble. We appear to agree on that.

As to whether 2H shows anything, well, he could have passed so I don't think it is just a six card suit. What would be the point? He knows N has not much, 2H takes up no room, why bother? Another way to look at is that someone must have something. W passed (twice by the time 2H reaches N), E balanced with 2D, usually of limited strength. What on Earth is going on.

But I do (as N) only have two hearts so I can see passing.

South really needed to do something other than 2H if we get to the ATB. I think it is hard to recover after the 2H.

[Jinksy]

BillPatch, on 2015-August-29, 10:47, said:

Game was still possible in normal bidding if opener had extra values and a non-semi-solid six or seven card suit improved by the prospect of the semi-fit.

What hand does he have that shouldn't have been opened 4♥, where you have a solid game opposite his 2♥ rebid?

[wank]

A qjxxxxx x aqxx. You can open 4h but it's not mainstream.

2h does show extras btw, just not nearly as much as he had.

[neilkaz]

I give the blame to south who really didn't do enough in the bidding to convey how good his hand is.

[mgoetze]

Well, confession time. I was South on this bidding practice hand (erratic bids by E/W are attributable to their robotic nature).

We do not have an "Acol 2" type opening in our repertoire, it is our style to open these hands 1♥. As I posted earlier, it seems unclear that an "Acol 2" opening would always lead to the correct result here - responder goes to game and it is off because he had the ♦K rather than the ♣K quite possibly. In hindsight, I perhaps failed to appreciate that East's 2♦ made it less likely that partner had the "wrong accept" and more likely that it would be right if I did rebid 3♥ and he raised to 4. My thinking was that game was unlikely anyway, if it was on perhaps partner would have a move over 2♥ and even if he didn't opps would perhaps give me another bite at the cherry - as indeed happened.

Over 2♠, I did indeed feel like 3♣ would suggest more of a 6-5ish hand though we have no firm agreements. Further, it wasn't clear to me that it is never right to defend - why can't partner have QJTxx x Jxxx xxx? I also did feel that partner could have seen that his ♥Tx ♣Kxxx was excellent in the context of his bidding so far and found a more creative bid than 3♥, but I do appreciate that it depends on how much you think 2♥ has constrained my strength.

[wank]

mgoetze, on 2015-August-29, 19:20, said:

Further, it wasn't clear to me that it is never right to defend - why can't partner have QJTxx x Jxxx xxx?

as i said above passing partner's actual 5 count is ok. it has no playing strength, but enough defence not to be worried about the opps. you might miss game, but you're much more likely to end up too high by bidding.

on this example hand though, you would be crazy to pass. it has much more playing strength, a good suit, and you hate hearts.

[kenberg]

This has been an interesting hand and an interesting discussion.

North's first call, pass or 1S? The usual worry in a light response is that you are about to hear 2NT from partner. Well, this is good enough so that it should have a play. I still pass, but I wouldn't go nuts if a partner bid 1S with this.

Maybe it's right to defend: Could be Even on this hand, with no trump stack anywhere, it seems we can beat either 2S or 3D by a trick. Still, when I have tis much shape I am reluctant to defend at the 2 level. As mentioned, I think oif the double of 2S as showing extras but suggesting, at least weakly, that a penalty pass might be right. If made with a 7-4 hand, I would want the message to be "I have offense, a lot of it, but if your hand suggests pass, go for it". The emphasis is a little different. The first way would lead to more frequent passing.

3H or 2H by South at the second turn: My choice was 3H (of course I have seen the hands) and my thinking was that there should be a play for 9 tricks if partner has as little as the ten of clubs. I think that's what a jump to 3 says opposite a passing partner: "I heard your pass, but I really need very little from you to take 9 tricks". The most obvious objection to 3H is that while I hold seven hearts there are six other hearts in the deck and neither my partner nor my rho seem to have much strength. That may be because my lho has strength and I bid his suit. If so, I may regret this 3H bid. Still, I do it.

[mgoetze]

wank, on 2015-September-01, 04:50, said:

as i said above passing partner's actual 5 count is ok. it has no playing strength, but enough defence not to be worried about the opps. you might miss game, but you're much more likely to end up too high by bidding.

on this example hand though, you would be crazy to pass. it has much more playing strength, a good suit, and you hate hearts.

OK, let me reword that - I think my partner would pass QJTxx x Jxxx xxx, whether or not that is actually the best choice.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2015-September-01, 06:08, said:

3H or 2H by South at the second turn: My choice was 3H (of course I have seen the hands) and my thinking was that there should be a play for 9 tricks if partner has as little as the ten of clubs.

It may not be standard but my view of this 3♥ jump was always that it shows the offensive strength for 9 tricks but without necessarily showing extra strength - a good preempt if you like. The cue bid (here 3♦) can then be used to show the one-suited hand that can make 9 tricks based on general strength that might have game interest if partner has a little something. It surprises me a little that everyone here seems to play the jump rebid as something like an Acol 2 opening - that strikes me as something of a waste. What is 3♦ for you Ken?

[mikestar13]

Both asleep at the switch. South could easily try 4♥ or 2♣, but this is pretty easy 1 ♠ response to 1♥ as well. Allocation of blame depends on South's opening tendencies.

If South's 1♥ in third seat might be a crappy flattish 9, North's pass doesn't look so bad--for all he knows, NS may need to get out NOW.

If South is sure to have reasonable strength or compensating shape, the pass is terrible.

North's opening tendencies in first seat have some influence: the lighter he opens, the less bad South's 1♥ is, and incidentally, the better 4♥ looks compared to 2♣ if he does go stronger. With some of the wild men I've partnered an opening pass tends to deny a decent 11 or a shapely 10: slam is quite out of the question.
Yes, we were playing 2 over 1, not Precision.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-01, 09:20, said:

It may not be standard but my view of this 3♥ jump was always that it shows the offensive strength for 9 tricks but without necessarily showing extra strength - a good preempt if you like. The cue bid (here 3♦) can then be used to show the one-suited hand that can make 9 tricks based on general strength that might have game interest if partner has a little something. It surprises me a little that everyone here seems to play the jump rebid as something like an Acol 2 opening - that strikes me as something of a waste. What is 3♦ for you Ken?

Not passable

Beyond that, I am not sure. I doubt I have ever done it. If partner did it, I probably would be wishing he hadn't. I think what you say is reasonable, I just don't think I have discussed it with anyone I play with.

Don't get me wrong, I in fact appreciate such thoughts. A lot of my playing is sufficiently informal that partner and I have far more basic things that we should someday get around to discussing. So I am left with playing "3H says I expect to make 3H, end of story", trusting that partner will at least consider raising to 4 if he has a little something. But I can see the point of sorting the strong 3H, where partner might double if they insist on trying to buy it, from a more preemptive 3H where partner might compete in hearts with some hand or he might (often I would think) pass when they compete but he should only rarely raise to 4 freely and definitely should not double. It makes sense, I just have never discussed it.

[Jinksy]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-01, 09:20, said:

It may not be standard but my view of this 3♥ jump was always that it shows the offensive strength for 9 tricks but without necessarily showing extra strength - a good preempt if you like. The cue bid (here 3♦) can then be used to show the one-suited hand that can make 9 tricks based on general strength that might have game interest if partner has a little something. It surprises me a little that everyone here seems to play the jump rebid as something like an Acol 2 opening - that strikes me as something of a waste.

Can you give an eg sort of hand you're thinking of for the 3♥ bid? My rule of thumb for opening in that seat is that opening at the one level typically (though not entirely) shows a hand that either wants to get in for lead/disruption and get out early, or a hand that's interested in game (at least) opposite a reasonable fit and HCP max. With a hand that would need of (working shortage, near max and crisp values) opposite, I'll just bid what I think I can make and leave it to partner to do something encouraging if he's got the magic hand. A 'good preempt' sounds to me like the latter.

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2015-September-02, 05:41, said:

Can you give an eg sort of hand you're thinking of for the 3♥ bid?

♥KQJTxxx and an outside ace for example, assuming you are not already opening that at the 3 or 4 level.