[kenrexford]

Two auctions this evening by the opponents. Which is the most absurd?

Contender #1: Dealer holds ♠A ♥AKx ♦AQJx ♣J10xxx. The opening bid was 1♦. Their opponents passed throughout. Responder bid 1♥. Opener then bid a non-forcing 2♣ (no alert, but explained later as "SAYC"). Responder preferenced diamonds. Opener then leapt to 4♥. This made for a top.

Contender #2: Dealer held ♠Axxx ♥Axx ♦A42 ♣A32. He was playing 15-17 1NT. However, this hand "seemed too suit-oriented" because of the aces-and-spaces. Plus, adding 3 and 1/3 points for each control (A=2, K=1), you get to 26 and 2/3. Subtracting the actual HCP (16) from 26 and 2/3 gives you 10 and 2/3 extra. That amounts, per Klinger (I think), to a 3-HCP upgrade, for 19 HCP's. So, we start with 1♦ (better minor). The opponents are silent.

Responder now bids 1♥. 2NT still seems wrong, despite the adjusted 19-count. But, a simple 1♠ is too weak on this 19-count (after this adjustment). 2♠ works. Partner bids 2NT. Now, I'd better introduce the clubs, because the clubs are as good as the diamonds. 3♣!

Responder offers a courtesy correction to 3♦. Well, now I'd better give partner a delayed raise of his suit. 3♥!!!

Responder, not sure what the _____ to do, figures that 3NT must make. I mean, 4354 hands offer a lot of trick sources.

3NT only makes from Responder's side.

[hotShot]

I miss the "other" option.

Hand 1:
SAYC players who open 1♦ even with longer ♣ are not so rare.
They feel that showing 4♦ is better than showing 3+♣.
I would not bid this way, but i've read this suggestion here in the forum before.

Hand 2:
This hand has 4 tricks, there is no way to get more. ♠AKDB ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣xxx has 4 tricks and you would not even open it. Without a source of tricks from partner this hand has little playing strength,it does not even have middle cards or a chance for a finesse. You need a lot from partner to get anywhere.
You can't open 1m and rebid 1 NT, because that would hide your true strength. 2NT shows strength you do not have. so you have a rebid problem. Opening 1♦ solves most of the rebid problems, showing an impossible distribution, will make partner think. If this is an established partnership, there might be "partnership experience" that would have to be disclosed.

This post has been edited by hotShot: 2007-January-28, 06:14

[goodwintr]

Regarding the second auction: I have heard it said that when a player's first four "natural" bids are in four different suits, you can be 100% certain that there has been a trainwreck.

I once heard Charlie Coon and a partner who shall not be named bid a hand as follows: Nameless Player: 1D; C.Coon: 1NT; NP: 2H; CC: 2NT; NP: 3S; CC: "What have you got, ****, six diamonds, five hearts, and four spades?

Regarding the first auction: With certain assumptions, it might make some sense. Assume (1) that the partnership opens 1D with 4-5 in the minors (as some do); (2) 2C is forcing (as it is in Kaplan-Sheinwold or Roth-Stone), or at least "seldom passed" (as it is in other systems); and (3) 3H over 2C wouldn't be forcing (probably not consistent with the second assumption, but hey, it doesn't sound like these guys are deeply into theory). Theoretical shortcomings will catch up to them in the long run. In the meantime, it just looks like they just got a top without really knowing what they were doing -- frustrating for your side, but perhaps not the first time in the history of bridge that such a thing has happened.

TLG

[ohioply]

both equally rediculous - and funny- in the world of SAYC
First one makes no sense - he should bid 3c to show his strength, when partner gives him a completely non forcing 2d signoff he leaps to game in partner's possible 4 card suit.
I voted for the second one just because they ended on the right side and it made me laugh. Though, the second one I can sort-of understand - every time I've opened 1nt with "aces and spaces" I've been left in 1nt...set 3. This doesn't keep me from opening 1nt though but I can understand where for some it might.

[awm]

The first auction is not that far from normal. In fact it could be explained by missing that the singleton spade is the ace. A lot of people open 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors, especially with hands too weak to reverse (which this hand would be if you delete the ace of spades). After 1♦-1♥, there are various reasons not to raise hearts... for example 2♥ would tend to show a weaker hand (bit of an underbid) and partnership style might discourage the raise on only three, whereas 3♥ should surely show four. After 2♣-2♦, opener realizes he has underbid his hand by an ace and, concerned that various calls may be NF (after all his 2♣ was NF) he decides to eliminate any risk of a pass by blasting to game.

The second auction is just bizarre. Opener has distorted his strength by an ace, and totally misrepresented his shape. Even if we accept that he's somehow miscounted has points, after 1♦-1♥-2♠-2NT, why would he bid clubs instead of a delayed heart raise or 3NT call?

[helene_t]

The first auction is a little excentric but quite practical. The first two bids are ok (not my choice, but ok), and after partner showed a weak hand a leap to the most likely game is practical. I have done similar things myself sometimes. Nothing to be proud of but with an unknown partner I think it's ok to be a little brute.

[Winstonm]

Does it make any difference? You can't alter what the opponents do or don't do.
Better to concentrate on what you can affect - one's own play and bidding, no?

[kenrexford]

purely for the laugh