[awm]

Scoring: MP

---

Playing 2/1 with no particular further discussion. The bidding was:

1♠ - 2♦
3♦ - 3♥
4♦...

At this point 3NT was unreachable. Even 4♠ might be a cuebid for diamonds. What went wrong?

[hotShot]

I don't like the 3♦ bid, rising a 3+ card suit with only 3 card support is not a good idea. Depending on the agreements 2♠ and 2NT are reasonable bids, but they should show different types of hands. 2♠ is less likely to be misinterpreted, perhaps 2NT should show a stronger hand.

[karlson]

It seems clear that if south is allowed to raise with hands like his, north has to bid 3n with hands like his.

In my usual style, south has a 2s bid.

I really hate 4d also though. He's already showed at least as much diamond support as he has, and this hand can play well in a 5-2 spade fit, why not bid 3s?

[jdonn]

South and north both made a very bad bid with 3♦ (instead of 2♠) and 3♥ (instead of 3NT). Neither of those have anything to do with playing 2/1 with style without discussion, which is what I presume you are getting at.

And look, I was able to assign blame without even saying north should bid 2♣!

[hanp]

I don't like 2D but this is a matter of style.

I don't like 3D on a minimum 5332. This is also a matter of style but of bad style.

I think 3H was just bad bridge, 3NT is obvious.

1S - 2D
2S (catch all) - 3NT (balanced 16-17)
Pass

Is a very nice and simple auction. Replace 2D by 2C according to style.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

1S is fine

2D is fine, 2D is clearcut unless you have
discussed to bid 2C, which some posters
love to play, but dont do it, unless you have
discussed it.

3D is ok, I prefer 2S, but 3D is not wrong

3H is fine, showing values, investigating 3NT,
investigating slam, who knowes, on some days
partner will have a real fit.

4D is just ..., sry undiscussed 2D does not
promise a 5 carder, so simply bid 3S, you already
denied a reasonable 6 card spade suit, most likely
you denied a 6 card spade suit for sure.
Just bid 3S and leave it to partner, as it is opener
did not yet limit his hand, and 4D is certainly more
forward going than 3S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

Too many unknowns. But...

2♦? Prefer 2♣, but not wanting to start that debate again, so I'll buy 2♦.

3♦? Sick. Sick in the head, sick. This is even worse when the raise is diamonds, because it evades intelligent notrump probe auctions, because only one unbid suit is available. Raising clubs is not as bad, because both unbids can be bid.

3♥? Depends. 3♦ should have promised more shape, but it maybe also should have promised more strength, depending on the style here. I'm not sure, but it seems like some would bid 2♠ and then 3♦ with a weaker hand. So, if 3♥ was meant as a slam probe because Responder thought Opener had mote strength for their call, sure.

4♦? Kind of boxed in. If I was forced to sit down at the table with Opener's hand at this point in the bidding, though, I'd bid by spade 10 like it was gold and rebid 3♠ instead.

[655321]

Agree that 3♦ is just a bad bid, and probably 3♥ too (although, as Ken says, 3♥ is understandable if North thought South was showing a good hand).

But I am curious to hear the story behind this, because this apparently non-problem hand has been posted both here, and in r.g.b.

[the hog]

Agree with everyone so far that 3D is a bad bid. Mind you, North can still bid 3NT, so if assigning percentages, i would say South 75%, Nth 25%

[peachy]

3D was the worst bid, by far. First, because it is the worst of all choices available after 2D and second because it sowed the bad seeds and confusion for later bad bidding by both sides. Sorry to be so negative, I can't find a nice way to put it.

[crazy4hoop]

I like hanp's proposed auction of 1♠-2♦
2♠-3NT

with the exact descriptions he proposes each bid mean.

[helene_t]

I am OK with 3♥ if North thought that 3♦ showed extras as it does for some.

North shouldn't support diamonds twice. Maybe the 3♥ bid showed a fifth diamond but then you need to have an agreement about what to do with a 2443 with small clubs.

[rant] If you believe a 2NT rebid shows extras maybe you would be better off playing a weak 1NT[/rant]

[Codo]

Hi Helene,

but this hand is a no brainer for the guys who play 2 NT shows extras.

Hans bidding is really too easy to get it wrong.

3 Diamond was simply a bad bid, because it described an unbalanced hand with real support. As Gerben says: Two wrongs do not make one right....
Besides this: It had shown extras to me, so my partner should not even bid it with
a 5x4y hand with minimum.

And 4 Diamond was horrible too. 3 ♠ is a much better bid, no matter how you take 3♥.

[andy_h]

3D was worst I reckon. If North knows South can bid 3D with that, then surely bidding 3H would endplay partner a fair amount of time.

[aguahombre]

1s 2Nt
3NT

What went wrong? Jacoby 2NT, 2/1 in non suits, etc went wrong.
I don't think 2NT is really that big of an underbid (1 questionable HCP)opposite an opening one-bid if the call is available.

[mike777]

awm, on Jun 14 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

<!-- NORTHSOUTH begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table border='1'> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> Qx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AKJx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> QJxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KTx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KJTxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Qxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AKx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> xx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- NORTHSOUTH end -->

Playing 2/1 with no particular further discussion. The bidding was:

1♠ - 2♦
3♦ - 3♥
4♦...

At this point 3NT was unreachable. Even 4♠ might be a cuebid for diamonds. What went wrong?

Excellent post and poll, lots of answers!

I went with 3h based on a 2s rebid promising 6s and 3d not promising any extras at all.

[jdonn]

655321, on Jun 14 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

Agree that 3♦ is just a bad bid, and probably 3♥ too (although, as Ken says, 3♥ is understandable if North thought South was showing a good hand).

But I am curious to hear the story behind this, because this apparently non-problem hand has been posted both here, and in r.g.b.

I'm pushing this to the front since I'm curious too, given that it ended up in both.

[Apollo81]

jdonn, on Jun 14 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

South and north both made a very bad bid with 3♦ (instead of 2♠) and 3♥ (instead of 3NT). Neither of those have anything to do with playing 2/1 with style without discussion, which is what I presume you are getting at.

And look, I was able to assign blame without even saying north should bid 2♣!

agree, and I think 3♥ was the worst call

[awm]

There is nothing particularly fascinating about this hand. It just happened to be played by two (supposedly good) players who regularly post to different bridge forums. Obviously it was a bottom board in a mediocre club field.

I think it does highlight a difference in styles as to the meaning of the 3♦ call. I was north, and was acting under the assumption that 3♦ showed extras (at least in terms of shape). Notice that 6♦ is nearly cold opposite AKJxx xx AKxx xx and I don't see any particular reason that this hand would take another call over 3NT, since the 3♦ call already shows the extras. Bidding 3♥ doesn't commit us to playing past 3NT so I felt fairly safe trying one cuebid on my 16-count before signing off. Jordan (our rgb poster) was south, and felt that 3♦ was a normal call on his hand, and that I should've bid 3NT on the north cards. Perhaps he would've taken another call over this with something like 15 high and four-card diamonds, since his original 3♦ bid could evidently be a much worse hand.

[jdonn]

I would not assume 3♦ shows extras undiscussed. But to me your example hand for partner that would make slam is a great plug for responding 2♣ to begin with. You can have a much better auction, maybe

1♠ 2♣
2♦ 2NT
3NT 4♦

which gives opener easy options to sign off in 4NT or, as he would on your example, cuebid something like 4♠. I don't think north should be particularly afraid of reaching 4NT opposite an opening spade bid with diamonds. This is especially given that responding 2♦ then bidding 3♥ doesn't really describe a balanced 16 count anyway. And if opener raised clubs instead, responder could be less optimistic and simply sign off in 3NT with a clearer concsience.

Of course I still think 3♦ was the worst bid, although it's not that uncommon of a style.