[mike777]

At this point in the conversation I am starting to like opening a weak 2spades more and more. Of course partner and the opp need to know I can have this hand type.


I understand if you feel it is too risky to miss game compared to all who open 1s.

[Cyberyeti]

1eyedjack, on 2016-July-10, 15:08, said:

I don't have an issue with that. I don't have a strong opinion on whether in the long term passing below game wins more than it loses. I take issue only with those who say that passing must be wrong for no reason other than that systemically it is forcing or that they can construct a hand where it loses to pass.

I think 2/1 has more of a problem in this sort of auction than Acol does. Because the game force is set really early, you can bid big hands slowly, hence it's much more difficult to know that partner doesn't have a lot more than he's shown, whereas in Acol sometimes you do know that.

[johnu]

1eyedjack, on 2016-July-10, 15:08, said:

I don't have an issue with that. I don't have a strong opinion on whether in the long term passing below game wins more than it loses. I take issue only with those who say that passing must be wrong for no reason other than that systemically it is forcing or that they can construct a hand where it loses to pass.

The problem with passing isn't on this particular hand, but on future hands where opener remembers that responder will pass forcing bids and feels required to unilaterally pick a game or make a questionable slam try instead of continuing the flow of the auction.

I can see a pattern of mutual destruction coming in the future. Opener just takes a flier to a final contract whenever they think responder will pass a forcing bid. Responder is even more likely to pass forcing bids when opener makes a minimum forcing bid because with more than a minimum opening bid, opener would usually not make an opening bid. This all assumes there is a future for this partnership.

[bigbenvic]

At this Vul I would open 1♠ if red I would open 2♦ (4+4+ H+S)
I also think I must be out of step with everyone as my bidding would (sadly) go

1S 2D
2H 3C* 4SF as 2/1 isn't a GF for me
3S* showing the 6th spade with the plan to pull 3NT to 4H to show the 6-5 and play in 1 of my suits.

At this point as responder I now hate life, bid 3nt on a 0265, bid a 6-0 fit a 4-2 fit or try for 1 of my suits? Clubs is an awful suit to bid but stands a better chance to find the right spot than diamonds as I must be 1165 or worse here to not bid 3nt. Only issue is if partner thinks we are slam hunting!

4C
4H P and prey we aren't too high.

It seems weird but maybe passing in first seat and biding my time is the best move as I have both majors and a 10 count. I'd never think of it at the table but I wonder...

[1eyedjack]

johnu, on 2016-July-10, 15:48, said:

The problem with passing isn't on this particular hand, but on future hands where opener remembers that responder will pass forcing bids and feels required to unilaterally pick a game or make a questionable slam try instead of continuing the flow of the auction.

I can see a pattern of mutual destruction coming in the future. Opener just takes a flier to a final contract whenever they think responder will pass a forcing bid. Responder is even more likely to pass forcing bids when opener makes a minimum forcing bid because with more than a minimum opening bid, opener would usually not make an opening bid. This all assumes there is a future for this partnership.

Yes, you are describing players who fall into the first of the two categories of partnerships that I identified. Clearly I omitted to state the obvious, that this tactic is not recommended for such partnerships.

[Winstonm]

Fluffy, on 2016-July-09, 07:57, said:

1♠-2♦
2♥-3♣
3♥-3NT
4♠

ooops

I think 4S might be the best contract.

[Zelandakh]

Jinksy, on 2016-July-09, 03:39, said:

1) What would your actual auction be?
2) Looking at both hands, what contract would you choose to be in?
3) How would you play that contract

1.
1♠ = max 17, always unbal
... - 1NT = INV+ relay
2♦ = 4+ hearts
... - 2♥ = GF relay
2♠ = 5+ hearts or 54(40)
... - 2NT = relay
4♣ = 6+ spades, 5 hearts, min
... - 4♥

2. Spades might well be the best option, preferably at the one level. I have certainly been in worse than 4♠ before now.
3. I generally play misfits by trying to lose the lead early in a mildly constructive way and hoping the opps make mistakes from not understanding the nature of the layout. Here you are pretty much hoping to get one of the defenders to lead a major in a way that benefits us. That sort of things happens quite often at club level.

[FrancesHinden]

1eyedjack, on 2016-July-10, 13:11, said:

Bridge partnerships can be categorised any number of ways, but one possibility is the binary division ofon the one hand1) those who so fear the solidity of the foundation of their partnership that they will eschew a rational departure from doctrine on a particular hand that might risk that partnership trustand on the other hand2) those whose partnership trust is sufficiently entrenched that both partners acknowledge the weaknesses of all bidding systems, including that certain hand types are ill suited to the system adopted.All other factors being equal, I know which partnership I would bet on, and you can assign "words to describe them" if you wish.

johnu, on 2016-July-10, 15:48, said:

The problem with passing isn't on this particular hand, but on future hands where opener remembers that responder will pass forcing bids and feels required to unilaterally pick a game or make a questionable slam try instead of continuing the flow of the auction. I can see a pattern of mutual destruction coming in the future. Opener just takes a flier to a final contract whenever they think responder will pass a forcing bid. Responder is even more likely to pass forcing bids when opener makes a minimum forcing bid because with more than a minimum opening bid, opener would usually not make an opening bid. This all assumes there is a future for this partnership.

1eyedjack, on 2016-July-10, 22:08, said:

Yes, you are describing players who fall into the first of the two categories of partnerships that I identified. Clearly I omitted to state the obvious, that this tactic is not recommended for such partnerships.

Last time I played matchpoints with my long term regular partner, he twice passed my game forcing bid (once as opener and once as responder) in a partial. We got two over 80% boards, but even if they'd both been zeros it would not have caused any problems for the future of the partnership. Nor will it cause me to make unilateral decisions in future because I still trust him to do what he thinks is right.

It's a good idea to remember that you and your partner are on the same side.

Whether it's right on this hand is, as 1eyedjack has already said, not clear. (Both auctions above were competitive ones)

[johnu]

FrancesHinden, on 2016-July-11, 15:39, said:

Last time I played matchpoints with my long term regular partner, he twice passed my game forcing bid (once as opener and once as responder) in a partial. We got two over 80% boards, but even if they'd both been zeros it would not have caused any problems for the future of the partnership. Nor will it cause me to make unilateral decisions in future because I still trust him to do what he thinks is right.

It's a good idea to remember that you and your partner are on the same side.

Fair enough. Still I think that you could be more inclined to cater to your partner's tendencies if faced with a choice.

[Jinksy]

mikestar13, on 2016-July-09, 21:36, said:

I have no idea what is right with this hand--this is one hand type that 2/1 will get you too high and it is a pure guess what game goes down less. Or is this a crazy hand where a pair uses some obscure bidding technique to stop in a partial and gets a bottom board because opponents' cards split perfectly and all games make?

Well if anyone cares, the full hand is here: https://app.pianola....73/Travellers/1

There wasn't any kind of moral to it. My P put me in 3N after my 2N opening, where I managed to go off 2. I thought he should have put me in either 3 or 4 hearts, and I should probably have pulled when he didn't.

[Peha50]

mike777, on 2016-July-10, 15:23, said:

At this point in the conversation I am starting to like opening a weak 2spades more and more. Of course partner and the opp need to know I can have this hand type.


I understand if you feel it is too risky to miss game compared to all who open 1s.

[The_Badger]

mike777, on 2016-July-10, 15:23, said:

At this point in the conversation I am starting to like opening a weak 2spades more and more. Of course partner and the opp need to know I can have this hand type.


I understand if you feel it is too risky to miss game compared to all who open 1s.

With you mike777 all the way.

Once upon a time it was extremely frowned upon ( ) to open with a pre-empt in one suit with a 4 card major as your second suit. Things have changed! It happens all the time now.

That ♥Q6432 is hardly a good 5 card suit, so perhaps should be downgraded to 4, though the 6-5-1-1 shape is one I am fond of

A 2♠ opening looks wrong, but the hand hasn't much defensively outside the ♠ suit, so it's more a pre-empt than an opening bid. My theory is that you have two opponents and only one partner, so the odds are 2-1 on in your favour that the opponents will have more difficulty dealing with a 2♠ opening bid than your partner.

Yes, you may miss a ♥ game, or even a decent sacrifice, but there's a fair chance you might be able to introduce that ♥ suit later on, depending on which way the auction follows.

There are those who believe that the hand qualifies for an opening 1♠ bid due to the rule of 20, even 21. I'm not a great believer in the rule of 20 if there are insufficient honours and intermediates in the long suits. As one suit is inherently weak in this instance, I am against opening at the one level.

[wank]

2 spades would be a solid entrant into the top 10 largest underbids i've ever seen.

at my table we bid 1S-2C-2H-3NT-4S (which makes if you guess which spade honour to drop and play and duck the 2nd round of hearts to drop the king). unfortunately my partner made a faux pas and bid 5H over 4S.

[MrAce]

May I ask to those who started 2♦ over 1♠, why?

[The_Badger]

wank, on 2016-August-07, 12:36, said:

2 spades would be a solid entrant into the top 10 largest underbids i've ever seen.

On reflection, wank, I agree. Given that one of the opponents has passed already (I missed that), a 1♠ opening bid is better. With so many minor suit cards missing, I was concerned that if we were involved in a competitive auction, partner would expect me to have a stronger ODR to open at the one level.

Given that the two hands are a total misfit and the opponents are never going to compete, it's just one of those hands where you accept the result and move on to the next.