[mcobden]

First hand of the evening in a duplicate tournament I'm dealt:
S: A
H: AQ
D: AKQxx
C: AKQxx

Partner:
S: Qxxxx
H: x
D: Jxx
C: xxxx

I opened 2C. Partner 2D.
I bid 3C. Partner passed

How could I have ensured my partner didn't pass? 4D? 4C?

[gordontd]

mcobden, on 2013-April-24, 10:46, said:

How could I have ensured my partner didn't pass?

By getting another partner - 3C is forcing. However I think you would have done better to bid 3D, so that you could later bid clubs.

[ArtK78]

That is pretty remarkable. You made a call that actually made partner's hand look reasonable. If I held his hand, I would bid 4♥ over your 3♣ bid, and the grand slam would be reached.

I am assuming that 2♦ was negative. If it was waiting, then splintering with 4♥ might be a bit much. But it is not unreasonable. A strong 2♣ opening followed by a minor suit rebid should be a VERY big hand.

[billw55]

My guess would be that responder decided that you forgot 2♣ was strong, and that you had just bid and rebid clubs. A point for partnership trust.

[iviehoff]

gordontd, on 2013-April-24, 10:50, said:

By getting another partner - 3C is forcing. However I think you would have done better to bid 3D, so that you could later bid clubs.

Though it works out unfortunately as you will probably not now identify the more secure club contract.

Every time some 2C auction comes up, there's a whole bundle of questions on general principles in the auction I have that no one seems to know the answer to, and aren't in any book I have, like should you support partner's suit with a doubleton, and how good a suit does a weak responder have to be able to introduce it after first making a negative?

The 4H splinter mentioned above works perfectly, if you are sure that is what the bid means for you. I don't ever recall playing with anyone who would have that certainty. On another hand, if responder had a long broken suit of his own, it would then be perfect to have agreed that is what it shows instead.

If I held this hand and partner bid 3D I think I'd just bid 5D on grounds of principle of fast arrival that this is a non-encouraging raise to game. After all, he's far more likely to be around 23-24 pts and I could be struggling to make 5D even with the helpful singleton. He's now in the dark whether to raise to 6 or 7.

I suspect most (moderate, established) partnerships need to have a bit of a discussion over how 2C auctions develop, as there just doesn't seem to be much well-known established practice on it.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2013-April-24, 14:35, said:

Though it works out unfortunately as you will probably not now identify the more secure club contract.

I can't imagine why not. Won't the next three calls be 3S-4C-5C? And then perhaps 5D-5H-7C?

[iviehoff]

gordontd, on 2013-April-24, 16:08, said:

Won't the next three calls be 3S-4C-5C? And then perhaps 5D-5H-7C?

I said personally I'd bid 5D not 3S though I confess to being very uncertain in these 2C auctions. But whether one should bid 3S is precisely the point of the other questions I asked. What quality of suit does 3S show? Should one show immediate support for partner's suit with xxx? What should one do with both? Does failing immediately to support diamonds limit what will partner assume you have if you later offer belated support (in an auction where a better club/spade fit doesn't emerge)? If partner likes spades, how does he raise them without signing off in 4S, if he doesn't want to. Is this actually a standard, or just what you recommend people should agree?

[Zelandakh]

Hello mcobden, welcome to the forums! Gordon's auction is perhaps a promising one with a well-oiled partnership but your partner forced in a game forcing auction, so I think we can safely assume you were playing with a pick up partner in a low level game. In those circumstances I think my bidding plan with your hand would be: open 2♣ -> rebid diamonds -> jump to 6♣, effectively forcing partner to choose between 6♣, 6♦ and 6NT. That would miss the grand here but that is the least of one's worries.

@ivie, Standard has something of a headache in the auction 2♣ - 2♦; 3♦, since either you cannot differentiate between 4 and 5 card suits for Responder, or risk losing 4-4 major fits. A common workaround for this is for the 3♦ rebid to specifically deny a 4 card major. If so then a major suit rebid shows a 5 card suit that wants to be raised with 3 card support.

[Codo]

Many people play that 2 ♣ is not GF, but include semi strong hands too.. This makes the pass of 3 ♣ understandable.
I think this is the problem in any pick-up partnership: You are not always on the same wavelength, even if you are using the mainstream approach.

So if you have a serious partnership misunderstanding: Simply define your 2 ♣ structuce. Discuss whether this is gameforcing or just strong.
If you had a pick up partnership: Open 2♣ bid 4♦ and then 6 ♣. He may or may not get the message...

[uhhlv]

I don t know what 2C means in your system. If you play 2C as partieforcing, then partners pass is extremly criminal. If you play 2C as semiforc or partieforc, then partners pass is criminal, too. Even if you play 2C only as semiforcing, partners pass is criminal, too.

A semiforcing hand means that I fear a passout if I open at 1st level. From this it follows that a 2C hand is a hand with good game chances against positiv 0-5P hands.

I don t know how do you define a positiv 0-5P hand. But I cannot imagine that some one defines a 4 card support with a single and 3 points as a negativ 0-5P hand. But maybe your partner has a different opinion. I m lucky that I ve a different partner.

[billw55]

Codo, on 2013-April-25, 06:30, said:

Many people play that 2 ♣ is not GF, but include semi strong hands too.. This makes the pass of 3 ♣ understandable.
I think this is the problem in any pick-up partnership: You are not always on the same wavelength, even if you are using the mainstream approach.

So if you have a serious partnership misunderstanding: Simply define your 2 ♣ structuce. Discuss whether this is gameforcing or just strong.
If you had a pick up partnership: Open 2♣ bid 4♦ and then 6 ♣. He may or may not get the message...

It is true that one cannot expect to communicate in lockstep with a pickup partner. However, the responsder hand owes another bid after almost any treatment of the 2♣ opener. Four trumps and a singleton is quite good.

[gordontd]

iviehoff, on 2013-April-25, 01:55, said:

Is this actually a standard, or just what you recommend people should agree?

I have played a great deal with random partners with little or no discussion, and it's how I would hope the auction would go in those circumstances.

[PhilKing]

gordontd, on 2013-April-25, 10:21, said:

I have played a great deal with random partners with little or no discussion, and it's how I would hope the auction would go in those circumstances.

You can't just go around expecting people to bid their suits naturally in this auction. Surely you should expect them to foist some home-brewed absurdity when it comes to obscure positions like the second round of bidding.

To Iviehoff, if one bids, of all things, a five-card major over 3♦ (and imo xxxxx can qualify), a raise to four by a 2♣ opener is hardly a sign-off - one should go on with a any reasonable excuse. If I've got KTxxx xxx xx Kxx, I'm bidding 5♣.

[Codo]

billw55, on 2013-April-25, 09:06, said:

It is true that one cannot expect to communicate in lockstep with a pickup partner. However, the responsder hand owes another bid after almost any treatment of the 2♣ opener. Four trumps and a singleton is quite good.

If you ask him, you will hear: But I hold just 3 HCPS...

You are right, he should have bid different even if he took 3 ♣ as nonforcing- what he obviously did.