[AL78]

I have just received a copy of the English Bridge Union magazine, and Andrew Robson gave his Christmas quiz bidding answers. There was one hand that stood out at me.

---

Andrew says the correct bid is 2♠, and goes on to say bidding 2♠ could lead to a making game. Bidding 2♠ is constructivehere, following the principle of not rescuing a six card suit.

I'd have thought with a singleton or void heart and a hand that is useless unless spades are trumps, it would be desirable to pull to 2♠ on the basis that is it often better to play in the trump suit of the weak hand, which combined with opener's HCP trick taking potential might play better than playing in 2♥. Knowing my luck, if I bid 2♠ with a hand like that I would be writing +150 or +170 on the scorecard when most of the room is in game, although I can kind of see his point that opener will need to be maximum for their bidding for game to have a good chance. What have I missed? Obviously I'm wrong because Andrew is a world class player so he knows what he is talking about.

[Cyberyeti]

AL78, on 2021-January-30, 04:59, said:

I have just received a copy of the English Bridge Union magazine, and Andrew Robson gave his Christmas quiz bidding answers. There was one hand that stood out at me.

---

Andrew says the correct bid is 2♠, and goes on to say bidding 2♠ could lead to a making game. Bidding 2♠ is constructivehere, following the principle of not rescuing a six card suit.

I'd have thought with a singleton or void heart and a hand that is useless unless spades are trumps, it would be desirable to pull to 2♠ on the basis that is it often better to play in the trump suit of the weak hand, which combined with opener's HCP trick taking potential might play better than playing in 2♥. Knowing my luck, if I bid 2♠ with a hand like that I would be writing +150 or +170 on the scorecard when most of the room is in game, although I can kind of see his point that opener will need to be maximum for their bidding for game to have a good chance. What have I missed? Obviously I'm wrong because Andrew is a world class player so he knows what he is talking about.

I agree with him that 2♠ is constructive, I disagree with bidding it on a 5 card suit, and yes it is inconvenient when you have a 70?? heap. Take a minor suit card away and add a spade, we would bid that.

[DavidKok]

I think the main reason this is constructive, especially if you're playing IMPs, is that if you have a weak hand which has not improved by partner's rebid your goal should shift from "finding the optimal contract" to "getting out as early as possible". Since 2♥ is NF you can just pass. Keep in mind that all other players with your hand will face the same problem, and often 2♥ making around 7-8 tricks beats hoping for a better spot.

Some additional remarks are that people playing some flavour of Flannery have already shown a 5-card suit on the first round, and should therefore find a different bid now. If playing in the 5-2 fit is right partner will let us know. Furthermore, some (most?) partnerships allow raising 1♠ to 2♠ with only 3 cards in that suit and an unbalanced hand, which again should caution against rebidding the suit with a weak hand.

Lastly if you have a weak 6- or 7-suiter with a heart shortage you can bid some weak jump shift on the first round, sending a strong warning to partner that your hand is not suitable for their suit(s).

[Douglas43]

I chose pass too. Which is probably why AR is a world-class player and I'm not.

[gordontd]

DavidKok, on 2021-January-30, 07:03, said:

people playing some flavour of Flannery have already shown a 5-card suit on the first round

In the UK, where the article originated, those people can be counted on one hand.

[fatbunny1]

I passed too with this Aceless wonder as I wouldn't fancy playing 2S (possibly doubled) opposite say x AQJxxx xxx Axx which is the sort of thing my partners tend to put down.

[LBengtsson]

2♠ is forcing - that is how I play. What is worst that will happen? partner bid 2NT, partner bid 3♥. with honours in long suits this hand will give good round all support opposite many minimum openers. keep the ♦ honours hidden. one of the hands where 3NT may be made on 23/24 points, entries allowing.

[pescetom]

2♠ is not forcing for me, but does show some constructive intent and 6+ cards, so clearly not applicable here.

[fromageGB]

gordontd, on 2021-January-30, 08:40, said:

In the UK, where the article originated, those people can be counted on one hand.

Probably can be counted on the fingers of one foot.

[ali quarg]

Playing Kaplpan Inversion here I use 1NT for 5+♠ with a MLTC > 8 and 1S when the MLTC <= 8. 2♠ would be GI versus 3♠ and a non-minimum hand or 3NT versus a non-minimum hand and side suit stoppers