[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     1♥    1♠    2♠
 Pass  3♦    3♠    4♥
 4♠    Pass  Pass  5♥
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

[CSGibson]

does 4 spades go down? Seems like there's some distribution, if there are doubleton minors out there, this makes.

I say no blame, neither North or South can reasonably double, and this rates to be a reasonable save half the time. I think North was a bit aggressive in the help suit game try, but so be it. It happens.

[P_Marlowe]

South.

Bidding upto 4H was fine, assuming 2S by
South was inv.+ with fit and 3D by North
was some kind of game try with diamond
values.
South may or may not accept the game try,
you are min, but you have the king of
diamonds, and the king of spades should also
be ok.

But over 4S, if Souths wants to bid, he should
double, he is bal. does have a likely trump trick.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[inquiry]

To judge fairly, we need to know more about NS bidding agreements. Primarily, we need to know if 2♠ cue-bid was game forcing or an unassuming cue-bid. We need to know if 2♠ promised heart support, and what other heart raises (besides 2♠) would have shown. If it was game forcing, we may have to return to North's role in this given his then "forcing pass" over 4♠, and the significance of opener's 3♦ rebid given his minimum values. I assume, however, that 1) 2♠ was not game force, 2) that 2♠ promised heart support, and 3) pass over 4♠ was not forcing.

Therefore, we can only place any of the blame on North if we think that either his choice to open 1♥ on such a poor hand was a "clear error", or if we believe that with such a truely terrible opening bid, he should return immediately to 3♥ instead of bidding 3♦ over 2♠ was a clear error. As for the opening bid, sorry, I can't call this a clear error. I would not open North's hand in first/second seat, but I can not fault 1♥ if light openings are allowed. As light an opening bid as 1♥ was, once partner supports hearts, the hand got better, and the spade singleton is a "useful" at this point in the auction. So the choice to bid an aggressive 3♦ over a conservative 3♥ while questionable, is not a clear error either. Thus, for me, north currently stands either blameless, or mildly at fault for the combination of opening so light with 1♥ and then following it up with an aggressive 3♦ bid. While both of south's bids were very aggressive, neither bid is horrible imo, however together they paved the road to destruction. (I would not have opened, and if I had opened, i would have rebid 3♥ if 2♠ promised hearts and was limit +, or 4♥ if 2♠ promised hearts and was GF).

So that leaves us with South, and his various choices. His first choice was cue-bid. I think reaching 4♥ after 1♥ is going to be automatic (despite it loses 2♣, 1♥ and 1♠). So we can also not fault the decision to force to game as south. I would have preferred a different way to raise hearts other than 2♠ or an immediate jump to 4♥, but I will assume 2♠/then 4♥ was their way to show such a hand. But over 4♠ what does south have to make him want to bid on? Nothing. There is no clear reason to assume with this minimum hand that 5♥ has any play, and with partner bidding diamonds and south holding a spade trick and four clubs, defense seems clear. Rather he should double or not is a different manner, but ♦K at trick one seems clear on this auction.

So i think most of the blame goes on South, 5♥ was just too much. I would say 75 to 80% south, 20 to 25% north. I voted "both" but the majority is on south.

[hrothgar]

Don't like the 1♥ opening - you're too weak
Would probably bid an immediate 4♥ over 1♠
Would definitely bid 3♥ over 2♠

[gwnn]

100% agree with Richard.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Apr 11 2008, 09:53 AM, said:

Don't like the 1♥ opening - you're too weak
Would probably bid an immediate 4♥ over 1♠
Would definitely bid 3♥ over 2♠

Disagree, agree, agree.

I've got a 12 count with a 5 card major. I open those 1st, 2nd, and 3rd seat.

Even with an unassuming cue bid, I think 3♥ is mandatory. If partner just wanted to know about my minors regardless of strength, he would have X'd.

[mikeh]

Interesting problem, because while I don't like the auction, it may be that the end result not horrific.

4♠ may have been cold... catch east with 7=2=2=2 and west with 3=1=5=4 for example...

And you seem to have escaped a double

But the auction was a mess.. .and I'd guess that the partnership had no idea that they might be saving over a game.

The problem is with North.

I understand the desire to open, and I think most players would do so...including me. Passing makes this hand very difficult after many possible developments, including anyone bidding spades.

2♠ is, I assume, a limit raise or better and is a good description.

3♦ is horrible, truly mind-numbingly horrible.

Consider: we have opened a rock-bottom minimum with only 1 Ace and zero Kings, a bad suit, and the ♠ Q, the value of which, scant as it was, has diminished on the bidding. We have a hand that has NO interest in game opposite a limit raise, and we are going out of our way to show some extras via 3♦!

Now, 3♦ is not a gf... it is, at this stage, a game try.

So responder has a good limit raise with extra trump (consider opener having the same hand with Axxxx in hearts.. now game is a reasonable proposition). Responder's spade K seems upgradable, and his diamond holding is wonderful... so he has to bid game.

Then we have North's pass over 4♠!

N's game try combined with S's bid of game established a forcing pass. We have voluntarily bid game to make and they 'save'.

I fully understand why N didn't want to double... N didn't have the values to have created this situation. But refusing to accept reality rarely makes it better. S was being invited to double 4♠ or bid 5♥... depending on his offence and defence.

I think it is possible to criticize S's choice... it is difficult to construct hands on which N only had a game try where 5♥ is a good contract... but it is not impossible.. indeed opposite x AQxxx AJxxx xx, as an example, it is not impossible to imagine a double game swing.

On balance, I surely wouldn't ever describe 5♥ as an error.... at most it was a difficult choice.. and it is N's fault that the situation ever arose... for 2 reasons.... the horrendous 3♦ call and the panicked pass of 4♠... which was the result of the 3♦ misbid.

[jillybean]

2♠ was a limit+ ♥ raise, a direct ♥ raise would have been competitive

3♥ min, we open aggressively.
4♥ signoff

The 3♦ we do not agree on, North plays as game try, south thinks this should be a game forcing cue bid.

[han]

North is right, it's a game try, but north was wrong to bid it, the hand is too poor.

[jillybean]

han, on Apr 11 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

North is right, it's a game try, but north was wrong to bid it, the hand is too poor.

Ok, so must North bid again, above game to make a slam try?

[han]

No, you can also bid 3D when you have slam interest.

So maybe I should have said "3D is ostensibly a game try", although I am not 100% sure that ostensibly is the word I'm looking for.

[vuroth]

jillybean2, on Apr 11 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

han, on Apr 11 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

North is right, it's a game try, but north was wrong to bid it, the hand is too poor.

Ok, so must North bid again, above game to make a slam try?

Woudln't 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ show that you were going game regardless of what partner had, and thus that your 3♦ bid was slammish?

[jillybean]

jillybean2, on Apr 11 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

han, on Apr 11 2008, 09:29 AM, said:

North is right, it's a game try, but north was wrong to bid it, the hand is too poor.

Ok, so must North bid again, above game to make a slam try?

Vuroth said:

Woudln't 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ show that you were going game regardless of what partner had, and thus that your 3♦ bid was slammish?

Yes of course, if partner signs off below game.


3♦ : 4♥

4♠/5m slam try above game.

[jtfanclub]

han, on Apr 11 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

No, you can also bid 3D when you have slam interest.

So maybe I should have said "3D is ostensibly a game try", although I am not 100% sure that ostensibly is the word I'm looking for.

I think ostensibly is ostensibly the word you're looking for.

[kenrexford]

I don't agree with very much of what is posted so far, but some.

1♥. I like it. 12 HCP's; just because a queen is stiff does not make its value 0. 5-4 shape, yielding a 6-loser hand (about). Great body in high pips. Easy rebid. What's the problem?

2♠. What is wrong with this? Trump fit. Invitational+. Seems about right.

3♦. What's wrong with this call? Well-placed stiff, six-loser hand, body has not decreased in value, good lead-director. All makes sense so far.

4♥. Non-slammish, so no cooperation. 10 damned trumps is ten damned trumps, dammit. Spade appears well-placed. Works for me.

Pass. I might have doubled this, because I like the Q10x in clubs for defense, as well as the juicy stiff Queen. But, pass seems OK.

5♥. I would double.

4♠ doubled would make against me some times. Some times we will take five tricks.

[jdonn]

I totally agree with you here Ken. I think everything was totally normal until south's final decision, which I think is close so I wouldn't fault him either way. Then again it's close as to whether 4♠ actually makes or not too, so seems about right

[jillybean]

South must act over 4♠ yes?

My next thread will be; When to double, when to bid on ?

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Apr 11 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

3♦. What's wrong with this call? Well-placed stiff, six-loser hand, body has not decreased in value, good lead-director. All makes sense so far.

This post is another argument against loser count. Calling this a 6-loser hand is just ridiculous.

[jdonn]

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 11 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

3♦.  What's wrong with this call?  Well-placed stiff, six-loser hand, body has not decreased in value, good lead-director.  All makes sense so far.

This post is another argument against loser count. Calling this a 6-loser hand is just ridiculous.

Why? I'm no big fan of loser count myself but there is a big difference between x Qxxxx AQxx Qxx and adding Q, 987, 9, T, those cards would seem to make up the difference to some extent.