[ArtK78]

Last night, in a 12-board IMP match, I ran into an interesting situation:

1NT - 10-12;2NT - weak minor one-suiter, invitational major two suiter or forcing minor suit 5431.

---

Holding the North hand, and knowing that partner wanted to run out to 3♣, it seems likely to me that my opps could easily have a major suit game. The question is whether I should bid 4♣, announcing our fit and letting the opps know that their hands fit well, or pass and give the opps a free run.

I chose to bid 4♣, and played it there, down 2 undoubled. We might have gone plus against 3♥ had I passed and the opps did not find their spade fit. However, if they found their spade fit they might bid and make 4♠, as my teammates did in the other room (East held Jxxxx Qx ATxxx K).

Question - do you think that bidding 4♣ in this situation is the right move?

[mike777]

btw south does not have any of his three options you list.

tht is not a weak one suited hand.

now if south does have his bid tht is another story and I can understand 4c in a ten card+ fit and the opp have at least an 8 card h fit.

[lalldonn]

I would not bid 4♣. You have already preempted them greatly so why take the risk? And it's not as though you can be very sure they have game. You have 12 and your partner could easily have an ace and a king and even more.

[ArtK78]

In response to Mike, yes, I can see why you think that my partner did not have any of the three options listed. However, that is a matter of tactics. I recall from one of the early KS books Edgar Kaplan made the argument that one of the reasons that American teams were losing to Italy with consistency (this was the 1950s) was that Americans tended to bid hands that belonged to them but did not make it difficult for the opponents on hands that did not belong to them. As part of his argument in favor of the weak NT, Edgar posited a hand like my partner's hand as a 3♣ preempt opposite a weak NT. So, while you may not think that my partner's hand is a "weak minor one-suiter," it really is one opposite a weak NT - especially a 10-12 1NT - when you are at favorable vulnerability and you can see that the opps may very well have a game in spades.

As for lalldonn, I don't disagree. Partner could have more defense than he had. I took a position on this hand and I was wondering if my position made a great deal of sense or not. In hindsight, all I can say to justify the position that I took was that it worked.

[mike777]

Art fair enough if you have a partnership understanding that pard can be 5-4 such at this hand and that is a weak one suited hand for you or if simply 5 clubs to the ten is a one suited weak minor hand for you guys ..ok...

change my bid to an easy pass please.

[ArtK78]

mike777, on 2012-November-21, 15:23, said:

Art fair enough if you have a partnership understanding that pard can be 5-4 such at this hand and that is a weak one suited hand for you or if simply 5 clubs to the ten is a one suited weak minor hand for you guys ..ok...

change my bid to an easy pass please.

It is not so much a partnership agreement, as a placing of the contract. The sequence 1NT - 2NT includes hands on which responder intends to play 3 of a minor. Opener must bid 3♣, and responder either passes or bids 3♦ which is a drop dead bid. As to what partner has for his choice of contract, that is up to him. He can be choosing this sequence for tactical or safety reasons (by safety, I mean that the bidder believes that 3 of a minor is a safer contract than 1NT). In this case, partner chose his sequence for tactical purposes - not because he thought that 3♣ was going to be a great contract, but because he wanted the opps to start looking for their (presumed) game at the 3 level.

As for the other hand types mentioned, 3♥ over 3♣ showns 5-5 in the majors invitational, 3♠ over 3♣ shows short spades with 5/4 or better in the minors, and 3NT over 3♣ shows short hearts with 5/4 or better in the minors.

[Codo]

I had gladly passed 3 ♥. Yes partner can have two tricks in defence, but maybe I have just one.... And he will hardly holds more then 2 tricks for his premept, does he?!

BTW: I strongly agree with partners bid. They are likely to have game in spades, so he better takes away a lot of space.

[gnasher]

I wouldn't bid 4♣

If this is a partscore deal, 4♣ is unlikely to make, so we'd be trying to gain 3 IMPs. It seems better to try to beat 3♥, which is at least possible, notwithstanding our likely 10-card club fit.

If the opponents can make game, showing the club fit will help them rather than not. There is no preemeptive benefit, because probably the only decision they have to make is whether to bid 4♥ or pass.

[Fluffy]

The big upside in 4♣ is to involve partner into a sacrifice in 5♣, but this doesn't seem the hand for it.

[kgr]

what would DBL iso 4C be? Is that an invitation to bid 4C?

[dake50]

4C instead of 3C previous round? Yes, give them one chance to 4M.
Now 4C > 3H shows opponents you think they have 4M.
They should be able to include a 4S suggestion in
their counter bids, eg. negX? A fielders choice
to try penalties or 4S.
I think 4C > 3H is thus a no-win bid.

[JLOGIC]

Bidding is awful imo

[awm]

I think its good to bid.

If partner has six clubs, we have a ten card fit and will often have a shot to make 4c (if partner has cards).or a paying sacrifice in 5c (if partner has a bad hand). If partner has five clubs only, he will always have a bad hand and opponents often have game; we will never keep them out of 4h after this start but bidding may make it harder to find 4s.

I feel like if we have a (usually) ten card fit that partner doesn't know about, its usually good to help him out, especially at favorable?

[jogs]

JLOGIC, on 2012-November-22, 04:52, said:

Bidding is awful imo

Whose bidding is awful? Very few partnerships have mechanisms to punish the N-S bidding.
4♣X down 2 is only worth +300. And the OP opponents failed to double.

[Codo]

-300 loses against -170.
-500 loses against -420.

So 4 Club is bad whether or not they bid 4 Heart over it or not. The only way to win is, if they cannot double. This is an obvious possibility, but is this likely with them holding 24 HCPS, no real heart fit and AK in your suit?

I doubt it.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2012-November-24, 18:13, said:

Whose bidding is awful? Very few partnerships have mechanisms to punish the N-S bidding.
4♣X down 2 is only worth +300. And the OP opponents failed to double.

This is the Expert forum, not N/B. Just because a pair of beginners did not double does not make it a sensible move.

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-27, 02:56, said:

This is the Expert forum, not N/B. Just because a pair of beginners did not double does not make it a sensible move.

The pair of beginners who didn't double 4♣ are both experienced tournament players with many regional titles to their credit.

This was not something from a novice game.

Doubling 4♣ may be a lot more difficult than you think. I gave you three of the hands in the OP - you can put together the fourth hand and let me know who you think should double 4♣.

[PhilKing]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-27, 08:27, said:

The pair of beginners who didn't double 4♣ are both experienced tournament players with many regional titles to their credit.

This was not something from a novice game.

Doubling 4♣ may be a lot more difficult than you think. I gave you three of the hands in the OP - you can put together the fourth hand and let me know who you think should double 4♣.

Let's assume for the moment that it was difficult for E/W to punish 4♣ when the cards were distributed as on this occasion (although I dispute that, since West should be allowed to double 2NT with a good 14 against mini-no trumpers just to show any 14+). That does not mean that 4♣ is sensible. My guess is that you can expect to be doubled way more often than not against decent opponents when the E/W cards are distributed slightly differently, as indeed they should be.

For me, West dropped the ball.

[ArtK78]

PhilKing, on 2012-November-27, 08:58, said:

Let's assume for the moment that it was difficult for E/W to punish 4♣ when the cards were distributed as on this occasion (although I dispute that, since West should be allowed to double 2NT with a good 14 against mini-no trumpers just to show any 14+). That does not mean that 4♣ is sensible. My guess is that you can expect to be doubled way more often than not against decent opponents when the E/W cards are distributed slightly differently, as indeed they should be.

For me, West dropped the ball.

Really? You are blaming West for the poor result by his side? West held:

AQx
Kxxxx
Jx
Axx

He really has to act directly over 2NT and then double 4♣ (or expect that his partner will double 4♣ after his double of 2NT)? I think that is a lot to ask for.

(Sorry - I don't know which of East or West held the ♠10. I don't think it makes too much difference)

Quite frankly, coming back in over 3♣ could have been very expensive. Just because North chose to play in 3♣ after his partner's 10-12 1NT opening does not mean that he is broke. All that it means is that he expects that 3♣ is likely to be a better contract for his side than 1NT. He could have significant values.

You may be right that bidding 4♣ will be a long-term loser. But on this hand it really is tough for the opposition to punish North-South in 4♣, and the 4♣ bid made it nearly impossible for East-West to find 4♠. East-West probably would get to 4♠ if West doubled 2NT, but that is quite an aggressive action.

[PhilKing]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-27, 09:44, said:

Quite frankly, coming back in over 3♣ could have been very expensive.

That's why West has to double 2NT. A decent balanced 14 is plenty for this.

Passing and then bidding 3♥ is the worst of all worlds - bad suit, good defence, and more points than partner will expect. It's awful.