[AL78]

Scratch partnership with an inexperienced player, playing Acol, three weak twos, weak NT, Partner dealer.

P (P) 1NT (3♣)
3♠ (P)

[Cyberyeti]

Natural, can't be forcing (I'm opening any hand that wants to force a flat 12 to game), probably flat 11 with 5 spades, or if you don't open 5422/5431 10 counts, probably with diamonds as the second suit.

[shyams]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-February-02, 09:57, said:

Natural, can't be forcing (I'm opening any hand that wants to force a flat 12 to game), probably flat 11 with 5 spades, or if you don't open 5422/5431 10 counts, probably with diamonds as the second suit.

Agree with this.

Question: What about a hand that passed because it was too good for a weak 2 but with not enough for a full opening? Maybe a 10-count 6232?
Would one expect opener to open such hands? With 1♠ or 2♠?

[DavidKok]

In my experience people have three rules for this:

• There is no gap between 1M and 2M, so any hand with this pattern had an opening.
  
• 2♠ shows a decent 6-card suit.
  
• You should not shade your 1-level openings, especially in a weak NT system.

The three rules are incompatible, but I see many people claim to play all three and then selectively cite two out of three when partner took a losing action. Personally I think at least one of the three has to go and I prefer to ditch all three of them(!).

[Douglas43]

Agree that it is natural non-forcing. Might be a weak two spades but with 4 card heart suit on the side. I'm not keen on opening a weak two with a side Major in first or second (although I might with great spades and xxxx in hearts)..

[AL78]

I couldn't work out what hand couldn't open but can compete at the three level opposite what might be a small doubleton in support. I was torn between passing and bidding game, maybe she was 5332 or 5431 11 count just shy of an opening so I raised to game which was an epic fail:

---

Two down for a joint bottom (one of the other three pairs did the same thing). I should have ignored the 14 count and passed based on the useless ♣Q and flat shape.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

The bid does not exist.
Sry, East was not able to open the bidding and now wants to play on the 3 level,
facing a WEAK NT?
The bid is asking to get killed by the opponents.

South was friendly.

If East wants to bid, he should open 2S at his first turn.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-February-02, 13:43, said:

Hi,

The bid does not exist.
Sry, East was not able to open the bidding and now wants to play on the 3 level,
facing a WEAK NT?
The bid is asking to get killed by the opponents.

South was friendly.

If East wants to bid, he should open 2S at his first turn.

With kind regards
Marlowe

We open 2♥ Ekren. surprised -100 was a bottom, would have expected some 110s in 3♣

[AL78]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-February-02, 16:21, said:

We open 2♥ Ekren. surprised -100 was a bottom, would have expected some 110s in 3♣

There were only four and a half tables and the one pair in 3♣ went down. I say it was a joint bottom it was shared with two other pairs so was a 33% board. One went two down in 4♠ and the other went two down in 3♠. I wonldn't normally have played as I am withdrawing from bridge now, the only reason I was playing is my partner normally plays with someone else and she has been getting downcast over a series of bad results (much worse than mine) so I offered to give her a game to see if I could spot any common factor(s) which might be contributing to that.

[apollo1201]

AL78, on 2024-February-02, 16:36, said:

she has been getting downcast over a series of bad results (much worse than mine) so I offered to give her a game to see if I could spot any common factor(s) which might be contributing to that.

Something like pushing to the 3-level in what could be a 5-2 fit a 6-count facing a weak NT (with likely most points sitting after the strong hand)?

[Cyberyeti]

AL78, on 2024-February-02, 16:36, said:

There were only four and a half tables and the one pair in 3♣ went down. I say it was a joint bottom it was shared with two other pairs so was a 33% board. One went two down in 4♠ and the other went two down in 3♠. I wonldn't normally have played as I am withdrawing from bridge now, the only reason I was playing is my partner normally plays with someone else and she has been getting downcast over a series of bad results (much worse than mine) so I offered to give her a game to see if I could spot any common factor(s) which might be contributing to that.

The other problem is the raise to 4♠, yes you have a 14 count with 4 of them, but K&R evaluates it as 11.55, I wouldn't raise, -50 is not terrible

[AL78]

apollo1201, on 2024-February-03, 08:33, said:

Something like pushing to the 3-level in what could be a 5-2 fit a 6-count facing a weak NT (with likely most points sitting after the strong hand)?

That sort of thing comes under judgement. My raise was not good so she doesn't take 100% of the blame for the poor result.

Another silly hand was this one:

---

Diamond lead to my queen, club to the king and ace, top spade knocked out my ace, another club LHO showed out so that is me going well down. In desperation tried to scrat as much as possible by taking the heart finesse - wrong. Eventually emerged with three tricks. That was another 33% board with the others in 4♠S=, 2♦N+3 and 3♣E-2. We had talked earlier about using 2♠ as a way of running to a 3m contract with a long minor and weak and although it is easy to say after the event, I think she could have used it here.

When I get round to it I'll have a look at the rest of the hands but some of the bad results weren't our fault. We were against the only pair to bid cold games two or three times and that can make a fair dent in your scorecard if you lack the opportunity (or fail to take it) to get good scores on other boards.

[Gilithin]

AL78, on 2024-February-02, 13:15, said:

I couldn't work out what hand couldn't open but can compete at the three level opposite what might be a small doubleton in support. I was torn between passing and bidding game, maybe she was 5332 or 5431 11 count just shy of an opening so I raised to game which was an epic fail:

---

Two down for a joint bottom (one of the other three pairs did the same thing). I should have ignored the 14 count and passed based on the useless ♣Q and flat shape.

East's Pass is fine assuming no preempt for both majors is available
As West, I would open 1♦ planning to pass any response. This is a common trick in WNT systems and choosing diamonds is helpful if partner ends up on lead.
3♠ from East is an appalling bid, which is a common theme in your threads. If wanting to compete, X is obvious.
West's 4♠ seems to be some kind of autopilot response. With 4x3 shape and soft values, passing seems obvious.

Asking about the meaning of partner's call when it is clearly wrong is a great way of focusing the blame game squarely on that decision but the better option if wanting to make improvements would be to ask what West should do after it absent an agreement. Even the last post "she doesn't take 100% of the blame" seems to suggest that in your mind your partner is taking, what? 90%? 85%? Sorry but hold your hand up and accept your full 50%. Going down in 3♠ here is reasonable; 4♠ is just bad bridge.

Now to the last hand. Again the focus on partner's decision to Pass. Would you question it if you were making 7 tricks in NT and 8 or 9 in clubs? Here you make 4 in NT and 7 in clubs. But 1NT is undoubled and 3♣ might be, so it is unclear which approach is better even on this hand and over all West hands I would be surprised if passing was not the EV+ choice at MP. If you want to get better, you really have to start thinking about your own play rather than constantly focusing on your partner and the results. Winning the post-mortem does not make you a good player!