assign the blame

[Apollo81]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s987hk8da108765c85&w=s2hj1094dj932caj74&e=skqj10hq765d4ck1032&s=sa6543ha32dkqcq96]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1NT*-(2♥**)-2NT***-(3♥)

3♠-(p)-4♠-(X)

all pass

 

*14-16

**♥ + minor

***Lebensohl[/hv]

[pclayton]

3♠ is pretty ridiculous IMO. No promise of a fit, or even the balance of power.

[Guest Jlall]

North bid completely normally, what else could he do? South was...lol...

[Fluffy]

Seems there is consensous here B)

[P_Marlowe]

I would say "South - 3s was ridiculous, period" is

an understatement.

2NT does not promise any strength, and South

decided to hide the 5 card spade suit (one may or

may not agree), but having made the decison, he

should stick with it.

Raising 3S to 4S is also terrible, but the 3S bid beats

it by a large margin, and if South started to discuss the

raise, I would simply shoot him.

 

With kind kind regards

Marlowe

[Poky]

South's 3♠ bid is an undisciplined bid but certainly understandable. He is fighting for the partial, knowing partner has some constructive values and 0-2 hearts.

 

From my point of view, most blame goes on North who tried with 3 small spades, a balanced hand and dubious ♥K to steal the pot (knowing NS to have max 23 HCP). Too aggressive.

 

Had North passed, South's 3♠ would be a winning bid when spades broke 2-3.

 

Blame:

North - 85%

South - 15%

[gwnn]

the spade "spots" should have been AKQJTx. But in that case, 1NT would have been an interesting point of view. 3♠ is an awful bid.

[whereagles]

3♠ is absolutely correct. Suppose South passes and North had a king extra, say,

 

Kxx

Kx

ATxxxx

xx

 

1NT . (2♥) 2NT (3♥)

pass (pass) ..??

 

Now North has to bid 3NT and opps cash out 5 clubs when 4♠ is a lay-down.

 

No one has the blame. It's just bad luck.

[Free]

3♠ is absolutely correct. Suppose South passes and North had a king extra, say,

 

Kxx

Kx

ATxxxx

xx

 

1NT . (2♥) 2NT (3♥)

pass (pass) ..??

 

Now North has to bid 3NT and opps cash out 5 clubs when 4♠ is a lay-down.

 

No one has the blame. It's just bad luck.

Don't you think North would bid 3♦ instead of lebensohl with such hand? :)

[Apollo81]

I'll fess up to being South here, not one of my better moments =)

[pclayton]

I'll fess up to being South here, not one of my better moments =)

Confession is good for the soul, Noble. I wish I had a nickel for every 'assign the blame' hand I posted where I didn't get a 'favorable' outcome. :)

[Apollo81]

I'll fess up to being South here, not one of my better moments =)

Confession is good for the soul, Noble. I wish I had a nickel for every 'assign the blame' hand I posted where I didn't get a 'favorable' outcome. :)

My thought after the hand was that with Axx of hearts it would have been reasonable if I had really good spades, but I guess even that is pushing it.

[whereagles]

Don't you think North would bid 3♦ instead of lebensohl with such hand? :(

Not necessarily. Why shouldn't he just bid the normal Lebenshol sequence of 2NT + 3NT to show he's got a stop?

 

Besides, it's easy to construct hands consistent with 2NT that have 3 spades and 10+ hcp.

[bid_em_up]

Don't you think North would bid 3♦ instead of lebensohl with such hand?  :P

Not necessarily. Why shouldn't he just bid the normal Lebenshol sequence of 2NT + 3NT to show he's got a stop?

 

Besides, it's easy to construct hands consistent with 2NT that have 3 spades and 10+ hcp.

Because, by bidding 3D directly, you create a forcing auction immediately, but if you bid 2N and the opponents bid 3H, partner does know which hand you have.

 

Are you broke with a minor? Or do you have g/f values with a stop? In the first case (as it is here), bidding 3S got what it deserved.

 

Bidding 3D now, does not preclude you from bidding 3N later.

 

1N-(2H)-3D-(3H)-?

 

Now partner can bid 3S knowing that you are on g/f values.

 

3S-p-3N

or 3S-p-4S

or 3S-4D.

 

Unilaterally bidding 2N followed by 3N everytime you have a heart stop and ignoring your 6 card suit will lead to many subsequent problems further down the road.

[mr1303]

I would say slightly more to North.

 

3S I would say as automatic, since:

 

a) It looks as though partner rates to be short in hearts. Therefore his values rate to be all working

 

:P a spade fit looks to play well, since the short trump hand can take heart ruffs.

 

c) His minor suit honours rate to be useful to support partner's minor, assuming he has one.

 

d) North should realise that South is expecting him to have points working outside of the heart suit. He does not. Therefore 4S is too pushy.

[whereagles]

1. Because, by bidding 3D directly, you create a forcing auction immediately, but if you bid 2N and the opponents bid 3H, partner does know which hand you have.

 

2. Are you broke with a minor? Or do you have g/f values with a stop?

 

3. In the first case (as it is here), bidding 3S got what it deserved. 

 

4. Unilaterally bidding 2N followed by 3N everytime you have a heart stop and ignoring your 6 card suit will lead to many subsequent problems further down the road.

1. With the hand I gave, there's no question that 3NT is the right contract, so why not bid it straight away via the usual mechanism of 2N+3N? Why should I have to bid 3♦, in robot-like fashion, if that only serves the purpose of pointing opps to a club lead (not to mention giving pard a headache if he has no rebid)?

 

2. In my book "broke with a minor" PASSES. If you're thinking of 5-7 hcp and a long suit, bidding 3♠ is also ok since pard is likely to pull onto his suit. Bit risky, but certainly not reckless.

 

3. Got what it deserved?? Are you suggesting one should never play 4♠ with 22 hcp and ruffing values? At imps!!?? Actually, are you suggesting that, when one opens 1NT and pard competes, one should be very careful because it might be THEIR hand?

 

4. Sorry, but this is just results-merchandising.

 

Face it, sometimes normal actions lead to disaster. Sometimes you're just fixed. Check this out: a friend once had something like (all red)

 

x

AK

KQJTxx

AQJx

 

RHO opened 4♠. Now, a pretty normal 5♦bid, right? Wrong. LHO has all the 7 remaining diamonds and you go -1700 down with no fault at all.

[jdonn]

3♠ is absolutely correct. Suppose South passes and North had a king extra, say,

 

Kxx

Kx

ATxxxx

xx

 

1NT . (2♥) 2NT (3♥)

pass (pass) ..??

 

Now North has to bid 3NT and opps cash out 5 clubs when 4♠ is a lay-down.

 

No one has the blame. It's just bad luck.

I don't disagree with you that this is a possible hand. But that doesn't make 3♠ the correct bid. It's way way way too small of a target to hope partner is on a game forcing hand that has three card spade support, where 3NT also isn't good. That possibility is remote compared to the extremely likely possibility partner just has some weak hand with a minor and if you bid 3♠ you will get massacred.

 

3♠ is a truly risky bid with a very unlikely upside.

[whereagles]

jdonn, I must disagree. 3♠ is not risky AT ALL. Responder has at the very least competitive values and opener has a good hand in context (long hearts, headed by an excellent ace, all good points - only the ♣Q is dubious). If there's something risky here, that's passing 3♥ and missing out a spade part-score or game.

 

Besides, the original hand shows my point: 3♠ gets beaten only because of the bad break. Look what happens if you pass: pard will have to bid 4♦ (he's definitely not going to pass) and not only you go down anyway (even with a good spade break), you go down missing the spade fit.

 

I stand by my opinion: 3♠ is completely correct. I think people that blame South are being biased from seeing all hands and end up arguing with results. Actually, I blame North more than South because he bid game with insufficient values. Not that I wouldn't do the same, but that's probably a more frisky bid than 3♠.

[Apollo81]

3♠ is a truly risky bid with a very unlikely upside.

Yeah, it's a pretty bad bid.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, I must disagree. 3♠ is not risky AT ALL. Responder has at the very least competitive values and opener has a good hand in context (long hearts, headed by an excellent ace, all good points - only the ♣Q is dubious). If there's something risky here, that's passing 3♥ and missing out a spade part-score or game.

 

Besides, the original hand shows my point: 3♠ gets beaten only because of the bad break. Look what happens if you pass: pard will have to bid 4♦ (he's definitely not going to pass) and not only you go down anyway (even with a good spade break), you go down missing the spade fit.

 

I stand by my opinion: 3♠ is completely correct. I think people that blame South are being biased from seeing all hands and end up arguing with results. Actually, I blame North more than South because he bid game with insufficient values. Not that I wouldn't do the same, but that's probably a more frisky bid than 3♠.

How would you interpret a double in this sequence:

1NT (2♥) 2NT 3♥

p (p) x?

[whereagles]

I would tend to take that as responder having the stayman with stopper hand.

[Guest Jlall]

I would tend to take that as responder having the stayman with stopper hand.

Yeah I agree with that.

[jdonn]

Yup not risky at all, because obviously north can't have Jx xx ATxxxx xxx

 

or less

 

How is it resulting to see a pair reach a no play game on less than game values? The fact they got doubled and caught a bad break is gravy.

 

And to answer your point that north wouldn't pass it out anyway, that is true if he bid 2NT as showing a 3NT bid with a stopper, but if he bid it showing a weak hand with diamonds he would pass it out, even with the majority of the strength, because he has already made his judgement. Oddly enough, it's hard to tell which he was intending.

 

There is one more point, that even if partner has a game force with 3 spades you have no idea which game is better. You gave this example

 

Kxx

Kx

Axxxxx

xx

 

on which 3NT will make more often than not anyway, in fact it's hard to say it's that much worse than 4♠ since you need spades to break in that contract, where in 3NT maybe they can't beat you (clubs 4-4, LHO AKx, even RHO AKx). It's worse but not so much worse.

 

Meanwhile change the example to

 

Qxx

Kx

AJxxxx

Jx

 

and you will get to the bad 4♠ instead of the far better 3NT.

 

My one last point: Great hand for transfer lebensohl where north could bid 3♣ showing invitational or better with diamonds. Then 3♥ p p X p 3♠ and there you are.

[whereagles]

1. Yup not risky at all, because obviously north can't have Jx xx ATxxxx xxx

 

2. or less

 

3. How is it resulting to see a pair reach a no play game on less than game values? The fact they got doubled and caught a bad break is gravy.

 

4.

Qxx

Kx

AJxxxx

Jx

 

and you will get to the bad 4♠ instead of the far better 3NT.

1. That'll put us into 4♦, which goes 2 down. For that to be bad opps have to double you and that's far from clear. (I can make a good case for opps having no way to double this, in case you disagree.)

 

2. With less he passes 2♥.

 

3. If think I'd believe you never bid games on 22 hcp and ruffing values, you're dreaming.

 

4. Sorry, but I'm not convinced by a taylor-made example. Besides, if you open 1NT on 5 card majors on a regular basis, you'd also be playing puppet stayman, in which case those hands end up in 4♠ like 95% of the time.

 

I don't really see where you're trying to get at. Isn't it pretty obvious by now that I trust my judgement more than someone else's cries for "discipline"? Of course there's an element of risk in volunteering 3♠. But that risk, if weighted against the possibility of unearthing a spade fit, should, in my opinion, pay-off.

 

And if you add up this one final thing, which is opponent at the other table might be opening the South hand 1♠ and finding a fit, it becomes more obvious that it's imperative to bid 3♠ now. Ok, maybe not "imperative", but at least "logical".

[Guest Jlall]

My one last point: Great hand for transfer lebensohl where north could bid 3♣ showing invitational or better with diamonds. Then 3♥ p p X p 3♠ and there you are.

How does this help? North could have just bid 3D GF with diamonds on the actual hand.