Worst Call?

[pclayton]

My teammates had the following disaster on the final board last night:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&w=sakxhaqjdktxxcqjx&e=stxxht9xxda8xxxcx]266|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Here's their auction:

 

South...West...North...East

1♠.......Dbl....pass...2♥

pass....2N...pass....3♦

pass....4♥ - AP

 

Naturally, hearts were 5-1 with the King off. 3N made at our table with diamonds 2-2.

 

What call do you like least?

[Gerben42]

The one I like least is that you are looking to blame your teammates. I think this is something they should clear themselves. As to the original question I like 4♥ the least.

[paulg]

I'm not sure what East is hoping to find with 3♦, I'd just bid 3NT.

[mikeh]

4♥.

 

I am not full of admiration for 3♦, since I can't easily picture a hand on which East wants to be in a red suit contract after 2N... any hand that makes 5♦ good will usually offer a good play for 9 tricks in 3N (ok... if partner has xxx in ♣s or equivalent... but that is a tiny target).

 

But 4♥ is poor (I wrote then deleted 'insane', but that is a large overstatement): there is NOTHING about this auction that suggests partner holds long ♥s, and the ♦ bid makes the hand better for notrump as well as for suit play.

[Walddk]

3♦. Either you pass or raise to 3NT. 5♦ is unlikely to be the right spot, and even if it is, partner may think you have 5-4 in the reds, not 4-5. Apparently, he did since his next call was 4♥.

 

With this said, there is no need for West to jump to game in hearts. You are in a game forcing situation, so 3♥ is better.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

I guess I blame 4♥ about 65% and 3♦ about 35%.

[Apollo81]

80% 4♥

20% 3♦

[jtfanclub]

I blame the blaming 100%.

 

Diamonds broke 2-2, and hearts broke 5-1. If hearts had broken 3-3 and diamonds had gone 3-1, would you be in here asking who's to blame for the 3NT bid?

 

OK, sure, the bids weren't genius. 3♦ was apparently intended as 'I don't think we can make 2NT', not a try for 5♦. 3343 hands don't have any love for playing in a major over NT, especially in a Moysian.

 

But I mean, c'mon. If this was the worst contract your teammates ended up in all tournament, you guys must have done pretty good.

[Free]

2♥, I prefer 2♦ - my longest and strongest with a weak hand...

[pclayton]

The one I like least is that you are looking to blame your teammates. I think this is something they should clear themselves. As to the original question I like 4♥ the least.

Gerben - FWIW, they asked me my opinion and I'm passing this onto the group.

[pclayton]

I blame the blaming 100%.

 

Diamonds broke 2-2, and hearts broke 5-1.  If hearts had broken 3-3 and diamonds had gone 3-1, would you be in here asking who's to blame for the 3NT bid? 

 

OK, sure, the bids weren't genius.  3♦ was apparently intended as 'I don't think we can make 2NT', not a try for 5♦.  3343 hands don't have any love for playing in a major over NT, especially in a Moysian. 

 

But I mean, c'mon.  If this was the worst contract your teammates ended up in all tournament, you guys must have done pretty good.

No but I don't expect a blind club lead on this auction against 3N either. The spade opener happened to have ♣AKxxx.

 

With a normal spade lead, you would expect to take 4♦, 2♠ and 3 hearts.

 

A pre-requisite to 4♥ appears to need 3-3 hearts. Its a complicated hand, but you can't take the ♥ hook twice, without losing control.

 

Please don't say 4♥ is better than 3N here.

 

No this isn't the worst sequence they had all night either, although they played pretty well. One of our big losses was that they bid an excellent slam that was beaten by a 5-1 side suit and a ruff.

[pclayton]

I'm OK with 2♥ and 2N. Honestly, I think its possible that the weak hand can pass 2N, if it shows a good 18 to 20.

 

My opponents jumped to 3N over 2♦, which is pretty agressive, but not crazy with the diamond fit. All you need is 2-2 diamonds, and Q-5th of diamonds.

 

I don't like either 3♦ or 4♥.

 

3♦ seems to snoop for 3 card heart support. Wouldn't you make the call with 5♥ and 4♦ and a 6 count? West (who is a slightly better player) thought that his hand was too good for 3 only hearts, but didn't think they were in a GF situation. Are they really in a GF here? Its unclear to me.

 

I think the 5th diamond argues for 3N. You simply don't have a 4-4 heart fit, and there's a concern about the club tap in the long heart hand. 5♦ looks like a real stretch, so why look?

 

I thought 3♠ over 3♦ might be a sensible probe, but what does it really ask for?

 

I think I'd adjuducate 3♦ 80% / 4♥ 20%.

[jdonn]

I'm OK with 2♥ and 2N. Honestly, I think its possible that the weak hand can pass 2N, if it shows a good 18 to 20.

 

My opponents jumped to 3N over 2♦, which is pretty agressive, but not crazy with the diamond fit. All you need is 2-2 diamonds, and Q-5th of diamonds.

 

I don't like either 3♦ or 4♥.

 

3♦ seems to snoop for 3 card heart support. Wouldn't you make the call with 5♥ and 4♦ and a 6 count? West (who is a slightly better player) thought that his hand was too good for 3 only hearts, but didn't think they were in a GF situation. Are they really in a GF here? Its unclear to me.

 

I think the 5th diamond argues for 3N. You simply don't have a 4-4 heart fit, and there's a concern about the club tap in the long heart hand. 5♦ looks like a real stretch, so why look?

 

I thought 3♠ over 3♦ might be a sensible probe, but what does it really ask for?

 

I think I'd adjuducate 3♦ 80% / 4♥ 20%.

3♠ can't be anything but natural on some level, a good 4 or maybe 5 looking for a possible 4-3 or 5-3. Any meaning but that seems unrealistic and only good for a post mortem.

[mike777]

1) Ok very glad you added they asked for your opinion.

2) 2h=50% worst

3) 3d=33% worst

4) 4H =12% worst

[matmat]

1) Ok very glad you added they asked for your opinion.

2) 2h=50% worst

3) 3d=33% worst

4) 4H =12% worst

5% abstained.

margin of error +/- 3%

[pclayton]

1) Ok very glad you added they asked for your opinion.

2) 2h=50% worst

3) 3d=33% worst

4) 4H =12% worst

5% abstained.

margin of error +/- 3%

Thank God. I was wondering how Fred Thompson became tied with Guiliani. This explains it.

[Fluffy]

I wonder why bid 4♥ when 3 was avaible.

 

3♦ was probably intended to play there, I don't know if I would take it that way

[helene_t]

I think West should pass 3♦. I see 3♦ as a weak bid, showing the shape but possibly much weaker than he actually is. Maybe East is too strong for 3♦. 3N is certainly an option.

 

If West is unsure about the strength of 3♦, he can keep the auction alive by bidding 3♥. If he really thinks he has significant extra, he can bid 3N. 4♥ can't be right. There's no reason to think East has five hearts.

 

3♦ seems to snoop for 3 card heart support. Wouldn't you make the call with 5♥ and 4♦ and a 6 count?

No, with such a hand I would bid 3♠. But maybe this 3♦ bid shows a weak 5-5. Then East should start with 2♦ with the given hand.

[Codo]

. 4♥ can't be right. There's no reason to think East has five hearts.

I doubt that you are right with this statement. If 3 ♦does not show 5 Hearts, there is no sense in jumping to 4♥.

 

So the question is: Does 4 ♦show 5 Hearts and 4 Diamonds? Bid the long suit first is not so uncommon and often right.

Or does it show 4 Hearts and 5+ Diamonds- majors first is not uncommon and often right eiter. Obviously the partnership was not on the same wavelength.

 

And we hadn´t been on the same wavelength either.

For me a double shows all unbid suits (or exeptional strength), so I had believed, that my pd had bid his longest suit first.