settle an argument?

[gwnn]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sxxhqxxxda9xxct8x&s=sakxxhakxdxckqj9x]133|200|Scoring: XIMP[/hv]

 

p-p-1♣-1♦

p-p-X-p

1♥-2♦-2♠-p

2NT-p-3NT-all pass

 

5♣ is a very good contract, 3NT is obviously down.

 

I know most people play 1♣-1♦-1♥ as equivalent to 1♣-p-1♥ and I really like that, but with this pd that shows negative freebid strength and 5 hearts. Besides that, what would you say happened?

[cherdano]

1♥ NF with 5 or more hearts? I don't understand this agreement, what do you do with a GF hand and 4 hearts? It also makes it really hard to give a fair criticism of the follow-up auction

 

X = impeccable

1♥ = seems fine, with your weird agreements I don't know whether you can jump to 2♥

2♠ = impeccable

2N = very wrong with Axxx stopper and 3-card support for partner's main suit, also your partner is showing a huge hand, 3♦ seems called for, but again given your agreements this is very difficult as 1♥ probably has a huge range...

3N = Why not bid out your shape with 3♥? You could still have a strong 4225 hand for your previous bidding, it seems time to show AKx support for partner's main suit. If partner has 5 hearts, 6 hearts might be as good as 3N...

[jtfanclub]

1♥ NF with 5 or more hearts? I don't understand this agreement, what do you do with a GF hand and 4 hearts?

I would assume that they X. Wouldn't you?

 

I liked the bidding up until the 3NT bid. Nothing wrong with 3 hearts.

[kenrexford]

1♥ NF with 5 or more hearts? I don't understand this agreement, what do you do with a GF hand and 4 hearts? It also makes it really hard to give a fair criticism of the follow-up auction

 

X = impeccable

1♥ = seems fine, with your weird agreements I don't know whether you can jump to 2♥

2♠ = impeccable

2N = very wrong with Axxx stopper and 3-card support for partner's main suit, also your partner is showing a huge hand, 3♦ seems called for, but again given your agreements this is very difficult as 1♥ probably has a huge range...

3N = Why not bid out your shape with 3♥? You could still have a strong 4225 hand for your previous bidding, it seems time to show AKx support for partner's main suit. If partner has 5 hearts, 6 hearts might be as good as 3N...

My analysis is somewhat different:

 

1♥ NF with 5 or more hearts? I don't understand this agreement, what do you do with a GF hand and 4 hearts? It also makes it really hard to give a fair criticism of the follow-up auction

 

X = impeccable

1♥ = seems fine, with your weird agreements I don't know whether you can jump to 2♥

2♠ = impeccable

2N = very wrong with Axxx stopper and 3-card support for partner's main suit, also your partner is showing a huge hand, 3♦ seems called for, but again given your agreements this is very difficult as 1♥ probably has a huge range...

3N = Why not bid out your shape with 3♥? You could still have a strong 4225 hand for your previous bidding, it seems time to show AKx support for partner's main suit. If partner has 4 hearts, 6 hearts might be as good as 3N...

[cherdano]

I agree with almost everything Ken wrote ;)

[kenrexford]

I agree with almost everything Ken wrote ;)

LOL

 

If the hand shown is possible systemically and judgmentally, then it seems that Responder could have ♠xx ♥QJ10x ♦A9xxx ♣108.

 

I'll win the diamond lead and start playing clubs. I'll ruff the second diamond high. I'm not sure which makes more often, 3NT or 6♥.

[gwnn]

what do you do with a GF hand and 4 hearts?

Double? Or cue (which BTW doesn't promise support)? I don't know. I hate this. But it's two possibilities:

 

a ) never play with anybody from the local club ever ever

b ) accept "only forcing calls are double or cue"

 

See I'm the 20 year old junior rookie at the club who's supposed to accept conventional wisdom from the old and wise.

[bid_em_up]

a ) never play with anybody from the local club ever ever

b ) accept "only forcing calls are double or cue"

 

See I'm the 20 year old junior rookie at the club who's supposed to accept conventional wisdom from the old and wise.

Try,

 

C ) only play with someone from local club who knows how to play bridge.

 

Because this one may be old....but it's not very wise.

[ArtK78]

If you play negative free bids, then you must make a negative double with all hands that are not negative free bids and have the values to respond (and that don't qualify for a cue bid). It seems to me that the North hand is too strong to pass over 1♣-(1♦). Therefore, I do not understand the pass over 1♦. While a double (playing negative free bids) covers a very wide range of hands, many of which are strong, it also covers the traditional negative double range. So, North had a negative double over 1♦.

 

Note that the double in this sequence does not show 4-4 in the majors if you play negative free bids.

 

It seems to me that 6♣ has reasonable play on these cards. Only an opening club lead and continuation (or a very bad spade break) will prevent you from ruffing two spades in the dummy with the 8 and the 10, knocking out the club ace and claiming. And, if you do get that defense, you can still ruff one spade in dummy and claim if hearts are 3-3 or if there is a major suit squeeze. Still, 5♣ is much better than 3NT.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 1H is to weak, you have to bid 2H

You would also bid 1H without the

Queen and the Ace

#2 2S, I prefer a 2nd double

#3 3NT is ok, you have a stopper

and 3NT is only down, because the guy

with the 5 diamonds has the Ace of

clubs

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

I also think that 1H as NFB is horrible.

 

I think 2S is a bad call, should be a second double.

[helene_t]

Agree with Han. Also, opener could try something else instead of 3N. 3♦ or 3♥. Or pass.

 

That said, the bidding is not horrible, just moderately bad.

[jdonn]

I think the 3NT bid is most to blame. Why not continue bidding out your hand with 3♥ and leave it up to north, who will now figure notrump is wrong with just one stopper.

 

Some earlier bids were perhaps debatable, but none clearly wrong and nothing too terrible.

[Cascade]

I think the 3NT bid is most to blame. Why not continue bidding out your hand with 3♥ and leave it up to north, who will now figure notrump is wrong with just one stopper.

 

Some earlier bids were perhaps debatable, but none clearly wrong and nothing too terrible.

To me this is not completely clear.

 

I think the blame lies somewhere within the 2NT and 3NT bids.

 

If 2NT can be a stopper as poor as this then 3♥ rather than 3NT is clear.

 

On the other hand if 2NT is supposed to show a better stopper then there is little point in 3♥.

[lowerline]

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: XIMP

♠ xx ♥ Qxxx ♦ A9xx ♣ T8x ♠ AKxx ♥ AKx ♦ x ♣ KQJ9x

 

p-p-1♣-1♦

p-p-X-p

1♥-2♦-2♠-p

2NT-p-3NT-all pass

 

5♣ is a very good contract, 3NT is obviously down.

 

I know most people play 1♣-1♦-1♥ as equivalent to 1♣-p-1♥ and I really like that, but with this pd that shows negative freebid strength and 5 hearts. Besides that, what would you say happened?

North has a maximum in the context of his bidding (and system). Was 2NT forcing? If it wasn't, North should have bid 3♦ (assuming 3♣ wouldn't be forcing either). Then South can bid 3♥ and if North then has the judgement to bid 4♣ you're there.

However South should have bid 3♥ no matter what 2NT meant.

 

Steven

[helene_t]

But it's two possibilities:

 

a ) never play with anybody from the local club ever ever

b ) accept "only forcing calls are double or cue"

 

See I'm the 20 year old junior rookie at the club who's supposed to accept conventional wisdom from the old and wise.

What about:

c) Realize that "conventional wisdom" is not a kind of wisdom, any more than a red herring is a kind of herring

d) Not listen to old people (ooops I didn't mean that, lol)

[gwnn]

I meant "accept" as "accept to play it", not "accept it as absolute truth". As I mentioned, I really hate these stuff and see how wrong these are.