assess the blame to the closes 10%

[inquiry]

[hv=w=st72haqj76dqj65ck&e=sahkt52dak98cqj73]266|100|1♥ - 2NT

3♣ - 3♦

4♥ - Pass

 

IMP event, close match. Great 6H contract missed.

 

IF you think of it, what was the WORSE bid on the auction

[/hv]

[TimG]

When opener showed a singleton club, wouldn't east have thought he had a good hand for slam if he held A KT52 AK98 5432?

 

Is there five-level safety opposite QJxx AQJxx Txx K? Actually, slam is still good, isn't it?

 

I'd like to assign blame to the marginal opening bid and the system choice of fast arrival showing a minimum hand, but it seems to me that east should have overcome both these handicaps.

[brianshark]

I'm going to assume 2NT is GF with heart support and 3♣ was shortness and 3♦ was some sort of values showing help suit slam try of some sort.

 

I disagree with showing singleton K as shortness because it causes partner to mis-evaulate his hand. He won't think too highly of honour holdings in that suit when in fact the K will be a useful filler for them.

 

West now gets into problems for his next bid. Apart from heart strength, he has no control in diamonds or spades so has no feature to show, which is probably why he signed off in game.

 

Regarding East, if he believes his partner has a small singleton club then his hand must surely grow. I can't think of any honour placement west could have, holding 5+ hearts and a singleton club, that makes slam not worth persuing.

 

West's 3♣ bid I disagree with on principle but East's evaluation was entirely responsible for missing slam.

[hotShot]

What would 3♥ or 3NT have been?

If 4♥ was the only weak bid available, it's the system that is flawed.

East is just a little to weak to move on alone if opener is minimum.

Slam is working because of the ♦ fit, and west will only discover that if he bids 3♥ or 3NT so that east can show the 2nd ♦ control.

[pclayton]

West bid it well, although I don't like the methods. Showed a s/v club and then a minimum. East should go to the well again.

[ArtK78]

I just do not understand how East could pass 4♥. Opposite as little as xxx Axxxx Qxxx x there is fair play for slam (2-2 hearts and 3-2 diamonds). I can come up with other hands that are sub-minimal opening bids that include 5 hearts and one club on which slam may be a claim (how about xxxx AQJxx QJx x). And partner did open the bidding, did he not? Given a 1♥ opening bid and a singleton club, slam could easily be 100%.

 

Quite frankly, a 6♥ call on the East hand probably makes more sense than a pass. But there is no need to bash. The 5 level should be safe.

 

100% of the blame to East.

[han]

I would have bid 3H instead of 4H but all the blame goes to east.

[kfay]

I would have bid 3H instead of 4H but all the blame goes to east.

Yes

 

For the record I voted 10% West.

[Apollo81]

I think East needs cue 5♦. If west had ♣x instead of ♣K slam would still be reasonable.

[skjaeran]

How is it possible to pass 4♥ with that 'monster' east hand. If I'd have to pick a contract at this point, I'd just guess 6♥ 11 out of 10 times....

[effervesce]

Given the title was _assess_ the blame, the blame is missing a cold slam :)

 

100% of blame for east, although the method used is terrible, east's still hand is great opposite most (if not all?) possible hands west could have.

[jdonn]

Using my methods of assessment du jour, East gets 100% since I can hardly even think of a hand for west that makes slam bad (or the 5 level unsafe if that's where you are going). West gets 10% since I don't think it's smart to make these vague jumps to 4♥ and waste all the room. So I normalize downward and give west 9.1% and east 90.9%

 

How's that for fuzzy math?

[han]

It's only a little bit fuzzy since it does add up to 100%. That's not allowed in highschools I believe but not sure.

[Echognome]

It's only a little bit fuzzy since it does add up to 100%. That's not allowed in highschools I believe but not sure.

Yes. Was very convenient of Josh to use a measure of 1. We will implictly assume that he is defining his measure on a sigma algebra. Well done Josh!

[the hog]

I think East is prett much to blame. I agree with Phil in that I don not like the methods either. Note that the 4-4 D fit was never found. There are a number of layouts where 6D is a better contract than 6H. Good argument for a 2C gfr if that is allowed.

[hotShot]

Would West bid differently holding:

[hv=s=sqj72haqj76d765ck]133|100|[/hv]

[hv=s=sqj72haqj76d765ck]133|100|[/hv]

And we all have seen 11HCP openings

[hv=s=sqj72haqj76d765ck]133|100|[/hv]

[hv=s=sqj72haqj76d765ck]133|100|[/hv]

East asked for help in ♦ and West denied to have support there. After the discouraging 4♥ bid, moving on just because the 5 level seems to be save, seems pointless.

[whereagles]

What a great convention, this 2NT. What was supposed to be a precision slam-bidding tool became the best slam mess-up tool there is.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think West could have bid 4D, and maybe should,

I dont think it is 100% clear cut, but the diamond values

shown by East have improved his hand.

I think bidding 4H instead of 4D was lazy, ... a bid which

wont hurt quite often, it did with the given hands.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenrexford]

Jacoby 2NT sucks.

 

Well, actually it can be a good tool if used when it is effective. I think that it tends to be more effective as Responder tends to have Aces-and-Spaces outside the trump suit. As Responder tends to have outside Quacks, and stiffs (let alone stiff Aces), it breaks down. This is about the worst hand for Jacoby 2NT one could imagine.

 

Imagine the cuebidding route, embarked upon because of the 2NT flaws. With my personal style:

 

1♥-P-2♣(could be short)-P-

2♦(could be short)-P-2♥(GF, sets trumps)-P-

3♣(no spade 1st/2nd control, two of top three hearts for bypassing 2NT, and one of the top three clubs, known by Responder to be the Ace or King)-P-3♦(one of the top three diamonds, known by Opener to be the Ace or King, plus at least second-round spade control)-P-

4♥(not AKQ in hearts, no spade Queen or doubleton, not serious interest, not two top clubs, not two of top three diamonds)

 

At this point, Responder can visualize three small spades, AQxxx in hearts, (Q)xx(x) in diamonds, and K(x) in clubs. 6♥ seems a fair bet, but a grand impossible.

[ArtK78]

Jacoby 2NT sucks.

 

Well, actually it can be a good tool if used when it is effective. I think that it tends to be more effective as Responder tends to have Aces-and-Spaces outside the trump suit. As Responder tends to have outside Quacks, and stiffs (let alone stiff Aces), it breaks down. This is about the worst hand for Jacoby 2NT one could imagine.

 

Imagine the cuebidding route, embarked upon because of the 2NT flaws. With my personal style:

 

1♥-P-2♣(could be short)-P-

2♦(could be short)-P-2♥(GF, sets trumps)-P-

3♣(no spade 1st/2nd control, two of top three hearts for bypassing 2NT, and one of the top three clubs, known by Responder to be the Ace or King)-P-3♦(one of the top three diamonds, known by Opener to be the Ace or King, plus at least second-round spade control)-P-

4♥(not AKQ in hearts, no spade Queen or doubleton, not serious interest, not two top clubs, not two of top three diamonds)

 

At this point, Responder can visualize three small spades, AQxxx in hearts, (Q)xx(x) in diamonds, and K(x) in clubs. 6♥ seems a fair bet, but a grand impossible.

What you are saying, Ken, is that the tools used should not replace judgment.

 

I agree that most players have only a vague idea of when to use Jacoby 2NT, when to splinter, and when to bid naturally.

 

Having said that, our job on this hand was just to assess the blame. I think it is quite clear that East should have bid again over 4♥. And I don't think that Jacoby 2NT was at all to blame. It was East's bidding judgment that was at fault.

[keylime]

East, 100%. They have a big hand and need to uncork it since they are 4441. I can't fathom any response but 2D to start. Once a diamond fit, and heart rebid is found, now you have much more information to make a slam try with when a club cuebid is tendered.

[kenrexford]

What you are saying, Ken, is that the tools used should not replace judgment.

 

I agree that most players have only a vague idea of when to use Jacoby 2NT, when to splinter, and when to bid naturally.

 

Having said that, our job on this hand was just to assess the blame. I think it is quite clear that East should have bid again over 4♥. And I don't think that Jacoby 2NT was at all to blame. It was East's bidding judgment that was at fault.

I think you are placing too much on late judgment and not enough on early judgment.

 

Responder's 2NT was sick. Jacoby 2NT is not a descriptive tool. It is an asking bid. It asks Opener to describe his shape and strength. Period.

 

Responder does not, in any way whatsoever, want to start an asking bid series. The result of his selection of a 2NT start (undoubtedly because of the single assessment that "I have four trumps") was that he learned useless information and had to then revert to a meaningless 3♦ cuebid, having no idea what Opener would do about that. Nor did Opener know what to do about the 3♦ cuebid, a very strange development.

 

So, I did assess the blame. Responder's 2NT was unwise and was the cause of the bidding failure.

 

Sure, I could suggest that Opener maybe should cuebid 3♥ after 3♦ to show two top trumps. But then, after Responder cues 3♠, Opener has a problem. Does 4♣ show the stiff King, or does it show a void? Stiff Ace? How about 4♦ -- does this show one of the top two diamonds, or one of the top three?

 

Responder knew that he wanted a club honor to help him, not shortness. 2♣ starts the discussion in the right direction. He also is not sure how to describe the stiff spade Ace. A natural start and cuebidding is more flexible better suited for that problem, as well.

 

One might also suggest that Responder should move anyway after Opener signs off. Why? Does Opener lack, as he suggests, two top hearts? Does Opener not seem to deny the club Ace? Why ask for Aces if the answer is known to be worse than "Two with the Queen?"

 

I'd suggest that 2NT was the cause of the disaster. Opener's 4♥ call was a bad call that boxed Responder in and away from his one chance of escaping his own trap. Responder's pass of 4♥ was clear for this reason. Opener's 3♣ call was a difficult judgment call. So, my grades are...

 

2NT = F

4♥ = D

3♣ = C

3♦ = A

P = A

1♥ = A

[gnasher]

Responder's 2NT was sick.  Jacoby 2NT is not a descriptive tool.  It is an asking bid.  It asks Opener to describe his shape and strength.  Period.

That may be the way that many people play it, but it doesn't have to be so. When I bid Jacoby 2NT it initiates a conversation. That appears to be what East was attempting on this hand, before West's abrupt termination of the conversation.

 

Responder does not, in any way whatsoever, want to start an asking bid series.  The result of his selection of a 2NT start (undoubtedly because of the single assessment that "I have four trumps") was that he learned useless information and had to then revert to a meaningless 3♦ cuebid, having no idea what Opener would do about that.  Nor did Opener know what to do about the 3♦ cuebid, a very strange development.

 

So, I did assess the blame.  Responder's 2NT was unwise and was the cause of the bidding failure.

 

Sure, I could suggest that Opener maybe should cuebid 3♥ after 3♦ to show two top trumps.  But then, after Responder cues 3♠, Opener has a problem.  Does 4♣ show the stiff King, or does it show a void?  Stiff Ace?  How about 4♦ -- does this show one of the top two diamonds, or one of the top three?

 

Responder knew that he wanted a club honor to help him, not shortness.  2♣ starts the discussion in the right direction.  He also is not sure how to describe the stiff spade Ace.  A natural start and cuebidding is more flexible better suited for that problem, as well.

 

One might also suggest that Responder should move anyway after Opener signs off.  Why?  Does Opener lack, as he suggests, two top hearts?  Does Opener not seem to deny the club Ace?  Why ask for Aces if the answer is known to be worse than "Two with the Queen?" 

 

I'd suggest that 2NT was the cause of the disaster.

I don't understand this conclusion. You've just given us a list of problems resulting from the players' not knowing what anything would mean after 1♥-2NT-3♣. If you're right about this, I agree that it was unwise to bid 2NT, for the same reason that I avoid bidding 2NT-3C when I can't remember whether it's Puppet Stayman or not. However, that makes the root cause of the problem the lack of discussion, rather than that 2NT is intrinsically unsuitable for East's hand.

[kenrexford]

...Jacoby 2NT is not a descriptive tool.  It is an asking bid.  It asks Opener to describe his shape and strength.  Period.

That may be the way that many people play it, but it doesn't have to be so. When I bid Jacoby 2NT it initiates a conversation. That appears to be what East was attempting on this hand, before West's abrupt termination of the conversation.

 

...I'd suggest that 2NT was the cause of the disaster.

I don't understand this conclusion. You've just given us a list of problems resulting from the players' not knowing what anything would mean after 1♥-2NT-3♣. If you're right about this, I agree that it was unwise to bid 2NT, for the same reason that I avoid bidding 2NT-3C when I can't remember whether it's Puppet Stayman or not. However, that makes the root cause of the problem the lack of discussion, rather than that 2NT is intrinsically unsuitable for East's hand.

Here's the problem, IMO.

 

Let's suppose you use 2NT as a start of an auction that will become cooperative. Let's also assume that Opener will make the lowest answer possible (maximal space) to the Jacoby 2NT call, namely 3♣. Let's compare that start, then, with the natural start.

 

In the J2NT auction, Responder cues 3♦. What do we know at this point?

 

1. Opener has 5+ hearts and shortness in clubs

2. Responder has 4+ heart support and a diamond control.

 

In this scenario, we have laid down no parameters for what cues mean. Could they be shortness OR honor? A/K, or even Q? One honor, or two? Plus, you see that Opener will have difficulty (albeit rare) with a stiff King.

 

In the natural auction, trumps are agreed at 2♥. Again, Opener cues 3♣ (immediately solving the stiff King problem, BTW), and again Responder cues 3♦.

 

What do we know at this point?

 

1. Opener has two of the top three trumps, plus the Ace or King (or Queen) of clubs (a value established as more important than the shortness by preparation of partner's natural 2♣ call), and at least a diamond fragment (establishing that his diamond cues will be initially two of the top three honors, later a third or a control as governed by his first cue/bypass).

 

2. Responder has a diamond card (A/K/Q, a value also established by prep) and spade support, with at least a club fragment (technically a doubleton is possible, but clubs have been established as a held suit for cue purposes by either side).

 

3. Hearts is a control-only suit.

 

Thus, the problem with a J2NT auction, IMO, is that it fails to lay out any real parameters for the meaning of side-suit cues, forcing all of them to be straight control (A/K/stiff/void). General feel can be accomplished, but that resorts to quantitative/shape bash (I have a well-placed stiff and good controls with the right HCP range). Q/S Bash works best when one partner has Aces-and-Spaces and no need to show slow values or to find specific complementary values.

 

Now, I'll gant that 2NT is, therefore, a "descriptive tool" for me, as well. However, the description that makes the most sense, IMO, is "Aces-and-Spaces Outside." The description is not so much for the J2NT sequence, as this is largely captaincy-Responder biased, but rather when a non-J2NT auction (a natural auction) occurs, where Opener can expect that Responder will likely not have or will tend to not have Aces-and-spaces externally.

[gnasher]

Thus, the problem with a J2NT auction, IMO, is that it fails to lay out any real parameters for the meaning of side-suit cues, forcing all of them to be straight control (A/K/stiff/void).

I agree that this would be a problem, and I am sure that there are many partnerships that have this problem. Are you saying that playing Jacoby 2NT compels you to play such inadequate methods on the next round of the auction? And if so, why?