2over 1 sequence

[tkass]

1he-2di

3di-3he

4he-4nt

5sp-6he

 

opps dbl but it didnt matter here to our discussion

 

assign %blame for this disaster and

comment on

 

3di,3he,4he,4nt

 

thx for your advice

 

 

 

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=saj6hj92dkj1065ck7&w=skq2h743d92c109864&e=s9753h86da73ca532&s=s1084hakq105dq84cqj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

[jillybean]

North 100% 4nt is nuts, auction is normal up to there.

South couldnt cue over 3♥, that should end the auction.

[ArtK78]

North 100%  4nt is nuts, auction is normal up to there.

South couldnt cue over 3♥, that should end the auction.

Agree completely.

 

North showed a game forcing hand with heart support and some interest in exploring slam (which may be an overbid). South bid game. That is the end of it.

 

North's 4NT bid is ridiculous.

 

I suppose that some might not have bid 3♦ on the South hand (this should be a matter of partnership agreement - here, the partnership clearly did not have an agreement). But that bid had little to do with the disaster caused by the 4NT bid and subsequent slam bid. There is a disconnect between the auction leading up to 4♥ and the plunge into Blackwood and slam. Perhaps North found an ace during the bidding but lost it before he tabled his hand (although one might mention that if one replaces the ♣7 with the ♣A slam is still hopeless on a spade lead).

[gwnn]

S 10% N 90%, 3♦ was wrong, but it didn't wreck the train.

[kenrexford]

What went wrong specifically depends on the agreements.

 

Bidding 6 after the 5♠ response was sort of forced hoping, because you cannot get back to 5♥ after 5♠.

 

I agree that bidding 4NT was nuts after no cue by South.

 

That said, in my opinion, South was not completely unquestionable. IMO, 3♦ was a little to rich. However, I think that this decision is a matter of style and thus cannot invoke a charge, even partial, unless it flies against partnership rules.

 

I also think South should not have signed off at 4♥, which is funny. I think South underbid his hand, actually. That makes North's action worse. With solid hearts and the diamond Queen, my bid would have been a non-serious 4♦, denying a black-suit control but showing one of the top three diamonds and a reason to bid (A-K-Q of trumps works).

 

But, maybe South bid 4♥ because 3♦ did promise extras, making this an absolute contextual minimum hand for the sequence.

 

So, blame to the North.

 

You also asked about 3♥. That bid looks fine. FOr me, at least, 4♥ would show a completely different hand.

[han]

North 100% 4nt is nuts, auction is normal up to there.

Well said, nothing to add.

[fromageGB]

Ken really says it, but if tkass is asking for advice, I think the critical thing here is the partnership agreement on what the 3♦ means. I used to play a partnership where after a 2 over 1 opener bid his shape, regardless of values, and we found we got into auctions, maybe not as wild as this one, where neither side really knows whether they can go further.

 

For example, 1♠ 2♥ and opener supports with 3♥. Responder has a 16 count but if he bids higher than game, it can be too high, missing 3 aces, even. So having no particular control to show he bids 4♥. Now a stronger opener cannot go on because responder may have a bare 13. An easy slam is missed. Or you take a pot at a slam that is not there.

 

We changed it, so we now play that opener does not rebid higher than 2 of his suit if he has 12-14, but he does bid higher than 2 of his suit if he is 15/16. This means, while sometimes he can make a natural 4 card suit bid beneath the level of 2 of the opening suit, often he can't, and has to rebid his suit. So now this does not necessarily show 6 cards. In response, unless partner has something really distributional to say, he bids 2NT which then allows opener to bid his shape, such as supporting partner, bidding a new suit, or bidding the opening suit again to show 6. 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 2NT 3♦ is a 12-14 diamond support, and 1♥ 2♦ 3♦ is a 15/16 diamond support. From here you have much better visibility of where you are going.

 

What do you do as opener with 17+? We just treat it as 12-14, then when partner has found the strain and signs off in game, you come out of the woodwork and make a further bid. Sometimes you can show your colours earlier if the right denomination has been found.

 

So advice to the questioner would be to discuss the strength/shape aspects of opener's first rebid.

 

On the hand in question, we would bid simply 1♥ 2♦ 2♥ 3♥, and opener is too short of controls to do anything other than bid 4♥. And responder has nothing to add.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#0 the system was 2/1 or SAYC?

 

#1 3D is garbage, sorry, but 2d promised only 4, 3D should show fit,

why not 2H or 2NT, whatever.

 

#2 4NT, you already did show some slam interest, I assume

3H was forcing, you have shown your hand, partner was not

interested, stop.

Bidding 4NT say, p you have no clue, what you hold.

May be the case, but no partner likes to get insulted in front

of the opponents.

 

 

So 50% - 50%, certainly 4NT is badder than 3D, but not much,

it painted a different picture and got partner thinking about

something, and this was not necessary.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Codo]

I strongly disagree with the majority.

 

You need a partnership agreement about 3 Diamond. IF this may show 3 card support and a weak opener (11-15), then this bid is fine and North is to blame.

 

But to "anybody" in Germany and France it had shown a GF hand with 4 card support, so a much stronger hand then you had.

 

If North was from this school, his 4 NT bid was reasonably. He has a double fit controls in both black suits and even opposite a minimum like xx, AKQxx, AQxx,xx 6 Diamond is a claim.

 

 

3 ♥ to show the double fit with more then just a bare 10 HCP minimum was fine, 4 Heart to show a minimum too. The problem was that South thought that this showed a minimum in the contect of a 11-14 HCP had and North thought that it was Minimum in the range of 16+ HCPs.

[peachy]

Need to know system before judging. 3D is questionable regardless of system but North still gets at least 80% of the blame. The degree of "bad" in his actions far outweigh any faults in the 3D bid.

[neilkaz]

North 100% 4nt is nuts, auction is normal up to there.

South couldnt cue over 3♥, that should end the auction.

Agreed completely even noting that for most players S is a little light for the raise to 3♦ whoch should, for most, having something extra, which his hand really doesn't have with flat distribution and a dub QJ.

[ahri]

You need a partnership agreement about 3 Diamond. IF this may show 3 card support and a weak opener (11-15), then this bid is fine and North is to blame.

 

But to "anybody" in Germany and France it had shown a GF hand with 4 card support, so a much stronger hand then you had.

 

Read the topic name. It's 2/1, not SAYC. They are in GF already.

 

p.s. I don't like 3D at all, but it's understandable.