the hog Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 Normally these allocate the blame exercises are mainly finger pointing, but I would be interested in who should take greater action on this hand.Vul vs not - Imps [hv=n=saqtxhqxdxxxxcjxx&s=sj9xxxhakxdkqjxcq]133|200|[/hv] The bidding was 1S 2S all pass. Of course the S hook was right and D broke kindly - making 11 for a big loss. South looked at the poor trumps and the stiff Q of C and didn't really feel the hand was worth a move. Nth felt the hand was not worth an invitational 1N followed by 3S. Methods used do not include Bergen raises, so please no comments using these.A weak raise, 4-6, would be shown by a forcing 1N followed by 2S. The nth hand could still be consistent with Kxx Qx xxxx Kxxx (Originally I did not post the vul. Perhaps sth should not take the risk of missing a vul game?) Invitational methods are long and short suit trials, 3S would be weak. Comments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 The given sequence is unfortunate but not at all unreasonable, as both partners have negative evaluation factors. The alternative sequence of 1N followed by a limit raise is also resonable but North rightly hates the Qx of hearts. Perhaps best is 1NT intending 2S/3S depending on the rebid. Here opener's 2D makes a double fit probable, so North can scrape up a limit raise. I would have also gone for the limit raise over 2H as it redeems my H Qx, and probably over 2S, though with ten trumps my AQTx aren't as impressive as with 8 or 9. Over 2C I'll bid 2S. On the other hand this sequence can blow a game when opener is just a little better and would have moved over 1S-2S but passes 1S-1N-2C-2S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricK Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 I think the North hand is much nearer 3S than 2S. I also think the South hand is worth a trial bid over 2S! So blame is fairly evenly divided. On balance, I think that North deserves slightly more of the blame, because it is so easy to construct minimum opening hands for South where game is easy, and there won't be many where 3S doesn't have some play. I read somewhere (I think it was in a book by Reese) that if you aren't sure whether to raise to 2 or 3, then raise to 3 if your trumps are good. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 The real culprit is the person who decided this partnership chose to play this major suit raise structure... but thrwoing those stones don't help. As others have said, both partners pulled their punches and made reasonabe, if not just slightly conservative choices. The fact that they both made such choices on the same hand is unfortuante. So I guess the real decision is who is the most conservative here... I think, in final analysis, we will prove that North was the most conservative. This may surprise you because at first glance you might think it was south who pulled the punch too mcuh. This is because it looks like he was facing a partner with a minimum of 7hcp and fair 3 or 4 card support. His partner had only 9 hcp, two in a doubleton, so south should try again. It also looks like North is probably not too far off a minimum for the system they are playing... sure he could add a point or two for excellent spades, but four card suit to the X and doubleton Qx are not carrying their full weight in theory....but as we shall see, south is the huge underbidder. So while one can imagine a lot of hands north could have that makes game. I guess playing this system, as south, I would use whatever game try options I ahve... do I have long suit, help suit, short suit or a combination of these.... I would like to show short ♣ suit game try as south... , if I play help suit, I guess I would ask for help in ♥ since third round control is perfect.... but what I really need, of course, is good ♠. Doens't really matter, what ever game try south uses, north bids game.... But a better way to examine this hand, and which allowed me to point the finger of guilt at norht, is to see who most under bid using the ZAR points method.... First how good is South’s hand by zar points? It gets 13 distribution points (5S+4D+4 more for spades-clubs), It gets 16 hcp, minus one for the singleton Club Q for 15, and it gets 4 control points. That comes to a respectful 32 ZAR points (minimum opening bid is 26), so this is just slightly more than a full trick more than a minimum opening bid (there is a theoretical extra point for holding spades, but ignore that one). What about north’s hand? 4-4-3-2 only comes up with 10 distributional points. This is close to a minimum (8 is min for dist). It has hcp 9 hcp, subtract one for Qx, makes 8, and two control points. This totals 20 ZARpoints. But inaddition, he has 2 more zar points for the three top ♠ honors, brings this collection to 22, and can even get 1 point more for the fourth ♠ combined with doubletton ♥. So with subtractions and additions, this comes to 23 ZAR points. For those familar with ZAR points, 26 needed to open, and 52 needed for game. With 23 ZAR points a limit raise is called for, partenr would pass with less than one additional trick, and here, with 23, all partner needs to bid game is 29... and surely with 30, partner will bid game. So while south had a little extra for his opoening bid, Norht had the solid values (even subtracting for Qx) to invite with a normal limit raise. So with 23 ZAR points, only 3 short of what is needed to assure game, a limit raise is clearly called for. If you want the cold finger of guilt pointed at someone, point it at the point-counter in the north seat... Now, tell these guys about modern major suit raise theory.... Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 "The real culprit is the person who decided this partnership chose to play this major suit raise structure... but thrwoing those stones don't help." Gack! "Now, tell these guys about modern major suit raise theory...." Gack squared! Seriously these hands are a problem for us, because we play1M 3m as invit based on a good 6 card suit - a very useful bid - (going via 1N is based on a poorish suit.) 3 range splinters 1H - 2S, 2S - 2N 6-91H 3S, 1S 3N 10-121H 3N/4C/D, 1S 4C/D/H 13-15 This means that other stuff has to go in the forcing NT; I can't really see an alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishovnbg Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 "The real culprit is the person who decided this partnership chose to play this major suit raise structure... but thrwoing those stones don't help." Gack! "Now, tell these guys about modern major suit raise theory...." Gack squared! Seriously these hands are a problem for us, because we play1M 3m as invit based on a good 6 card suit - a very useful bid - (going via 1N is based on a poorish suit.) 3 range splinters 1H - 2S, 2S - 2N 6-91H 3S, 1S 3N 10-121H 3N/4C/D, 1S 4C/D/H 13-15 This means that other stuff has to go in the forcing NT; I can't really see an alternative. ----------------------------------Hi Ron! ------No need to look alternative, if most science top pair like Bocchi-Duboin play similar to your way. Raises of majors are important, but 3NT is based on good suit is also nice game. Back to your question. It is true that it was unfortunate downgrade by both players. Imho S is who miss game. I am used to play ROMEX losers and cover cards from long time to make decisions for marginal hands. I will make a game try with S hand, because 6 losers. I will bid 2♠ with N hand, because 2.5 cover cards. So S = blame. Note: If you didn't use this way yet, I am ready to comment it. --------------------------------------------------Misho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flytoox Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 Normally these allocate the blame exercises are mainly finger pointing, but I would be interested in who should take greater action on this hand.Vul vs not - Imps [hv=n=saqtxhqxdxxxxcjxx&s=sj9xxxhakxdkqjxcq]133|200|[/hv] The bidding was 1S 2S all pass. Of course the S hook was right and D broke kindly - making 11 for a big loss. South looked at the poor trumps and the stiff Q of C and didn't really feel the hand was worth a move. Nth felt the hand was not worth an invitational 1N followed by 3S. Methods used do not include Bergen raises, so please no comments using these.A weak raise, 4-6, would be shown by a forcing 1N followed by 2S. The nth hand could still be consistent with Kxx Qx xxxx Kxxx (Originally I did not post the vul. Perhaps sth should not take the risk of missing a vul game?) Invitational methods are long and short suit trials, 3S would be weak. Comments? A side issue here. Is 1S-2S-3S really weak? I think marshall miles mentioned somewhere in his book about the difference between 1s-2s-3s and 1h-2h-3h. You can play 1h-2h-3h as weak, as opp may balance and force u to bid 3h over 2s or 3m anyway. But holding spade suit, you can always overbid them in three level if you think it is right. SO perhaps 1s-2s-3s should be treated as trump invitation, which would be perfect here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 70% for south and 15% for north. 15% bad luck.north hand can and as other said should bid more but not easy.on the other hand with south hand its easier. try to build hands for north with enough points and ull see that with nearly all of them 3sp is safe and there is a good chance for 4sp with good north hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 i'd say mainly south, his hand reevaluates after the fit and is worth a game try imo... i think a 3♣ bid now, showing shortness, helps north bid 4♠ since there's no wasted values in clubs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 I try to avoid "me to" posts where I have little/nothng to add., however, given that you are asking for people's opinions... I think that Mischo's analysis is dead on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 I think 100% of the blame goes to south.Let me explain whyFirst of all if 2s is what you have agreed to bid with North then North is innocent as long as he is doing what the system asks him to do. Maybe there're better methods as Ben pointed to prevent this kind of accidents but I still think that you can reach game without complications even playing this arcane treatment. Having said that once we assume North has its bid South MUST be aware of the wide range of hands that North can have and act accordingly. Even with a stiff queen in clubs south has a 6 loser hand with 5431 distribution and excellent controls, as Reese said 5431 hands usually play very well. The lack of honors in spades, a suit where pd has 3/4 cards is also positive since pd usually has covers in the trump suit or 4 cards. So it's very clear in my opinion to make a short-suit invitational bid of 3c with the south hand. I think you can have even a bit less to make the same bid and thus South gets all the blame. Luis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 4 spades is a good contract because of the double fit. It makes if the spade hook works or the diamonds break. Change D x to C x in North's hand and the game is against the odds. So the best seqeunce of all (if your are playing something so old fashioned) is 1S-2S-3D where 3D is a long-suit game try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 Hi Misho, Re Romex trials "Note: If you didn't use this way yet, I am ready to comment it." I'd be interested in reading your post Misho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.