Not our best result of the evening...

[EricK]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxxxhaqxxdatckjxx&s=sahkjxxdqxxxcqtxx]133|200|Scoring: MP

1NT* 3NT

 

*12-14[/hv]

Very new partnership, not much discussion about methods. South, who judged that things hadn't been going well so far, decided to open a weak NT on a 1-4-4-4 hand with singleton A. North, who judged that things hadn't been going well so far, decided to jump straight to 3NT rather than look for a ♥ fit. A spade was led and only 8 tricks materialised.

 

Opinions please!

[Hanoi5]

Sometimes it's better not to 'move'. Usually when things are going VERY wrong the best policy is to play by the book.

[jdonn]

Blame north. South tried to solve a potential bidding problem. North masterminded.

[benlessard]

South, who judged that things hadn't been going well so far

 

IMO you should only swing when you are certain to have a bad game. If you are less than 10% of the spot you want to reach its better to not swing and just play your best bridge.

 

I personnaly dont open 1Nt with a stiff in a major because the chance of partner having 5 of them is too high to my taste.

 

But i have no problem with those who allow it and this seems like the perfect hand to do it.

 

As for not making stayman with north hand i think its not a good gamble. AT of diamond doesnt suggest that 3Nt will be better than 4H.

[TimG]

I think not using Stayman will often be a winning decision, but it carries some downside, too. One hand is insufficient to draw any firm conclusions.

[andy_h]

Agree with blaming North

[mr1303]

Seems that the fault is roughly equal to me. On the North hand, if you make a small club a diamond (giving it 3433 shape) then not using Stayman would be a lot more popular, but the result would be the same. Opening 1NT as South is not that unreasonable, but if they lead the suit with your singleton and you go off, you have to take some of the blame for it.

 

Roughly 50:50 for me.

[cherdano]

Well 1NT was a reasonable bid, 3NT was a bad bid. I don't care about assigning blame for the result.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I can understand the weak NT, you avoid

rebid problems, I guess you open 1D, and

you are dead after 1S, ... you have to bid

2C, but noone will be exicted.

 

3NT is just garbage, the bid you make, since

they told you NT, contracts pay more in MP.

But quite often they failed to tell you, that this

is only true, if you make the same number

of tricks, and quite often trump contracts

make 1 tricks more.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[pclayton]

Many weak NT'rs would not open the South hand (seriously).

 

Nevertheless, opening 1N is reasonable, just as we'd consider opening a strong NT with another Ace in the hand.

 

North took a unilateral shot. Like one of my friends frequently says, "If we get a zero, I want to have something do with it". Bids like 3N can be very detrimental to partnership trust.

[han]

Strongly disagree that if you make a decision that works out poorly then you should take the blame.

 

I don't like 3NT by north and mr1303's resulting is completely besides the point.

[han]

Voted for "words fail me" since none of the options seemed right. No I don't like 3NT but that doesn't mean you deserve a score as badly as this. Sometimes this will happen. Sometimes you get a slight advantage because partner's hand is hidden. In the long run you will lose IMPs I think. Opening 1NT on this hand will also get you poor scores sometimes, and sometimes you get poor scores by passing or opening 1D instead. This seems a more complicated issue and I'm not confident that it is a loser in the long run.

[Trumpace]

What about the dire situation of the match... why doesn't anyone mention that?

[MFA]

North's decision to bid 3nt is just silly and undisciplined. I don't like partners who do things like that, because what he is really saying, is that he has ceased to believe that our normal, sound game is good enough to win. Hate that.

 

I'm not crazy about the 1nt opening either, but with this tough hand, it can be excused. I would have passed in a weak NT context.

[skjaeran]

I don't have much against opening 1NT with the south hand, except I don't like 12-14 NT. B) Playing a weak NT, I'd most probably open 1NT.

 

I haven't got much sympathy for norths 3NT bid. The hand is suit oriented, with aces and a doubleton.

[NickRW]

Well, for me, opening 1N with a 4441 shape and single A or even K in a black suit is the least of all evils. So I don't find South's action at all unusual personally given the weak NT context. I don't think the hand is poor enough to downgrade to a pass either (if you open average 12s - I pass quite a few of them in real life - however I'll play along with the strict weak NT context). However I can see why some would pass - take away the ♣10 and I definitely would too.

 

For North to not use Stayman is, to my mind, just plain wrong. Entirely normal to my mind if the hand is 4333 shape and especially so if the hand looks "no trumpy" (soft honours and decent intermediates sort of thing). But 4432 normally plays better in a suit if you can find a 44 fit.

 

Nick

[peachy]

South would have a difficult rebid problem in weak nt system if partner responded 1S, so 1NT was ok. Even without a rebid problem, some 4-4-4-1 hands with singleton honor are best described by 1NT (depends on what the suits are or look like). North made a bad bid.

[SoTired]

If you change one of South's small clubs to a small spade, 3N still goes down and 4H still makes and nobody would fault South for opening 1N.

 

100% blame to North for not bidding Stayman, which is a basic bid. North needs a refresher. My guess is North did not bid Stayman and wants to blame South for the zero.

 

Sorry - South's bid may be a poor choice, but North's bid is definitely wrong.

[Trumpace]

FWIW, I have sympathy for North.

 

If they don't have a heart fit, there is no option but to play in 3NT and not bidding stayman might come in useful during the play (might lead to a spade lead, though).

 

If they do have a heart fit, in 3NT they would be in an "anti-field" contract, which is probably the right place to be given the state of the match.

 

All this talk about basic error etc seems pointless.

[SoTired]

Stayman with a 4-card major is a "basic" bid. Everyone knows that a 4-4 major fit usually plays better than 3N. The Stayman info giveaway is guesswork. Has anybody done an analysis about how useful that is to the defense?

 

I think that players who deliberately bid wrong to create a swing when they estimate they are having a poor game, deserve what they get.

 

First and foremost, the estimate may be wrong. I think I am a good estimator and usually come within 3 % for a session. But I have also been completely wrong on some sessions. It does not seem wise to make an anti-percentage bid based on it.

 

Secondly, you don't know what the future holds. Maybe the next few rounds, you'll get a bunch of gifts. Then find out that the poor bid from "operating" cost you.

 

Finally, if you want to create a swing, do it in the play, not by anti-percentage bidding. Take a backward finesse; finesse with 9 or play for the drop with 8. These plays are close to 50%, definitely anti-field and likely to produce a swing.

[TimG]

Stayman with a 4-card major is a "basic" bid. Everyone knows that a 4-4 major fit usually plays better than 3N. The Stayman info giveaway is guesswork. Has anybody done an analysis about how useful that is to the defense?

Yes, this sort of study has been done; the information is useful to the defenders. It probably does not fully make up for the advantage of playing in the 44 fit. But, I think it is closer than most people think.

[Gerben42]

I can understand 1NT, it's not mainstream but not crazy.

I cannot understand not bidding Stayman. With this hand you should realize that the other tables go 1m : 1♥ so if partner has 4 as well, 3NT is completely way out there.

[Trumpace]

Stayman with a 4-card major is a "basic" bid. Everyone knows that a 4-4 major fit usually plays better than 3N. The Stayman info giveaway is guesswork. Has anybody done an analysis about how useful that is to the defense?

 

I think that players who deliberately bid wrong to create a swing when they estimate they are having a poor game, deserve what they get.

 

First and foremost, the estimate may be wrong. I think I am a good estimator and usually come within 3 % for a session. But I have also been completely wrong on some sessions. It does not seem wise to make an anti-percentage bid based on it.

 

Secondly, you don't know what the future holds. Maybe the next few rounds, you'll get a bunch of gifts. Then find out that the poor bid from "operating" cost you.

 

Finally, if you want to create a swing, do it in the play, not by anti-percentage bidding. Take a backward finesse; finesse with 9 or play for the drop with 8. These plays are close to 50%, definitely anti-field and likely to produce a swing.

Maybe.

 

The issue here seems to be whether to take the anti-percentage action during bidding or not, for which the information we have is insufficient, IMO. Who knows, this might have been the last board and an absolute top was required. Bidding 4H likely won't get you that.

 

I don't understand why people are being so harsh and calling it a basic mistake/bad bridge/masterminding etc. You do need to take the state of match/goal into consideration before deciding whether an action was reasonable or not, and especially so if that is what the original poster seems to have in mind.

[MFA]

Stayman with a 4-card major is a "basic" bid. Everyone knows that a 4-4 major fit usually plays better than 3N. The Stayman info giveaway is guesswork. Has anybody done an analysis about how useful that is to the defense?

 

I think that players who deliberately bid wrong to create a swing when they estimate they are having a poor game, deserve what they get.

 

First and foremost, the estimate may be wrong. I think I am a good estimator and usually come within 3 % for a session. But I have also been completely wrong on some sessions. It does not seem wise to make an anti-percentage bid based on it.

 

Secondly, you don't know what the future holds. Maybe the next few rounds, you'll get a bunch of gifts. Then find out that the poor bid from "operating" cost you.

 

Finally, if you want to create a swing, do it in the play, not by anti-percentage bidding. Take a backward finesse; finesse with 9 or play for the drop with 8. These plays are close to 50%, definitely anti-field and likely to produce a swing.

Maybe.

 

The issue here seems to be whether to take the anti-percentage action during bidding or not, for which the information we have is insufficient, IMO. Who knows, this might have been the last board and an absolute top was required. Bidding 4H likely won't get you that.

 

I don't understand why people are being so harsh and calling it a basic mistake/bad bridge/masterminding etc. You do need to take the state of match/goal into consideration before deciding whether an action was reasonable or not, and especially so if that is what the original poster seems to have in mind.

The concept of deliberate swinging is so often misused badly, because players fail to realize how rarely the proper situations for it actually come up.

[NickRW]

Maybe.

 

The issue here seems to be whether to take the anti-percentage action during bidding or not, for which the information we have is insufficient, IMO. Who knows, this might have been the last board and an absolute top was required. Bidding 4H likely won't get you that.

 

I don't understand why people are being so harsh and calling it a basic mistake/bad bridge/masterminding etc. You do need to take the state of match/goal into consideration before deciding whether an action was reasonable or not, and especially so if that is what the original poster seems to have in mind.

Well, what the OP actually said was "judged that things hadn't been going well so far". It kinda depends on what that really means. I used to go by feel and was often quite wrong. These days I actually note whether I think a board was good, bad or indifferent and keep a running count - much more accurate. Even so I can be plus or minus 3 or 4% at the end of an evening, sometimes more. On top of that swinging is generally losing bridge.

 

Soooooo, maybe I can forgive the lack of Stayman. But I wouldn't have done it.

 

Nick