Who gets the lemon?

[Echognome]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=shakt9xdaqtxxcxxx&s=sajxxhxxxdkjxxcqj]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1♦ - 1♥;

1♠ - 2♣;

2♥ - 3♦;

3NT - 4♦;

4♠ - 5♦;

All Pass[/hv]

 

Part 1) Assign the blame for reaching the wrong contract. Lots of blame to go around I'm sure.

 

Part 2) Now play 5♦ on the lead of the ♠K.

[whereagles]

3♦ is muddy. 4♥ would be better. 3♥ even better, but only if you think pard won't pass that.

 

4♦ is just asking for trouble. That was the last chance to bid 4♥.

 

Prefer 1NT to 1♠, but 1♠ is certainly ok.

 

Play: ruff, play a club to the queen to muddy the waters. I can always play the hearts later.

[JLOL]

South is clearly to blame for the bidding. He should bid 3H and failing that should OBVIOUSLY bid 4H!!!

 

North's bidding was great.

 

As far as the play I don't see anything better than relying on a double heart finesse. I don't see a good way to combine KQx of spades ruffing out as I don't really have the entries, so I would pitch at trick 1 and then play 2 trumps ending in hand and play a heart to the ten.

[whereagles]

yo, lol-man: would 3♦ (instead of 2♣) be forcing to you?

[JLOL]

yo, lol-man: would 3♦ (instead of 2♣) be forcing to you?

Nope

[whereagles]

Then why must responder have 5 hearts? In other words, how does he force to game with diamond support if not by using 2♣?

[JLOL]

Then why must responder have 5 hearts? In other words, how does he force to game with diamond support if not by using 2♣?

He doesn't have to have 5 hearts... why must south have 3 hearts? In my world south showed 2 or 3 hearts and then never bid hearts again.

[Echognome]

He doesn't have to have 5 hearts... why must south have 3 hearts? In my world south showed 2 or 3 hearts and then never bid hearts again.

I do not disagree, but if south holds 2 hearts, would you expect them to be Jx or xx? I.e. I argue they are either Qx or there are 3 of them.

[EricK]

While these "modern" methods might work in theory, we see time after time on this forum how they don't work in practice for the average bridge player.

 

North makes a space saving response of 1♥ instead of a "wasteful" SJS, and as a result he is forced to make one vague force after another and finds out no information of any use.

 

Meanwhile, South has a balanced minimum but manages to bid three suits on the first three rounds of the auction.

 

By the time the bidding gets to the 4 level, neither partner really has much idea of what the trump suit is going to be, nor whether the hands fit together for slam.

 

It's always easy after the event to show how the bidding should have gone using these sort of methods, but for most people, at the table, it constantly proves too hard.

[mikeh]

I don't like a method that forces S to bid 1♠.. note that he had zero chance to limit his hand thereafter until the 3♦ call, at which point he was, understandably, under the misapprehension that partner held only 4♥s.

 

So systemic choices gave rise to an opportunity for poor choices to result in a terrible auction.. consider how easy this would have been had S limited both shape and strength via 1N over 1♥.. and then N had bid, say, 2♦ artificial gf, or jumped to 3♦, slam try 5-5 (assuming system allowed) and then S could backpedal and N would get the hint.

 

Having said that, I really don't like 3♦ over 2♥, precisely because N had not yet limited his strength and suggested only 4 hearts... 2♣ was unlimited gf... he could bid 3♥ as a slam try over 2♥, so when he introduced his diamonds, he was suggesting that diamonds should be trump INSTEAD of hearts.

 

Then S bid 3N which truly makes no sense.. responder goes out of his way to suggest a minor contract, and we run to notrump with no club stopper? I prefer almost anything.. the problem is that if 3♦ set trump, 3♥ or 3♠ could be interpreted as a cue bid. I think that it should be that these are value showing bids, allowing still for 3N, and that opener can bid 4♦ with strong slam cooperative values, but I wouldn't be surprised if confusion were to set in no matter what I do, and in that context, 3N becomes more palatable.. at least it sends a slow-down message... which is way, way overdue.

 

4♦ is close to being insane.. it forces a cue-bid.. it absolutely denies interest in hearts.. it is a monstrous overbid and misbid all rolled into one.

 

4♠ is a bit much... this hand has plummeted in value... but the alternative is 5♦ and why can't partner hold his values.... say Kxx AKQx AQxxxx void looking for grand on an auction in which he couldn't keycard... indeed, maybe keycard was never available to him and he has a flatter 4=5 monster.

 

So the blame... 35% to the methods, 15% to opener (for choosing 1♠ when a non-systemic 1N was probably always better, having opened this piece of cheese, and for the dubious choices of 3N then 4♠... none of them individually as bad as responder's errors) and 50% to responder for two egregious bids... 3♦ and 4♦

[jdonn]

How can 3♦ be criticized?? It is just about the most normal bid I have seen in my entire life. 100% blame for south not bidding 3♥ instead of 3NT.

 

I don't even think the auction is very hard, at least prior to that point.

 

1♦, I have a 1♦ opener. 1♥, I have 4+ hearts.

1♠, I have 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds. 2♣, I have a game forcing hand.

2♥, I have 2 or 3 hearts. 3♦, I have diamond support.

3♥, I have 3 hearts.

 

Why south instead decided to bid

3NT, I have a club stopper

I have no idea.

[whereagles]

Hum.. was 2♣ GAME forcing?

[jdonn]

Hum.. was 2♣ GAME forcing?

Yes!

[Fluffy]

The way I play South could had bid 2♠ if he had only 2 hearts. 2♥ shows 100% 3 cards, that would transfer blame to north.

[JLOL]

How can 3♦ be criticized?? It is just about the most normal bid I have seen in my entire life. 100% blame for south not bidding 3♥ instead of 3NT.

 

I don't even think the auction is very hard, at least prior to that point.

 

1♦, I have a 1♦ opener. 1♥, I have 4+ hearts.

1♠, I have 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds. 2♣, I have a game forcing hand.

2♥, I have 2 or 3 hearts. 3♦, I have diamond support.

3♥, I have 3 hearts.

 

Why south instead decided to bid

3NT, I have a club stopper

I have no idea.

First time I've ever said this, but I really could not agree more with jdonn/this post.

[jdonn]

The way I play South could had bid 2♠ if he had only 2 hearts. 2♥ shows 100% 3 cards, that would transfer blame to north.

Even if that's true then 3♦ is completely normal. It's a possible slam hand, and I like playing slams in 5-4 and 5-5 fits better than in 5-3 fits. And south should still not show a club stopper that he doesn't have.

 

But that's irrelevant, I think we would be told about completely artificial conventions if they are relevant in the problem.

[helene_t]

If 2♥ shows three (which would be reasonable IMHO, with nothing to say he can bid 2♦ or 2♠), I think 3NT is ok. He hasn't yet shown that his hand is balanced, he does have half a club stopper, it's not like he would suggest 4♥ opposite something like Q AKxx Axxx Txxx.

 

As North I would have bid 4♥ over 3NT I think. I may be resulting, though. I suppose 4♦ is fine but then I can't blame South for bidding 4♠ over 4♦. Sounds like diamonds it trumph and 4♥ would be a control bid.

[Fluffy]

But that's irrelevant, I think we would be told about completely artificial conventions if they are relevant in the problem.

You assume 2♣ is GF but you think that rebidding 2♠ with 4243 without club stopper is not normal, sounds like you thinnk your methods are more standard than they are (this happens to me all the time)

 

I don't think 3NT bid is great actually, if the situation wasn't talked about obviously 3♥ stands a mile.

 

But otherwise putting a brake with such a minimum trash even when the stopper is not good sounds like a good idea.

[JLOL]

Even if you want to show a club stopper and partner has 4 hearts over 3H he can easily bid 3S to get you to bid 3N with your club stopper.

 

Also I don't see how trying for slam with the north hand is an overbid, he has a great hand and his partner has shown a CLUB stopper, Hx of hearts (else 2N over 2C) and opened 1D. Slam is easily in play, and 3N is clearly out of play. 4D allows partner to try to go back to 4H or cuebid with a slam suitable hand. The 4S bid turns north off, but imagine if partner bids five clubs! Partner must have something like Qxxx Qx KJxx Axx and slam is great (and the bidding so far normal).

 

North doesn't have a hand that wants to play 4H in a 52 rather than 5D (with a club lead coming through the king potentially, or potentially a tap) unless south suggests playing in hearts.

 

Also as JDONN has said, even if partner's 2H guaranteed 3 hearts (which seems terrible) north still has an easy 3D bid.

[JLOL]

But that's irrelevant, I think we would be told about completely artificial conventions if they are relevant in the problem.

You assume 2♣ is GF but you think that rebidding 2♠ with 4243 without club stopper is not normal, sounds like you thinnk your methods are more standard than they are (this happens to me all the time)

LOL

 

You seriously think because he assumes FOURTH SUIT FORCING and does not assume rebidding your second suit as an artificial bid showing a specific hand he is assuming something that is not normal?

 

Obviously echognome assumed (knows?) that fourth suit forcing is so standard that he didn't even have to mention it, but I guess he was wrong! But if you were unsure whether fourth suit forcing was in use you might tell from the north hand that it was FOURTH SUIT FORCING!

[H_KARLUK]

At least 9 trumps. 25 HCP. 4H might bring more chances. In 5D 2-2 or 3-1 trumps. I dont know hearts 4-1 with a honour on righty or both missing honours placed with my lefty. Maybe 3-2 divided. QJ drops under AK. Still reading a bimonthly foreign bridge magazine, its only took me 15 days! God this is too clever for me :)

 

1d-1h

1s-2c*

2h all ok. Was a good moment to decide 4h. 3NT out of question in my books. Over FSF 2H simply bleak. Already a limit seen with opener rebid.

[Echognome]

For what it's worth, I was South and didn't like several of my calls. However, I will partly blame not being as familiar with the style of responding 1♠, but know my partner prefers it.

 

Here were some of the crucial decisions.

 

1. Opening 1♦ vs passing - I agree that QJ tight sucks and felt it was a marginal hand. I can live with a partner who either passes it or opens it. I feel it's that close. I know with this partner, he is fine with that, whereas with Phil, he would prefer I pass this hand.

 

2. Rebidding 1♠/1NT/2♥ - As I mentioned above, with this partner, he prefers I rebid 1♠ (although I'm sure he'd be fine with 2♥ if I had QJx in hearts and xx in clubs). With Phil, I would have bid 1♥ (over his 1♦ transfer), so it's a different auction altogether. I am fine with either 1♠ or 1NT, but don't like 2♥ on this particular hand.

 

3. 3♥ or 3NT after 3♦. Here I just didn't know what the right bid was. As Mike mentions, I have not yet limited my hand. I didn't particularly like 3NT, but then wasn't sure if a 3♥ call would imply better hearts than I had. Although I agree with Josh and Justin that 2♥ shouldn't promise 3 (nor would expect my partner to think it did), I would also think it would deny xx. So should I be rebidding xxx? Well, I'm definitely convinced now that I should be, to avoid the problems that arose.

 

4. Partner's 4♦ vs a 4♥ call. I am perfectly fine with 4♦, my problem is now that I believe 4♦ sets trumps and I would not expect partner to take 4♥ as an offer to play. That ship sailed. Perhaps that is the wrong way to play, but I would think that 4♦ says that the only possible strains are diamonds or NT (as I would expect 4NT to show no interest in slam). That being said, it would make perfect sense in this auction for 4♦ to still be open to 4♥ as a strain. I just have a tough time figuring out a good set of rules in that regard. If we never limit strain, we're going to have a really tough time cuebidding.

 

By the way, all was ok in the play, because I took what I thought was the only reasonable line to make -- the double heart finesse. It worked, so no harm done. However, I still felt I had something to learn from this hand. It seems others might too, given the differences in style.

[Winstonm]

I know it's out of fashion these days to criticize an opening bid, but what real purpose is there to opening a miserable 12-count like the one held by south? Does the sky fall or are you shot at sunup if you pass pieces of crap?

 

P-1H

2C*-4H

 

*Drury

[Fluffy]

But that's irrelevant, I think we would be told about completely artificial conventions if they are relevant in the problem.

You assume 2♣ is GF but you think that rebidding 2♠ with 4243 without club stopper is not normal, sounds like you thinnk your methods are more standard than they are (this happens to me all the time)

LOL

 

You seriously think because he assumes FOURTH SUIT FORCING and does not assume rebidding your second suit as an artificial bid showing a specific hand he is assuming something that is not normal?

 

Obviously echognome assumed (knows?) that fourth suit forcing is so standard that he didn't even have to mention it, but I guess he was wrong! But if you were unsure whether fourth suit forcing was in use you might tell from the north hand that it was FOURTH SUIT FORCING!

you missunderstood me (or you didn't want to), I said 2♣ being game forcing is not standard. Not being forcing.

 

Of course both things are not the same and I am exagerating, but so was josh when he said 2♠ would be completelly artificial (its the kind of game we use to play here :))

[the hog]

Dislike the 1S bid greatly. What is wrong with a hand limiting and shape showing 1NT. Now you can bid 3D if that is forcing, or checkback to find the H fit.