hrothgar Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 [hv=n=saxxxhqxxdkqxckxx&s=skxxhakjtdxcaqjt9]133|200|[/hv] IMPS Auction starts: 1♣ - 1♠2♥ - 3♦3♠ - 3N Question 1: Agree with the auction so far? Question 2: How do you continue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 1. No. I would bid this way for the first three rounds:1♣ 1♠2♥ 3♣3♠ 4NT (natural)If I were worried partner wouldn't take 4NT as natural after I confirmed a fit then 4♣ is an acceptable alternative. 2. From your start it's hard to know without having any definition to 3♦ (even given that bid I don't see why responder didn't bid 4♣ next). Over 3NT I think opener has to pass, he isn't aware of all responder's extra values and lacks the safety to move farther. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I prefer to bid 3♣ rather than 3♦ as north if its avaible. what is 3NT? After a forced 4SF, we should raise clubs at last. Innercy will get us to the cold slam in clubs, althou the slam could be on a finese as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I agree with everything Josh wrote. 3♦ to me is a strange bid, unless we had no cheaper game-forcing bid, but at any rate I certainly would have bid 4♣ instead of 3NT. On the actual hand of course south has a pass, south has described his hand very well and north has placed the final contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impact Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 I must have missed something:- After the reverse by South, the North hand is loking at 14HCP including prime support for opener's first bid suit, control of both of the other 2 suits, and his only unsupported minor Honour (the HQ) is in opener's 2nd suit. All of that screams slam, and assuming it was a pick-up partnership with no special agreements my unambiguous choice would have been 4C to clue partner in! Actually, if you could agree C with 3C, and later Kickback or KCB in C given your controls that would be fine but many peole still play the return to 3C as n-f (whether you like that or not). 2. Frankly, I don't think opener has an excuse for another bid as he has no huge extra values after responder effectively signs off in 3NT. I would be reluctant to partner North again as he obviously despises slam bonuses, and hogs the hand under all circumstances! apologies for any offence in advance :-;regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 1. I agree with north first bid and with all bids from south. 2. I bid 4 Club. Partner bid 4sf and now, after I showed 3 card support, he bids NT. This could show doubt about the diamond stop (my guess) or a hand with Slam interest (obviously norths idea). In both cases I must bid on. I really HATE Norths bidding, he should have raised partner instead of 4sf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 1. I'm not sure I agree with 3♦ and then 3NT. Of course it depends on what they mean. 2. Depending on the meaning of 3♦ the best continuation could be Pass, 4NT or 6NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmunte1 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 1. I definitely prefer 3♣ instead of 3♦2. In the proposed sequence, i would bid 4♣ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Everyone seems to assume that 3♣ would have been forcing. Do you assume that you're playing Lebensohl/Ingberman without any agreement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 prefer 3c over 3d3c=natural and 100% game force that means 2nt is default non game force rebid. but expect opener to rebid.2s=rebid =5spades....less than game force but expect opener to rebid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 #1 No. 3D? Assuming you play something like Lebensohl, 3C by North should be clear cut.#2 I guess, I have to bid a quantitative 4NT. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Everyone seems to assume that 3♣ would have been forcing. Do you assume that you're playing Lebensohl/Ingberman without any agreement? Gnasher raises a valuable point: Partner and I don't play together very frequently.We had not discussed Lebensohl over reverses. The 3♦ bid was intended to establish an absolute game force and (hopefully) suggest extra values. I think one of the big issues on this hand was reverse style (does South have significant extra compared to the minimum necessary for a reverse?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Sitting opposite any partner (from int to exp.)I had taken 3♣ as forcing. This is the best treatment, I would believe that it is the most common treatment and it may even work when partner is not on the same wavelength. But despite this, south cannot pass 3 NT when he takes his partner serious. Which hand shall partner have after this bidding? Passsing 3 NT is at least lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 <snip>I think one of the big issues on this hand was reverse style (does South have significant extra compared to the minimum necessary for a reverse?) Hi, I would say yes, although I am not quite sure about the significant part. As it is, NA reverse style you are approx. a King better than a dead min / maybe only a Queen.I guess withouth the King of spades some would make the reverse, some would raise to 2S, although I would say, that the hand would be too strong for a single raise, at least it would be super max.Since you dont play often together, I doubt that you should gothis conservative path, because it is quite certain that partnerwont be on the same wavelength. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Agree with Uwe, south has etras after reverse, Kxx IN PARTNER'S SUIT, and solid cards in the others is enough to consider it extras. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Agree with Uwe, south has etras after reverse, Kxx IN PARTNER'S SUIT, and solid cards in the others is enough to consider it extras.When partner bids 3NT he says he doesn't have a suit. So ♠Kxx should not be overrated. But on the other hand, S might have stretched with the actual distribution, and this time he has surely not. 3♦ -> 3NT is unacceptable. It all depends on system, but N must show strong values. There are many possible ways, 3♦ -> 4NT natural3♦ -> 4♣ -> cuebid3♣ (if forcing) -> 4NT natural or 4♣ or cuebid2NT (if natural forcing) -> 4♣ or 4NT4♣etc. Which to choose depends on what's available.South would be happy to cooperate towards slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 First three calls are fine. Don't like 3♦ and I much prefer 3♣ if its forcing. Over 3♠, I strongly prefer 4♣. 4N is kind of descriptive, but its reckless with those diamonds and its a space hog. It also does not say "I have three big cards for you pard". Over 4♣, I'd expect 4♥...4♠...5♣...6♣ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 Everyone seems to assume that 3♣ would have been forcing. Do you assume that you're playing Lebensohl/Ingberman without any agreement? Yes. But as I mentioned, if you are worried about it and bid 3♦ anyway then that in no way excuses the 3NT bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fachiru Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 1) The 3♦ bid really sucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanM Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 This particular auction is awkward when you play a reverse style where the 4th suit is the "negative" bid over a reverse. In fact, it's so unusual (4th suit higher than opener's first suit) that in my partnerships we define it separately from other reverses. Our agreement is that 3♣ is non-forcing and that 3♦ is like 4th suit forcing, implying club tolerance. Obviously, I have no idea whether that is even remotely mainstream, but once you decide that it isn't sensible to use 2NT as the negative bid (often wrong-sides 3NT both when responder does and doesn't bid 2NT), it seems like the best agreement for this awkward auction. Having said that, I don't think this hand is right for 3♦, even assuming that you've agreed 3♣ is non-forcing and 3♦ is a game force with club tolerance. 2NT seems to be better, since it shows the diamond stopper(s). But of course that wouldn't be a good bid if you thought 2NT might be the non-forcing negative bid here. I suspect that's the real problem with this auction - N was worried that either 2NT or 3♣ might show a minimum and be non-forcing. Obviously, it was better to make a clearly forcing bid than to make a bid that might be passed. Still, the result of the uncertainty about method was that responder badly misdescribed the hand, suggesting concern about the diamond stopper. Then responder bid 3NT to try to overcome part of the misdescription. The problem with 3NT of course was that it clearly isn't forcing, so although it described the diamond stopper(s) it didn't adequately describe the strength. On the auction so far, North knows that s/he's facing a 3415 hand. I think that opposite that shape, the cards outside diamonds are just a little too good to settle for 3NT, so probably N should bid 4♣ instead, continuing to misdescribe the diamonds, but doing a better job of describing the values. Or 4NT, describing values and diamond stopper(s) and maybe not adequately showing the club support. The main reason for S to act over 3NT is that I think N's auction should show doubt about the diamond stopper, with club tolerance. In that case, 5♣ may easily be a better contract than 3NT. And if N has something like QJxx, xx, Axxx, Kxx, 6♣ is (I think) better than 3NT on the obvious diamond lead. I think I've convinced myself that S should bid, not because the hand is significantly better than a minimum reverse, but because it is unsuitable for 3NT when partner has doubt about diamonds. Of course, I'm basing "doubt about diamonds" on the failure to bid 2NT last time, which was really based on concern that 2NT might not be forcing, so maybe all of this is wrong and failure to discuss reverses in general and this particular awkward auction in particular is the complete "culprit" here with neither player seriously at fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 2) How do i continue? Before I do anything else, I dump the 3♦/3nt bidder into my s*** list fast. The you're an idiot, because the 3♦ bidder plays better then 98% of this forum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fachiru Posted February 23, 2009 Report Share Posted February 23, 2009 2) How do i continue? Before I do anything else, I dump the 3♦/3nt bidder into my s*** list fast. The you're an idiot, because the 3♦ bidder plays better then 98% of this forum...I must have touched a nerve... So, let's review:The vast majority if not all players posting on this thread oppose the bidding as it occurred, but the bidder (probably yourself actually) "plays better than 98% of this forum" Nice logic and probably the best we'll ever get from you. Bridge-wise, you clearly don't belong in this forum, but you also failed the main requirement to post here and that is: to refrain from personal attacks. Oh, and your offensive post is being reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted February 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 2) How do i continue? Before I do anything else, I dump the 3♦/3nt bidder into my s*** list fast. The you're an idiot, because the 3♦ bidder plays better then 98% of this forum...I must have touched a nerve... So, let's review:The vast majority if not all players posting on this thread oppose the bidding as it occurred, but the bidder (probably yourself actually) "plays better than 98% of this forum" Nice logic and probably the best we'll ever get from you. Bridge-wise, you clearly don't belong in this forum, but you also failed the main requirement to post here and that is: to refrain from personal attacks. Oh, and your offensive post is being reported. What can I say... When random jackasses start spouting off, I sometimes take offense. As for your latest contribution: 1. Partner's won the flight A GNTs, so I stand by my comments about her playing abilities. 2. Partner chose a bid that didn't work. We didn't have detailed agreements about continuations over reverses. She made a bid she was absolutely sure that wouldn't be passed... The auction didn't turn out too well. So be it. In any case, believe it or not, you can't necessarily judge a player's ability based on a single bid. If this is evidence of the type of logical prowess we can expect from you, then you real might want to rethink your comments about who should/should not be posting where... Some might claim that its risky for me to call you an idiot based on one posting, however, I'm a pretty good judge of character... I'm happy to see that your latest posting confirms my initial impression. In any case, please feel free to go and whine to the moderators ... Won't be the first time its happened... Won't be the last.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wackojack Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 In defence of North's bidding from a non-expert. 1. Lebensohl/Ingerberman was not agreed so 3♣ would be non forcing. 2. It is a normal manouvre to show a hand interested in slam by first bidding the 4th suit and then following up with 3NT. So in this case it does not mean that there is uncertainty about stops in the diamond suit. It is just a stronger bid than 3NT direct. 3. European style, South has sufficient to bid on. 4. The scoring method is given as unknown. Certainly at MP North should not bid 4♣ btw I find the "s***t list" post offensive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 2) How do i continue? Before I do anything else, I dump the 3♦/3nt bidder into my s*** list fast. The you're an idiot, because the 3♦ bidder plays better then 98% of this forum...I must have touched a nerve... So, let's review:The vast majority if not all players posting on this thread oppose the bidding as it occurred, but the bidder (probably yourself actually) "plays better than 98% of this forum" Nice logic and probably the best we'll ever get from you. Bridge-wise, you clearly don't belong in this forum, but you also failed the main requirement to post here and that is: to refrain from personal attacks. Oh, and your offensive post is being reported. Just a simple comment: The problem occurred in a pickup partnership, i.e. the 3D bidder was not 100% sure, if the partnership did play Lebensohl over Reverses. He tried to come up with a safe way of forcing to game.I agree, that it would have been better, if thestarting post, would have mentioned this. Being a nice person: I say, you did not read thewhole thread, before you did post your first reply,fair enough, the wording could be improved, but ok,not ok, but I patient, sometimes to much. But even I would expect that you did read the completethread, which did not grew too fast, before you made your 2nd post.And than you would have found, that the setup was not a regular partnership, which makes your response a response which misses the problem. With kind regardsMarlowe 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.