Blame..system, N or S?

[kgr]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakq97hkxdxxxcxxx&s=st8haqxxxdkqxxcak]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

No bidding by opps, North is dealer:

     1♠-2♥

....We play kind of SAYC (not 2/1), but If North bids 3♥ now then bidding is GF (North can bid that with 3 card support and 15+), 4♥ by North would show 4 cards support and 12-14.

2♠ by North is the catch all bid, 12-14:

     2♠-3♦

     3♥-4NT

     5♥-6♥

4NT is RKC since ♥-fit is established, ...or not?

 

- Probably South overbid this, but then it would still have been better to reach 6♠ or 6NT. Who is to blame?

- Maybe it is better to play 2♥ as GF, even without a forcing 1NT?

- Maybe South should have bid 5NT (pick slem) iso 4NT?

Thanks,

Koen

PS: 6♥ was down 1, 6NT and 6♠ both make

[skjaeran]

I'd prefer a 2NT rebid over 2♠ here, not 3♦.

Over 3♥ from north, 3NT is enough with the south hand. This indicates a slam invitational hand, and north might go on with the right hand.

 

No slam is particularly good here. 6NT is the only one I'd not hate bidding. 6♠ and 6♥ are both bad, 6♥ the worst.

[kgr]

I'd prefer a 2NT rebid over 2♠ here, not 3♦.

Note that we don't play 2/1. 2NT would be 11 HCP

[skjaeran]

I'd prefer a 2NT rebid over 2♠ here, not 3♦.

Note that we don't play 2/1. 2NT would be 11 HCP

OK, in that case I'd rebid 3♦. It's not that clear to rebid 3NT over 3♥ then, since that's not forwardgoing at all.

[Free]

3♥ doesn't set fit, it just shows that there are options: North has 2+♥ and can't bid 3NT. So the South hand can bid 3NT or 4NT (quantitative imo - otherwise just start with a cuebid).

[kgr]

3♥ doesn't set fit, it just shows that there are options: North has 2+♥ and can't bid 3NT. So the South hand can bid 3NT or 4NT (quantitative imo - otherwise just start with a cuebid).

Seems ideal to have 4NT as quantitative and 4♣ followed by 4NT as RKC....but isn't this getting too difficult and too much risk for mistakes?

[kenrexford]

If North cannot bid 3♥ initially with a weak hand, then 3♥ is not sufficient to set trumps (apparently). 4NT, therefore, must be quantitative, and is a good bid.

 

If North wants to insist hearts (has six of them, or maybe also the Jack) he probably needs to bid 4♣ or something.

 

FWIW, I think 4NT is best as a quantitative/RKCB bid. North can pass, bid 6NT naturally, or answer RKCB with acceptance value and a real fit. Something like that.

[gnasher]

3♥ doesn't set fit, it just shows that there are options: North has 2+♥ and can't bid 3NT.  So the South hand can bid 3NT or 4NT (quantitative imo - otherwise just start with a cuebid).

Seems ideal to have 4NT as quantitative and 4♣ followed by 4NT as RKC....but isn't this getting too difficult and too much risk for mistakes?

Why? If you have an agreement to cover the situation, there shouldn't be any mistakes.

 

Simply agree that 4NT is natural unless a fit has been found. In this auction, North has shown only two hearts and South has promised only five. A fit hasn't been found, so 4NT is natural.

[Codo]

You must visualize the problem after

1 ♠ 2 ♥ 2 ♠ 3♦.

When you decide that 3 Heart shows a real fit and 3 Spades 6 spades and 3 NT a club stopper, you have no rebid with this hand.

 

So most people play that 3 Heart shows just two of them. Personally, I hate this, but would still use this bid as the least evil.

In this hand, I would like to be in slam opposite a 5323 but not opposite a 5233. But there is little you can do with the given methods, really everybody will rebid 3 HEart with this north hand.

 

I think south should make one more try over 3 heart with 4 Club, showing a control and settle to 4 Heart if this is possible in his methods.

[whereagles]

Another disaster that could have been avoided if people didn't insist on putting stoppers before shape and strength.

 

North should just complete its hand description after 3♦ and bid 3NT, showing a balanced min with misfit.

 

1♠ 2♥

2♠ 3♦

3NT

 

After this, South can opt for a conservative pass or a more ambitious quantitative 4NT. If 4NT, North can then reevaluate and pass or, perhaps, bid 5♠ to show good spades and ask pard to take the final bid.

[Free]

Another disaster that could have been avoided if people didn't insist on putting stoppers before shape and strength.

 

North should just complete its hand description after 3♦ and bid 3NT, showing a balanced min with misfit.

 

1♠ 2♥

2♠ 3♦

3NT

 

After this, South can opt for a conservative pass or a more ambitious quantitative 4NT. If 4NT, North can then reevaluate and pass or, perhaps, bid 5♠ to show good spades and ask pard to take the final bid.

So if responder has a 6-4 you can't set trumps at 3-level or he has to hide his 4 card suit...

[Free]

3♥ doesn't set fit, it just shows that there are options: North has 2+♥ and can't bid 3NT.  So the South hand can bid 3NT or 4NT (quantitative imo - otherwise just start with a cuebid).

Seems ideal to have 4NT as quantitative and 4♣ followed by 4NT as RKC....but isn't this getting too difficult and too much risk for mistakes?

Imo no, this is pretty standard I think.

[Codo]

Another disaster that could have been avoided if people didn't insist on putting stoppers before shape and strength.

 

North should just complete its hand description after 3♦ and bid 3NT, showing a balanced min with misfit.

I still wait for the post that says:

 

We bid

 

1♠ 2 ♥

2 ♠ 3 ♦

3 NT

 

I had AKQxx,Kx,xxx,xxx and the opps took the first 5 club tricks.

Pd had Jx,AQxxx,AQxx,Jx and passed my 3 NT? Why didn't he bid 4 Spade?

 

Nunos answer: Blame partner: He must know that you may not have sufficent stop in clubs. He should bid the obvious 4 Spade with this nice support. Or do you tell them that it was plain unlucky that clubs are 5-3 or worse?

 

Sorry Nuno, your approach is not mainstream for a reason....

[whereagles]

So if responder has a 6-4 you can't set trumps at 3-level or he has to hide his 4 card suit...

You can't have it all. In fact, some gadgetry is needed to disentagle the more complicated situations.

[whereagles]

Another disaster that could have been avoided if people didn't insist on putting stoppers before shape and strength.

 

North should just complete its hand description after 3♦ and bid 3NT, showing a balanced min with misfit.

I still wait for the post that says:

 

We bid

 

1♠ 2 ♥

2 ♠ 3 ♦

3 NT

 

I had AKQxx,Kx,xxx,xxx and the opps took the first 5 club tricks.

Pd had Jx,AQxxx,AQxx,Jx and passed my 3 NT? Why didn't he bid 4 Spade?

 

Nunos answer: Blame partner: He must know that you may not have sufficent stop in clubs. He should bid the obvious 4 Spade with this nice support. Or do you tell them that it was plain unlucky that clubs are 5-3 or worse?

 

Sorry Nuno, your approach is not mainstream for a reason....

I still wait for the day those hands come out AND opps cash a 5-3 club suit sucessfully.

 

I don't follow mainstream ideas. I make them :D

[hanp]

3H over 3D is clear, only beginners would suggest something else. Agree with gnasher wrt 4NT.

[whereagles]

3H over 3D is clear, only beginners would suggest something else. Agree with gnasher wrt 4NT.

Look, it may be clear in some styles of 2/1 bidding. But in styles where 2♠ is the catch all, I don't think it's clear AT ALL.

 

In fact, some people play

 

1♠ 2♥

2♠ 3x

3♥

 

as an honest 3 card heart support, but minimum hand.

 

1♠ 2♥

3♥

 

would, in that style, show extras.

 

Of course, if you're playing a style where 2NT is 12-14 with good stoppers and you support hearts whenever you have 3 of those, then 3♥ is rather obvious and shows just about a hand like this one.

 

Maybe it's just that we have different interpretations as to what "2♠ catch-all" means. Do you see what I mean?

[jdonn]

I don't know what whereagles means but I definitely agree with han. Just because someone bids a certain way doesn't make it a valid style. More of a strange idiosyncracy.

 

I mean it's one thing to rebid 2NT on balanced hands in order to describe your shape and help partner continue to investigate. It's another to wait for our side to show three suits and then at the end of the auction bid 3NT which will probably end the auction, while holding xxx in the suit they are almost certain to lead.

[mikeh]

I don't follow mainstream ideas. I make them :)

I think we will all prefer to wait until your ideas actually result in you performing well at the bridge table :)

 

Idiosyncratic ideas can become mainstream... when they prove their value in real life. Some people dismissed as nutcases are in fact merely ahead of their time, possessed of greater insight than the adherents to current orthodoxy. But most people dismissed as nutcases are and remain nutcases.

 

Anyone who espouses 3N over 3♦ seems destined for the latter group rather than the former. :)

[whereagles]

Idiosyncratic ideas can become mainstream... when they prove their value in real life. Some people dismissed as nutcases are in fact merely ahead of their time, possessed of greater insight than the adherents to current orthodoxy.

See, you do know some stuff. Now, if only you could stop seeing things in a prejudicious way, we could get along much better.

 

I'm not mainstream but at least I give arguments why I think my ideas make sense. You simply dismiss them as rubbish, preferring to adhere to mainstream lore without questioning it. (Aside the fact that, on top of that, you're not particularly polite.)

 

I understand your point of view, but I find this "join the bandwagon" attitude wrong. In bridge it is somewhat innocuous. In life it may be DANGEROUS.

[mikeh]

Idiosyncratic ideas can become mainstream... when they prove their value in real life. Some people dismissed as nutcases are in fact merely ahead of their time, possessed of greater insight than the adherents to current orthodoxy.

See, you do know some stuff. Now, if only you could stop seeing things in a prejudicious way, we could get along much better.

 

I'm not mainstream but at least I give arguments why I think my ideas make sense. You simply dismiss them as rubbish, preferring to adhere to mainstream lore without questioning it. (Aside the fact that, on top of that, you're not particularly polite.)

 

I understand your point of view, but I find this "join the bandwagon" attitude wrong. In bridge it is somewhat innocuous. In life it may be DANGEROUS.

I find that funny... a number of my ideas are not mainstream... thus I often argue against blackwood, I like stronger 2/1 bids in competition than almost everyone else does, I like 2 way stayman over weak notrumps, and so on... and I probably write the most detailed posts of anyone on the forums, explaining why I bid/defend/play as I suggest.. and why I disagree with someone else. I even, on occasion, post that i have changed my mind due to the arguments of others.

 

I admit that I am impolite to you... but, and this may be very unfair of me, I get the distinct impression that you have never been a successful bridge player, are not close to expert status, and yet always posture as an expert... one reason I make this inference is that you rarely, if ever, post any answer to a tough play problem. It is relatively easy to spout semi-coherent stuff about bidding, since lesser players lack the knowledge to see through your ideas, and no one hand proves anything about bidding. But in play... when there is a tough technical problem, there is usually only one 'best' line and, when that is thoroughly explained by a justin or a frances or a waldkk, etc (and i do not mean to slight the others here who routinely post analyses of these problems) the inferior lines are understood by all to be just that.

 

I don't reject your ideas because they are not mainstream... I reject (most) of your ideas because they are fundamentally flawed.. thus, here, biddng 3N as north is idiotic.... and your statement that you have never seen the opps run clubs in such an auction adds to my belief that you don't play in serious competition. if you don't play and have never played in serious competition, you are most unlikely to be an expert.

 

BTW, as a player who for 10 years lived 500 miles away from the nearest expert, I got accustomed to being the local 'gun', who didn't realize how inept he was until he moved to a city with real experts :) I am sure that I was even more insufferable then than I am now :)

[whereagles]

Michael, we're way off topic here. I'll carry on tomorrow, by private message.

 

Whether I'm an expert or not, I leave it to others to judge. I did play for the national junior team several times, though.

[Phil]

Michael, we're way off topic here. I'll carry on tomorrow, by private message.

 

Whether I'm an expert or not, I leave it to others to judge. I did play for the national junior team several times, though.

Nuno, no one said you were a *bad* player, but I would really pay attention to things that Mike says. Spouting attitude about "innovation" is a dead end and does not do anything to endear you to others.

 

There's a lot of good players on here. I would guess I'm in the top 1/4, but frankly I come here to get advice from people like Mike.

 

In turn, if I help out a lesser player or provide a different perspective, I've done my job.

[whereagles]

I do pay atention to what mike says. It would be silly not to admit to his good skill at this game. He's clearly a better card player than I am and, although we disagree on bidding, that disagreement is more on the theoretical side. In bidding judgement situations, he tends to get stuff right more often than I do (though there are cases where I get it right and he doesn't).

 

I played a couple mind sports so far and came out somewhere in the top 1/5. With some effort maybe I could come to 1/7 or 1/10. But almost certainly not above that. Right now I only do bridge B)

[dake50]

Slamming with 10 of 12 control points, 30hcp, no 'good' fit, no short? Must enjoy playing 42% slams; and the auction problems when one/both partners have no extras but still push up. Passify opponents by showing them we can give this match away --you don't need to try to win.