ATB

[jdonn]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sxxhxxxdkxxxcq9xx&s=saxxxhqdaxxcaktxx]133|200|Scoring: MP

All the x's are quite small[/hv]

 

1♣ - (1♥) - P - (2♥)

Dbl - (3♥) - P - (P)

P

 

Whose fault for selling out? N, S, bad luck, or nothing wrong with the contract?

[Cascade]

North has a clear bid.

[the hog]

I think Nth should bid 4C. South did as much as possible.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

over 1H North could have bid 2C, I am not sure bidding 2C

is matadory, but showing the likely fit is usually best.

 

If th partnership decided, that a direct raise showes more,

reasonable, than thats it, so all in all bad luck / normal

contract, I dont like to defend with 4m against 3M.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[karlson]

I would double 3h as south.

[EricK]

The way I answer ATB problems like this is to look at the hands, read through the auction and see at which point I involuntarily say "huh?!" Using this highly scientific method (patent pending), I determine the blame lies with North.

[gnasher]

South has done all that he was put on this earth to do. With North's hand, I'd have bid 2♣ over 1♥. Having not done that, passing again over 3♥ seems very feeble; I'd have thought about bidding game.

[zheddh]

i think 2C the first time is very obvious. Having passed that, I am not sure if i will bid over 3H

[ArtK78]

2♣ or pass on the first round by North are both OK. I think the criticism of the failure to bid 2♣ over 1♥ is really double-dummy.

 

However, the failure to bid 4♣ is another matter. North really should bid the second time now that he knows that there is a real club fit.

[655321]

Whatever blame there is (if any - sometimes 4♣ won't make) must go to North, not sure what more South is supposed to do.

 

I don't like the initial pass by North. As usual, describing and limiting one's hand as soon as possible makes the rest of the auction simpler. Having passed the first time, North has an unpleasant choice between passing 3♥ (forever suppressing primary support for partner) and bidding at the 4 level, vulnerable at MP, with a possibility of being doubled for -200. Perhaps he should bid 4♣ anyway, but 2♣ on the first round was surely clear.

[hotShot]

When South is opening 1♣ and both opps bid ♥, than North can count:

 

South can't have more than 2♥, he does not have 5♠ and assuming an American style he should not have 4♦.

So South shape has to be 4234 or (more likely) 4135 ( or 4144 perhaps not playing American style).

 

While I agree with North first pass, bidding 4♣ should be considered and has a lot of appeal. Working points and shortness in ♠ are goodies.

[Hanoi5]

Most probably nothing wrong with the contract, although if the issue is pushed too much I'd say South could double again.

[mtvesuvius]

I'm fine with 2♣ by North, however I personally would not bid it. 4♣ over 3♥ seems like a good bet though... South did all he could do, I blame North.

[mcphee]

N is to shoulder complete blame here. I do not at all mind passing first time as I see no reason to get involved. Passing 3H however is not good at all and it is time to join in with 4C, with 5C a consideration.

[Phil]

I would not bid 2♣ with North looking at ♥xxx. But after South doubles 2♥ we know about a very likely nine card fit and no heart wastage, so I think North has a clear 4♣ call.

[kenrexford]

over 1H North could have bid 2C, I am not sure bidding 2C

is matadory, but showing the likely fit is usually best.

I was thinking that bidding 2♣ might be asking to get gored, but North must grab the bull by the horns and bid 4♣. North needs to show some cape-ability.

[Jlall]

Love the first pass by north. Hate the second pass by north. Sure you could get owned if partner is 4234 18-19 and you bid 4C, but it's way more likely when the opps bid 3H they don't have no points and 8 hearts, and instead partner has 4135.

[skjaeran]

Bidding 2♣ over 1♥ looks really bad to me. I'd never do that, clear pass IMO.

 

Over 3♥ it's entirely different. Now north has a very clear 4♣ bid, in fact, I'd bid 4♣ with a tad less.

[Apollo81]

If North responds 2♣, I bet the final contract would be 3♥x at least as often as 4♣.

 

I'll go with blaming North at his second call.

[gnasher]

I've noticed before that I raise a minor-suit opening in competition more often than most on these forums. What's wrong with this one - too few clubs, or too little high-card strength?

[Jlall]

I've noticed before that I raise a minor-suit opening in competition more often than most on these forums.  What's wrong with this one - too few clubs, or too little high-card strength?

A little of both imo.

 

Edit: Also for the record I am admittedly sounder than almost everyone good after 1x-(1Y) when making negative doubles, raising minors, and bidding 1N. Would have guessed most would bid 2C with this hand.

[nick_s]

I've noticed before that I raise a minor-suit opening in competition more often than most on these forums. What's wrong with this one - too few clubs, or too little high-card strength?

Maybe because you play a weak NT?

[jdonn]

I've noticed before that I raise a minor-suit opening in competition more often than most on these forums.  What's wrong with this one - too few clubs, or too little high-card strength?

A little of both imo.

 

Edit: Also for the record I am admittedly sounder than almost everyone good after 1x-(1Y) when making negative doubles, raising minors, and bidding 1N. Would have guessed most would bid 2C with this hand.

I'm shocked to hear that because I make negative doubles at the 1 level very light, but I have seen you recommend negative doubles at the 2 level that would scare me.

[mikeh]

Late to the thread... I agree with the initial pass and with a late round 4♣ call by north.... but only if our style is to open 1♦ with, say, 4=1=4=4, since in that case we have a reasonably safe inference that partner has 5 clubs. Opposite a chunky 4=1=3=5, which seems to be the most probable holding on the auction, this hand is too good to sell out to 3♥.

 

As for an immediate 2♣ raise, that seems to me to be way too dangerous except in a weak notrump situation. I don't know the odds of a balanced 15-17 compared to a distributional hand... especially mediated by the overcall which surely alters the odds given my heart length.... I would probably regret my raise opposite a balanced notrump hand anyway.

 

Last year, the raise on a similar hand (in that case 3=2=4=4 5 count) led to a slam missed at the other table after the initial pass. But we were playing a weak notrump method at the time.