Swiss hand #2 -- ATB

[dellache]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sxxhkjxxdkqxct9xx&s=saqjtxxhaxxdckqxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

_P_ _P 1♠ 2♦

_p* _P DBL 3♦

_3♥ _P 4♥

(*) DBL would have been "Drury-like"[/hv]

Your stupid system doesn't allow you to DBL 2♦ w/ the North hand at his second turn. Now :

1. What was the worst bid : the DBL, 3♥, 4♥ ?

2. ATB.

[xcurt]

Presumably your system doesn't prevent you from making a penalty double of 3♦?

[suokko]

depends a lot of your style and number of cards 3♥ promises in your system. If it denies 5 cards most of time then south should think some else contract. But in end biding 4♥ isn't horrible bid.

 

I think only alternative bids for north are the double of 3♦ which would show more defense in my option.

 

For north 3♠ is option with good 6 carder and extras. This option is specially attractive in case you don't have 5 card ♥ and values for pass over 2♦.

[aguahombre]

Opener had a very reasonable 3S call after Responder finally showed some cards which he couldn't do with a neg dbl on the previous round. By doubling, and then bidding 3S, opener has shown about the playing strength he has, and the number of spades he has. You will end up in 4 spades.

 

For south to bid 4H seems just plain wrong, since North really is unlikely to have more than 4 of that suit.

 

You already know what a system which doesn't allow the neg double/2D is, so I won't belabor that point.

[Codo]

Blame the system if you need to pass with this hand as north. I think a take out is of more vaule then drury for a double.

 

Later I would bid 3 NT with the north hand and show my values and my hand pattern. But 3 Heart is reasonable as well.

 

I have no big problems with the 4 Heart bid. The 4-3 Fit could play quite well. Of course, if 3 Spade had shown this hand, this had been a better choice. But I am not sure that it had.

[gnasher]

Whatever you think of the methods and the earlier auction, 4♥ is clearly wrong. South should bid 4♦, choice of games. Surely nobody thinks this one is a slam try?

 

Of the other calls: double seems normal; 3♥ is unattractive with only four hearts and so much in diamonds, but North has to do something. Looking at both hands, a penalty double of 3♦ would have worked, but North doesn't know that South has so much defence.

[Codo]

Whatever you think of the methods and the earlier auction, 4♥ is clearly wrong.  South should bid 4♦, choice of games.  Surely nobody thinks this one is a slam try?

I guess 4 ♦ should show a hand with just 3 HEarts. But does it show 6 spades?

 

And if not (and what would you do with 5314 and 5 strong spades?), why should north choose the 5-2 instead of the 4-3 fit?

[hanp]

4H.

 

Double and 3H were normal. Pass was bad system.

[gnasher]

I guess 4 ♦ should show a hand with just 3 HEarts. But does it show 6 spades?

 

And if not (and what would you do with 5314 and 5 strong spades?), why should north choose the 5-2 instead of the 4-3 fit?

Because:

- A 5-2 fit usually plays better than a 4-3 fit. I know that sometimes we'd prefer to be forced in the 3-card hand of a 4-3 than in the 5-card hand of a 5-2, but on this hand North knows that being forced isn't going to be a problem.

- After 4♦, responder knows that hearts is a 4-3 fit, but spades might be either a 5-2 or a 6-2.

 

On reflection, however, South's spades are pretty good, so maybe he should just bid 4♠ over 3♥. That might be OK even opposite 1-5 in the majors.

[xcurt]

OK, this is tough because both N and S are in between calls. I prefer all of these to the table auction, starting with the balancing call

 

3S-3N

Dbl-(3D)-Dbl-AP

Dbl-(3D)-Dbl-3S-3N

Dbl-(3D)-3N

 

3H was the worst call by far, I think, since I think it's nullo with respect to the alternative of 3NT. Other calls are debatable. Hence my earlier quick comment.

[dellache]

This was probably our worst sequence in the whole week-end, producing a well deserved -10-Imps. This led to an interesting discussion inside our team, including about all the remarks made here in BBF, except the very nice idea of Andy Bowles (imo).

 

I'll sum up, what we came up with :

 

1. Get rid of the ridiculous "DBL=drury-like" treatment.

 

2. I made the DBL after some thought. I wanted to bid 3♠ first (apparently like Xcurt), but then :

- I didnot want to miss a possible laydown 6♣ ;

- I thought that I would not dislike to play 2♦-X if partner judged to pass it (that was probably a wrong idea from me with a void, even at these colours) ;

- I thought that I might want to play 4♥ in the 5-3 (possibly 6-3) fit.

Afterwards, I thought that the semi-solid spade suit deserved to be bid at once, rejecting all the three minor options above : I finally prefer the rusty 3♠ balancing bid.

 

3. I thought my pard's 3♥ was totally misleading : you cannot have less Hearts, you cannot have more diamond stoppers, and even facing 4♥, 3NT will often play much better. I would clearly have bid 3NT as many other posters (whacking 3♦ was another possibility... that also could turn out badly).

 

4. I made the dumb 4♥ bid according to the (wrong) strategy I had envisioned (see point 2. above) : I didnot want to bid 3♠ now (which might be passed out), I didnot want to commit to 4♠ (why double in first place if I plan to bid 4♠ on 3♥ ?) and thought I was stuck. And chose a stupid 4♥ bid (even the 5-3 might be worse than the 6-1 in some cases). Theorically, Andy's suggestion looks nice, and I didnot think about it (although I posted a similar hand some weeks ago here, where 4♦ was chosen as a choice of game). Anyway, my pard doesn't play more than 400 boards a year, and we do not really have time to discuss agreements. So the thoughtful 4♦ would have been a dangerous *practical* bid.

 

Thanx all for your nice comments !

Regards.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sxxhkjxxdkqxct9xx&s=saqjtxxhaxxdckqxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

_P_ _P 1♠ 2♦

_p* _P DBL 3♦

_3♥ _P 4♥

(*) DBL would have been "Drury-like"[/hv]

Your stupid system doesn't allow you to DBL 2♦ w/ the North hand at his second turn. Now :

1. What was the worst bid : the DBL, 3♥, 4♥ ?

2. ATB.

partner had several possible calls with 4♥ he could have bid 2 or 3♥. That having failed to occur take advantage of your ♦ stopper and call 2 or 3 NT

[Fluffy]

oh yeah when I saw the hand I though: I'll post that gnasher would bid 4♦ COG hehe. Too late :D

 

 

But those of us who don't play such conventions would rather bid 3♠ than 4♥.

 

Doubing 3♦ sounds takeout for me but the area its a bit grey. Anyway if its penalty things aren't so bad yet.