Jump to content

Hand from Canada


aguahombre

Recommended Posts

[hv=n=shak8742dj65cajt6&s=sq963ht3daqtck843]133|200|p--1h

1s-2h

2N-3C[/hv]

 

Edit: Sorry, couldn't fix the hand (or perhaps change the forum); South dealt, Vul at IMPs

 

In the Canadian Swiss final match(reported in the ACBL Bulletin), the auction ended there. This can't really be an ATB because it involves a disagreement about the forcing nature of 3.

 

Assuming the calls up through opener's 2 rebid are in accord with this world class pair's agreements:

 

1--Do you agree with 2NT, or should responder just raise the known 6-2 heart fit? No gadgets available.

2--In your opinion, should 3 be forcing (North's opinion) or NF (South's opinion)?

3--Should South have bid 3H anyway after 3C?

Edited by aguahombre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me S failed to adequately appreciate the value of a red game. You'll often get a lead here and game has play opposite as little as AQJxxx and out. I'd have bid 3N over 2H (since partner likely? would have preempted with a less-than-full opener.) Partner should be able to infer doubleton support for that call.

 

Curious what S thought N should bid over 2N.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always understood that the bidding sequence is weaker than . As a result, I think that 3C should be non-forcing opposite an invitational 2N, as hands that have the values to accept game tries would have chosen a different sequence of bids. I also think the N hand should bid with their actual hand - The AJT is just enough to push it to that intermediate sequence in my opinion.

 

The fact that the bidding was systematic through 2H suggests to me that N-S have different agreements than myself, however, so my "standard" suggestion might not apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always understood that the bidding sequence is weaker than . As a result, I think that 3C should be non-forcing opposite an invitational 2N, as hands that have the values to accept game tries would have chosen a different sequence of bids. I also think the N hand should bid with their actual hand - The AJT is just enough to push it to that intermediate sequence in my opinion.

Agree with this. Something like Pass-1;-1-2; 3-3; 4-pass. Bidding 4 shouldnt be too difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1: I agree with 2NT

2: 3C would be NF for me

3: I prefer the S hand to bid 3H but can live with passing.

 

It is my habit to bid 2C after 1S when I have a decent 6-4. Treating 3C is NF makes more sense to me as what would you do in a similar situation with jx Aj10xxx x and AJ10x is short a hand unsuitable for NT. Bearing in mind that the S hand may in fact be keeping the auction alive in hope of producing the vul game, after all they may hold a fitting H honor making a try for a 9 trick game.

 

Consider if the auction had developed with C being bid at the second turn and the S hand tries 2N. When N now continues on to 3H it is a lot easier to visualize a possible game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hv=n=shak8742dj65cajt6&s=sq963ht3daqtck843]133|200|p--1h

1s-2h

2N-3C[/hv]

 

Edit: Sorry, couldn't fix the hand (or perhaps change the forum); South dealt, Vul at IMPs

 

In the Canadian Swiss final match(reported in the ACBL Bulletin), the auction ended there. This can't really be an ATB because it involves a disagreement about the forcing nature of 3.

 

Assuming the calls up through opener's 2 rebid are in accord with this world class pair's agreements:

 

1--Do you agree with 2NT, or should responder just raise the known 6-2 heart fit? No gadgets available.

2--In your opinion, should 3 be forcing (North's opinion) or NF (South's opinion)?

3--Should South have bid 3H anyway after 3C?

I'd just bid 3H. spot cards in spade is rather weak, I don't see any reason to bypass the H support.

 

After 2NT, I just play 3C as forcing. I don't buy the theory that 2H then 3C should show a weak hand. x KQJxxx AK Jxxx, it doesn't make a lot of sense to bid 2C instead of 2H IMO, unless you play 2C as one round forcing.

 

This is a typical problem for those focus too much on partials and 3NTs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dealer: ?????
Vul: ????
Scoring: Unknown
[space]
AK8742
J65
AJT6
Q963
T3
AQT
K843
p--1h

1s-2h

2N-3C

 

Edit: Sorry, couldn't fix the hand (or perhaps change the forum); South dealt, Vul at IMPs

 

In the Canadian Swiss final match(reported in the ACBL Bulletin), the auction ended there.  This can't really be an ATB because it involves a disagreement about the forcing nature of 3

 

Assuming the calls up through opener's 2 rebid are in accord with this world class pair's agreements:

 

1--Do you agree with 2NT, or should responder just raise the known 6-2 heart fit? No gadgets available.

2--In your opinion, should 3 be forcing (North's opinion) or NF (South's opinion)?

3--Should South have bid 3H anyway after 3C?

I'd just bid 3H. spot cards in spade is rather weak, I don't see any reason to bypass the H support.

 

After 2NT, I just play 3C as forcing. I don't buy the theory that 2H then 3C should show a weak hand. x KQJxxx AK Jxxx, it doesn't make a lot of sense to bid 2C instead of 2H IMO, unless you play 2C as one round forcing.

 

This is a typical problem for those focus too much on partials and 3NTs.

sure, but why would you introduce the club suit now? Wouldn't you just bid 3N with that hand? You're not interested in a club slam, or a club game, just bid 3N.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...