ATB

[andrei]

IMP, all vul, E deals:

 

KT9x

KJTxxx

x

xx

 

 

J8x

9xx

KJ8x

AQJ

 

p -- 1♦ -- 1♠ -- 2♥

p -- 3♥ -- p -- 4♥

x -- p -- p -- p

 

3 aces and 2 ruffs later, -500

[hanp]

North, both bids were terrible.

[pooltuna]

North, both bids were terrible.

!? you think they were that good :)

[ONEferBRID]

After 1D - ( Edit:1S ) - X ( neg, showing 4h; not strong enough for 2H if 5+Hts ).

 

Now if partner bids 2C , you can bid 2H ( non-forcing, showing 5+ Hts ) .

[bucky]

South doesn't have to open, and North doesn't have to bid 2♥. While these two bids are questionable, the worst bid award has to be the final 4♥ raise.

[aguahombre]

After 1D - ( 1S ) - X ( neg, showing 4h; not strong enough for 2H if 5+Hts ).

 

Now if partner bids 2C , you can bid 2H ( non-forcing, showing 5+ Hts ) .

FYP

[aguahombre]

NFB's would be a total blame shift. but I don't see that as part of the conditions in the OP.

[P_Marlowe]

Bids from South

 

#1 1D - he opened, you can agree to pass this hand, but most would open this hand

#2 3H - assuming you play 2H as forcing, South has to find a bid, since he cant

pass, he has a it, he raises, and to show his min, he just makes a single raise,

so unless 2H is nonforcing, 3H is the only reasonable bid

 

Bids from North

 

#1 2H - looks ok, if you play 2H as nonforcing, if you play it as forcing, you are a bit

light

#2 4H - Opener showed a min opener, one happens to have a dead min for a 2H call,

and one bids 4H?

 

Sry, if North starts the discussion, he is dead.

 

After the board is over, he should order somer drinks, and pay the bill.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Phil]

North's hand is very similar to the one Han posted in the 'black 8 count' thread.

 

I don't see the need to bid 2♥ with a hand like this just like I didn't want to bid 2♣ on Han's.

 

4♥ is just as bad although its maybe a little unlucky pard didn't have a doubleton spade and wasted diamond cards. .

 

South did nothing wrong except agree to play with N.

[hanp]

Strongly disagree that the hands are very similar. There are two big differences.

 

First of all, here you have a negative double available that also shows hearts. The second difference is that clubs is lower than opener's suit so by bidding 2C you can still stop at the 2-level. By bidding a forcing 2H (above opener's suit) you are forcing much higher.

 

The club suit was also marginally better than this suit.

[Phil]

Strongly disagree that the hands are very similar. There are two big differences.

 

First of all, here you have a negative double available that also shows hearts. The second difference is that clubs is lower than opener's suit so by bidding 2C you can still stop at the 2-level. By bidding a forcing 2H (above opener's suit) you are forcing much higher.

 

The club suit was also marginally better than this suit.

I stand by my statement that the hands are similar. Obviously the suits are different, which gives us different options for the way they are bid.

 

2♣ on the other hand is a problem, since many play that we are in a force through 2N. If 2♣ creates a force through 2 of opener's suit only, then it isn't as big of a deal. Perhaps the level of the force should dictate how weak a 2♣ call is.

[jdonn]

I agree that 4♥ was the worst bid. Partner invited and we have a 7 count for a bid that shows 10+. Even if the nice shape was used as an excuse to upgrade to 2♥, which seems a bit much, it can't then be re-used to upgrade to an even better hand!

[jdonn]

Strongly disagree that the hands are very similar. There are two big differences.

 

First of all, here you have a negative double available that also shows hearts. The second difference is that clubs is lower than opener's suit so by bidding 2C you can still stop at the 2-level. By bidding a forcing 2H (above opener's suit) you are forcing much higher.

 

The club suit was also marginally better than this suit.

I stand by my statement that the hands are similar. Obviously the suits are different, which gives us different options for the way they are bid.

I'll settle this. Han's hand had 1 more hcp, a better spot in the suit, and most importantly a lower suit. If just the first two points it would be "very similar" to this hand but given the third it's merely "similar". QED

[jonottawa]

As Phil said, very similar to the black 8 count hand.

 

Notice also that even opposite that filthy opener, 3N (on 19 high) actually has play (not that you'd want to be there.)

[neilkaz]

100% blame to north here. Bidding a forcing 2♥ on a good 7 count is quite pushy, but carrying onto game over what can be a dead minimum like south has, is really asking for the trouble he received.

 

Something tells me that this was posted bcuz north tried to defend his actions by blaming south for opening a flat 12 count and then supporting with weak 3 card support even though his 3♥ rebid is forced.

 

I agree with Phil, the only blame south gets is in deciding to play with north.

[hanp]

Strongly disagree that the hands are very similar. There are two big differences.

 

First of all, here you have a negative double available that also shows hearts. The second difference is that clubs is lower than opener's suit so by bidding 2C you can still stop at the 2-level. By bidding a forcing 2H (above opener's suit) you are forcing much higher.

 

The club suit was also marginally better than this suit.

I stand by my statement that the hands are similar. Obviously the suits are different, which gives us different options for the way they are bid.

I'll settle this. Han's hand had 1 more hcp, a better spot in the suit, and most importantly a lower suit. If just the first two points it would be "very similar" to this hand but given the third it's merely "similar". QED

Sorry Josh, but the fact that we have a negative double here to show hearts is the most important factor.

[bucky]

Sorry Josh, but the fact that we have a negative double here to show hearts is the most important factor.

The availability of negative double shows the difference between major and minor suits. But that also has built-in logic based on bidding level. Assuming partner responds at minimum level (and opponents stay quiet), you can make a negative double then bid hearts at 2-level non-forcing, while direct 2♥ won't be able to do that.

[rhm]

I agree that 4♥ was the worst bid. Partner invited and we have a 7 count for a bid that shows 10+. Even if the nice shape was used as an excuse to upgrade to 2♥, which seems a bit much, it can't then be re-used to upgrade to an even better hand!

So if 4♥ was the worst bid this raises the question, should North have anticipated that there would be 2 ruffs for the defense?

 

How would the bidding go if South held

 

♠xx

♥Qxxx

♦Axxx

♣Axx

 

(Not that I would open this hand either)

 

In my opinion 4♥ was the best bid. 2♥ was questionable unless playing NFB and I do not think opening the South hand (rubbish!) is winning Bridge either.

 

However, passing 3♥ is a big mistake in my opinion. The whole point of overbidding 2♥ by North, which is questionable is, because you might well have a ♥ fit.

Having overbid already is no excuse not to reevaluate your hand (though a common error).

Once the ♥ fit comes to light the hand improves and you should not stop short of game opposite an opening hand. That South does not have an opening is not North's fault.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[hanp]

How would the bidding go if South held

 

♠xx

♥Qxxx

♦Axxx

♣Axx

 

(Not that I would open this hand either)

 

South would bid 4H.

 

This is not an opening hand, but once partner bids a forcing 2H and you have 4 trumps to the queen, two aces and potential ruffing value, I think it would be wrong to bid only 3H.

 

I think it is rare that partner holds 4-card support for the 3H bid.

[rhm]

How would the bidding go if South held

 

♠xx

♥Qxxx

♦Axxx

♣Axx

 

(Not that I would open this hand either)

 

South would bid 4H.

 

This is not an opening hand, but once partner bids a forcing 2H and you have 4 trumps to the queen, two aces and potential ruffing value, I think it would be wrong to bid only 3H.

 

I think it is rare that partner holds 4-card support for the 3H bid.

Maybe and maybe not

 

But there are also plenty of minimum opening hands with 3 card support where you want to be in game, for example:

 

xx

Qxx

AKxxx

Axx

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

that still looks like a 4H bid to me, best possible balanced shape and concentration. I think a 2/1 in competition should allow weak NT's forcing to game, don't you think so as well?

[jdonn]

Sorry 4♥ is terrible, good try with the examples though. All it takes is partner having specifically 2 aces, the trump queen, and a 4♥ bid to make game.