ATB

[Poky]

MP.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj32hqjtdak93ck73&n=shak72djt852caj82&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp2d2s3c3sdp4hp4sp5dppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Explanations added:

2♦= inverted, 10+

3♣/4♥ = natural, suit

Double = negative (double on 2♠ would be negative too)

Other = undiscussed

[mfa1010]

Can you elaborate on what the bidding means? I assume 2♦ was forcing (to what?), but the rest is a mystery to me.

 

At first glance I would suggest that north should splinter 4♠, and I have no clue why south X'es 3♠ and then bids 4♠.

[mtvesuvius]

Assuming the bidding was natural, I blame South. Partner has shown a slammish 13(45) or 04(45), even after South made a penalty double of 3♠. I think that without anything wasted in spades, South should certainly move over 4♥, bidding 4♠ seems to be a turnoff to partner. I'd bid 5♣ over 4♥. North should bid 6♦ now IMO.

 

North could have also bid 3♠ over 2♠, but perhaps not best without an agreement if this is a stopper ask, or a splinter etc...

 

I certainly don't want to be in a grand!!!

[rduran1216]

South went off the deep end here. What on earth is 4S? Why is south looking for a spade stop?

 

6D is the good contract, 7D is ludicrous

[ArtK78]

South went off the deep end here. What on earth is 4S? Why is south looking for a spade stop?

 

6D is the good contract, 7D is ludicrous

Ludicrous is a little strong, as 7♦ will probably make more than 40% of the time.

 

Any 2-2 diamond break and 7♦ is cold. It can also make on some lucky 3-1 diamond breaks with a singleton ♦Q and a favorable distribution of the cards.

 

Do I want to be in 7♦? No. Is it ludicrous? No.

[mike777]

zero blame for not getting to 7d

Close to zero blame for missing 6d.

[dboxley]

100% to South. North might have bid 3S over 2S as he can correct 3NT to 4C but his auction didn't cause any problems. I'm not sure why S doubled 3S, it should be clear that this is a good fitting hand. I would like to pass 3S if it were forcing but since I'm not sure I would bid 4D, 4C might get pd too excited. 4H showed slam interest even though S showed wasted cards in spades. Now S further compounded the problem by cue bidding 4S! N had more than shown his hand and rightly bid only 5D.

 

BTW, I mistakenly voted 100% to North rather than South. Just so you don't have to wonder who would be that stupid.

[rduran1216]

Ludicrous is a little strong, as 7♦ will probably make more than 40% of the time.

 

Any 2-2 diamond break and 7♦ is cold. It can also make on some lucky 3-1 diamond breaks with a singleton ♦Q and a favorable distribution of the cards.

 

Do I want to be in 7♦? No. Is it ludicrous? No.

 

Being in 7 requiring a 2-2 diamond break is bad bridge. 7D - 1 is the zero of all time, so it is a ludicrous contract to risk a 6D contract which will get you 80+% of the matchpoints anyway.

[luke warm]

someone remind me, what would 2NT mean (for south's first response)?

[dboxley]

someone remind me, what would 2NT mean (for south's first response)?

 

Most play it as 11-12 invitational.

[andy_h]

Agree with mfa, although I like the treatment of 3S being a splinter.

[Free]

I blame North 100%.

 

North had the chance to show his hand with an easy 4♠ rebid, but instead he choose to bid some lame 3♣. And after 4♠ by his partner which shows a good hand with slam interest, he just bid 5♦. What was wrong with blacky or 5♣?

 

South's bidding isn't ideal either, but after North took the wrong road it's hard to get back on track...

[Poky]

Assuming the bidding was natural, I blame South. Partner has shown a slammish 13(45) or 04(45)

With a slammish xx45 the proper opening is 1♣, not 1♦.

Negative doubles are played. With a decent 1354 opener doubles 2♠.

 

even after South made a penalty double of 3♠.

South didn't make a penalty double. It was takeout. He even didn't have a penalty double.

 

I think that without anything wasted in spades, South should certainly move over 4♥, bidding 4♠ seems to be a turnoff to partner.

This is the key of the whole story. Partner clearly showed 0454. In this circumstances, is 4♠ a classic cuebid showing wasted values, or it is a general way of showing a good hand, trying for something bigger?!?

 

I certainly don't want to be in a grand!!!

True. Faulty heading.

[mfa1010]

I'm not familiar with this bidding.

 

If north "surely showed 0454" then south should drive to slam. It is good opposite any 12 cover points.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 I prefer 3S instead of 3C, you have a fit (at least 9 card ), you have a spade void,

so do you really want to play 3NT? The spade shortage implies club and heart values,

and makes it harder for them to intervene further.

#2 X from South is clear cut, the X is penalty, it is certainly not T/O, one reason -

for most the 2D call from South denied a 4 card major

#3 4H from North - ok

#4 4S from South - well whatever this maybe,

after longer thinking about the bid, this bid is actually quite good,

I am not familar - but one could interpret is as a "Blumer"? In this seq.

it should show no wastage in spades, South indicated length with the penalty X

over 3S, so 4S say, that the pen. X was just based on a bal. hand.

I prefer not to get tested similar in such an auction, having at least some brief

discussion, but 4S has to show the South hand.

#5 5D from North - ok, in a murky auction, the best bet to go plus

 

=> 100% to North, the 3C bid made the auction extremly complicate

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Given my comments, that I dont want to face a 4S undiscussed at the table,

100% for North is a bit unfair, but North created the mess, he could also have bid

4S after the X from South.

[Poky]

#2 X from South is clear cut, the X is penalty, it is certainly not T/O, one reason -

for most the 2D call from South denied a 4 card major

#3 4H from North - ok

#4 4S from South - well whatever this maybe,

after longer thinking about the bid, this bid is actually quite good,

I am not familar - but one could interpret is as a "Blumer"? In this seq.

it should show no wastage in spades, South indicated length with the penalty X

over 3S, so 4S say, that the pen. X was just based on a bal. hand.

I prefer not to get tested similar in such an auction, having at least some brief

discussion, but 4S has to show the South hand.

 

Double from South is negative. It is bid with any hand that has 12+ and wants to play 3NT if partner has a stopper. It is pretty standard. At least in the game called - bridge.

 

Bluhmer is when you cue-bid with your own suit, not with opponents' suit.

[P_Marlowe]

Double from South is negative. It is bid with any hand that has 12+ and wants to play 3NT if partner has a stopper. It is pretty standard. At least in the game called - bridge.

 

Bluhmer is when you cue-bid with your own suit, not with opponents' suit.

Neg. Doubles are standard, if I have already denied ALL OTHER suits?

 

South did already deny 4 spades, 4 hearts as he made the inv. minor raise to 2D,

otherwise you play a nonstandard variant of inv. minor raises, which are ok, but

to get sensible answers, it would be great to have that mentioned,

and if South had 4 clubs, he can raise 3C to 4C.

 

Sry - to play X as neg. in this SPECIFIC seq. is non standard, and makes not even

sense bridge logic wise, and I can understand quite a lot, even if I dont agree

with the logic behind those things.

 

I can agree with saying, that the X could be classified as card showing / optional,

not as penalty, and the South looks more like a hand suitable for card showing /

optional, but calling this X as T/O (neg.) is just ...

And we did not discuss the likelyhood, that North most likely already denied a spade

stopper with his 3C call.

 

Regarding cuebidding ones own suit - if the X is optional / card showing with some spade

length, than South is cue bidding his own suit.

Making such a bid undiscussed is asking for trouble, so I would give South some blame,

but I dont like the way North did bid, he is the one, who messed up the auction.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: And a last point - most sane opponets will have a 9 card fit, opponents near insanity

at least a 8 card fit, does South really want to play 3NT, if he finds North with the single

Ace of spade or Ace / King doublton?

[mcphee]

The S void at first look makes you want to bid 3S, but I don't think this is so good really. You are essentially setting up a GF and when you pull the possible 3S bid the hand now sounds far stronger than what it really is. So I like 3C. Double of 3S is just terrible, unless there is some agreement that means "please do not pass partner they can make 4".

 

The problem that seems to face this pair is they do not know if passing 3S is F. It should be F if 3C set a GF.

 

If my team mates reached 7D on this hand Art I would be most unhappy, especially if it went down. Quoting things like 40% might even be right, but I try and avoid grands where i do not hold the Q trumps or require 2-2 trump split when I also need to ruff a couple of clubs.

[inquiry]

South is to blame for missing slam. He has the ♦AK, fitting cards in hearts and clubs, and nothing of value wasted in spades. Partner is forcing us to 5♦ missing all this stuff if we can not stand to play in hearts (with his 4♥ bid -- which shows a three suiter it seems. I know a lot of people are thinking 4♠ must be forward going but what the hell is 4♠? If it was RKCB, ok, but clearly with no agreement it was not.

 

I think South should just bid 6♦ over 4♥.

 

I also think 3♠ by north would have been a stopper ask. I like his bidding out his shape. A question might be should he have bid ♥'s before ♣, but I prefer ♣;s first.

 

As for 7♦, well it is difficult to say. However, it is surely better than the 40% quoted above. I don't want to be in it however. Assume West has 6♠ for his 2♠ bid (with 5♠ -- east with 5 also would clearly have raised spades). Seems like that places a difference of at least two in vacant spaces in East's hand, suggesting a diamond finesse after trying for stiff queen. So you make against Q-xxx, and queen on right hand side. If you can ruff three spades in dummy you seem to have enough tricks if you can pick up the diamond queen. Still the odds are not good enough to justify the grand. A further clue is EAST with a likely 3 or 4 card spade support didn't try to raise spades. If he had a stiff or void in diamonds he would have. So I rate the grand somewhat better than 9:7 (slightly better than 56%),

[mfa1010]

As for 7♦, well it is difficult to say. However, it is surely better than the 40% quoted above. I don't want to be in it however. Assume West has 6♠ for his 2♠ bid (with 5♠ -- east with 5 also would clearly have raised spades). Seems like that places a difference of at least two in vacant spaces in East's hand, suggesting a diamond finesse after trying for stiff queen. So you make against Q-xxx, and queen on right hand side. If you can ruff three spades in dummy you seem to have enough tricks if you can pick up the diamond queen. Still the odds are not good enough to justify the grand. A further clue is EAST with a likely 3 or 4 card spade support didn't try to raise spades. If he had a stiff or void in diamonds he would have. So I rate the grand somewhat better than 9:7 (slightly better than 56%),

With the "right" bidding to 7♦ we might even get a trump lead from ♦xx but a spade lead from ♦Qxx.

[ArtK78]

There are times on these Fora that I wonder whether posters actually read the posts that they are responding to.

 

I responded to a post that said, and I quote, "7D is ludicrous."

 

I pointed out that 7D was not a hideous contract, as it made anytime diamonds were 2-2 and some small amount of the time that diamonds were 3-1 with a singleton Q. My point was that "ludicrous" was too strong. I also pointed out that I would not want to be in 7♦.

 

The responses to my post were:

 

"Being in 7 requiring a 2-2 diamond break is bad bridge. 7D - 1 is the zero of all time, so it is a ludicrous contract to risk a 6D contract which will get you 80+% of the matchpoints anyway."

 

"If my team mates reached 7D on this hand Art I would be most unhappy, especially if it went down. Quoting things like 40% might even be right, but I try and avoid grands where i do not hold the Q trumps or require 2-2 trump split when I also need to ruff a couple of clubs."

 

What exactly were these posts responding to? Did I say that I thought that 7♦ was right? I am pretty sure that I did not say that. I merely said that it wasn't ludicrous.

 

Inquiry went into a detailed discussion of the odds of making 7♦. I don't know that I agree with him that the grand is as good as 56%, but he did agree with me that it was better than merely a 2-2 diamond break. We all agree that the odds did not justify a 7♦ bid when compared to a 6♦ contract.

 

So, if you want to take issue with something stated in a prior post, try to make sure that you know what was stated.

 

By the way, it is an interesting question which contract you would prefer if given only 2 choices - 5♦ or 7♦. At least you have a chance for a good score in 7♦, while 5♦ is likely to score poorly.