CSGibson Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=sjhkjt74dkq863cq4&w=sa5h853dat974c863&n=skq6haq92dj52caj5&e=st987432h6dckt972&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(15-17)3sd(Negative/takeout)ppp]399|300[/hv]Agreements about X is that it is a negative X at the 3 level. Bids at the 4 level by South would have been forcing to game, and natural. The form of scoring was matchpoints, and the 3♠ bidder is a competent lady who got called in as a sub in a club game, so E-W have no real agreements other than natural. South led the Q of diamonds (rusinow) against 3♠X. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Slightly unlucky, but I think South has a clear 4♥ call over 3♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Wouldn't pass the X, 3N or 4♥. Opps are not idiots, I don't expect to get rich. Be happy partner has J♠ or it might have made an overtrick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Slightly unlucky, but I think South has a clear 4♥ call over 3♠.yep and the 55 hand usually plays better in a suit anyway even if it is a 5-2 fit(IMO) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Concentrating just on the south hand for a minute, Adam obviously thinks that a negative double is wrong, any other opinions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I think it's a good idea to play 1NT (3M) 4m as a two-suiter with the other major. The arguments for doing so are the same as after an opening preempt. Without that agreement, I think South has an awkward problem but should probbaly have bid 4♥. I wouldn't have left in the double, though. Three-level takeout doubles should be taken out most of the time, and North's spades were unexceptional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Am I in lala land? How is the south hand an awkward problem? I am never trying to get to 5D with 5 good hearts and such a good hand at MP, and even if I somehow doubled and partner bid 3N, I would still want to bid 4H. Partner will usually have 3 hearts, and even if he doesn't I expect 4H to be better than 3N. Playing 4 of a minor here as hearts and a minor seems really bad also, the arguments are not the same as over a 3S opener because: 1) With partner having shown a good hand, we need much less in the way of values to have a slam try in a minor (as opposed to over a 3S opener, where we need a lot). 2) We can survive much more often by bidding 4 of the major with 5 of them, since partner has guaranteed 2+ (unlike over a 3S opener where the main risk is playing a silly 5-1 fit after a 4H overcall). So the times we lose are more frequent, and the times we gain are less frequent. North is also out to lunch passing the double, I think bidding 3N is fine but pass is just strange. KQx onside is not a good holding for defense. I have a hard time figuring out who was worse, but I guess north. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 South: 4♦ as non-leaping Michael's would show the hand of course, without that I would simply have bid 4♥. You don't want partner to pass your double, which of course is what he did next *g North: This decision is tougher. Yet, you only have 1 trump trick (okay you now have two because ♠A is not at its expected place). Still I would probably have tried 3NT, which South then corrects to 4♥ I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 agree with justinian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Am I in lala land?Perhaps you're in a land where there isn't enough data. I generated 20 hands where:- North has 15-17 4432/4333, 14-16 5332/22(54)/24(25), 13-16 6m322. (I realise that this may not be to everyone's taste)- East has 0-10 with 7+ spades; if only 7 spades, has two of the top five spades. Below are nineteen of the first twenty hands, with my analysis. (I removed one hand, where East had ten spades.) I decided by inspection which games/slams would make, and worked out what would happen after double, or after 4♦ showing the reds. Double always worked. Often it would go dbl-4m-4♥-pass Once it allowed us to avoid a poor 4♥. Showing the red-suits always worked. On a few hands it gave us a chance to get to a good slam. Once it allowed us to avoid a poor 4♥. An immediate 4♥ usually worked, but once led to a poor 4♥. There weren't any hands where a direct 4♥ gained over double. S: Q7 H: A3 D: AJ2 C: AJT876 S: 853 S: AKT9642 H: Q98652 H: --- D: T74 D: 95 C: 3 C: K952 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 Nothing makes. -------------------------- S: A2 H: A853 D: T942 C: AKT S: T6 S: KQ987543 H: Q6 H: 92 D: AJ5 D: 7 C: J98762 C: 53 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 All games make. Double gets us to making game. Showing D+H may get us to failing slam. -------------------------- S: 83 H: A93 D: AT97 C: AKJ6 S: K54 S: AQT9762 H: 862 H: Q5 D: J52 D: 4 C: T987 C: 532 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/6D make. Double gets us to making game. Showing D+H may get us to making slam. -------------------------- S: Q9 H: Q962 D: A5 C: AKJ53 S: T4 S: AK876532 H: A853 H: --- D: JT74 D: 92 C: T92 C: 876 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/5D make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: A9 H: 32 D: AJT9 C: AK853 S: 84 S: KQT76532 H: AQ865 H: 9 D: 754 D: 2 C: T76 C: J92 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 3NT/5D make; 4H probably down. Double gets us to making game. Showing D+H gets us to making game or failing slam. -------------------------- S: 74 H: A98 D: AJ2 C: AJ982 S: Q62 S: AKT9853 H: 52 H: Q63 D: 975 D: T4 C: KT753 C: 6 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/5D make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: Q8 H: AQ8 D: A742 C: KJT3 S: K5 S: AT976432 H: 9632 H: 5 D: JT D: 95 C: 98762 C: A5 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/5D make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: 42 H: AQ6 D: J2 C: AKJT82 S: Q87 S: AKT9653 H: 98532 H: --- D: A97 D: T54 C: 53 C: 976 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H makes. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: A3 H: AQ98 D: A4 C: T8763 S: 852 S: KQT9764 H: 6532 H: --- D: 72 D: JT95 C: AKJ2 C: 95 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 3NT/4H makes. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: 72 H: A3 D: A92 C: AKJ865 S: T43 S: AKQ9865 H: Q985 H: 62 D: J54 D: T7 C: 932 C: T7 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/6C/6D make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: A84 H: AQ93 D: AT94 C: K7 S: 97 S: KQT6532 H: 652 H: 8 D: 52 D: J7 C: A98652 C: JT3 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 3NT/6H/6D make. Double gets us to making game. Showing D+H may get us to making slam. -------------------------- S: Q4 H: AQ5 D: JT5 C: AJ875 S: 873 S: AKT9652 H: 9632 H: 8 D: A74 D: 92 C: KT6 C: 932 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/5D make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: A9 H: AQ85 D: J7 C: KJ963 S: K5 S: QT876432 H: 96 H: 32 D: A942 D: T5 C: T8752 C: A S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/5D make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: 52 H: AQ3 D: AJ974 C: KJ7 S: A94 S: KQT8763 H: 965 H: 82 D: T52 D: --- C: 8632 C: AT95 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 5D makes; 4H makes in practice. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: 65 H: AQ8 D: AJ742 C: K86 S: Q84 S: AKT9732 H: 9652 H: 3 D: --- D: T95 C: AJT932 C: 75 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/5D make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: T8 H: A8 D: A72 C: AK8532 S: K4 S: AQ976532 H: 6532 H: Q9 D: J954 D: T C: JT6 C: 97 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/5D/6C make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: 64 H: AQ92 D: AJ5 C: KJ95 S: K75 S: AQT9832 H: 865 H: 3 D: 74 D: T92 C: AT763 C: 82 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 4H/5D make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- S: A83 H: A98 D: AT5 C: A986 S: Q S: KT976542 H: Q653 H: 2 D: J92 D: 74 C: KJ732 C: T5 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 6NT/6H/6D make. Double gets us to making game. Showing D+H might get us to making slam. -------------------------- S: A93 H: AQ93 D: 94 C: AJ97 S: 82 S: KQT7654 H: 52 H: 86 D: A752 D: JT C: K6532 C: T8 S: J H: KJT74 D: KQ863 C: Q4 3NT/4H/5D make. All actions get us to making game. -------------------------- And here is my code (for Thomas Andrew's Deal):source lib/utility.tcl south is "J KJT74 KQ863 Q4" main { accept if {[open_1nt north] && [sound_preempt east spades]} reject } proc open_1nt {hand} { set hcp [hcp $hand] set ptn [$hand pattern] set shp [$hand shape] # 4333 or 4432, 15-17 if {$ptn == "4 3 3 3" || $ptn == "4 4 3 2"} { accept if {$hcp > 14 && $hcp < 18} reject } # 5332 or 22(54) or 24(52), 14-16 if {$ptn == "5 3 3 2" || $shp == "2 2 4 5" || $shp == "2 2 5 4" || $shp == "2 4 5 2" || $shp == "2 4 2 5"} { accept if {$hcp > 13 && $hcp < 17} reject } # 6m332, 13-16 if { $ptn == "6 3 2 2" && ([diamonds $hand] == 6 || [clubs $hand] == 6) } { accept if {$hcp > 12 && $hcp < 17} reject } reject } proc sound_preempt {hand suit} { set cards [$suit $hand] set hcp [hcp $hand] accept if {$cards > 6 && $hcp < 11 && ([Top5 $hand $suit] > 2 || $cards > 7)} reject } Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 How is the south hand an awkward problem? I am never trying to get to 5D with 5 good hearts and such a good hand at MP, and even if I somehow doubled and partner bid 3N, I would still want to bid 4H.Yes. So why not follow the route dbl-3NT-4♥, so that partner knows that you have only five of them, with an alternative place to play? Playing 4 of a minor here as hearts and a minor seems really bad also, the arguments are not the same as over a 3S opener because: 1) With partner having shown a good hand, we need much less in the way of values to have a slam try in a minor (as opposed to over a 3S opener, where we need a lot).And what about when we have a slam try with both red suits? By playing 4♦ as the red suits, I make our auctions worse when responder has a one-suited slam try, but better when he has a two-suited game hand *or* a two-suited slam-try. That seems a pretty good exchange. Anyway, I can get some of it back by using 4♠ to show a one-suited slam-try in a minor (though I admit that I haven't got around to discussing this with anyone) . 2) We can survive much more often by bidding 4 of the major with 5 of them, since partner has guaranteed 2+ (unlike over a 3S opener where the main risk is playing a silly 5-1 fit after a 4H overcall).5-2 fits also play poorly if you get forced early and the trumps don't break. By "the arguments are the same", I meant that:- Being able to show a two-suiter is useful- Many one-suiters with a minor bid 3NT- With most of the rest of the one-suiters it's OK to bid 5m.- It's therefore rare that you want to make a natural bid of 4m So the times we lose are more frequent, and the times we gain are less frequent. I said that the arguments were the same, not that the situations were quantitatively identical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.