who lost his mind?

[andrei]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq4ha542dcakqj62&n=sk832h8dakt42c974&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp2d(multi)dpp2h3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

IMP's

 

N-S play 2♦ opening as weak with 1 major, so a weak 2 in diamonds is not available.

[ArtK78]

I can't say for sure that either player lost his mind, although the result leaves more than a little to be desired.

 

North's hand is not worth an opening bid in most partnerships. So the pass is certainly acceptable.

 

South has to act over the multi opening with his monster. So double is certainly acceptable (I don't know what the N/S methods are in dealing with multi. Presumably double is for takeout).

 

I don't think one can really argue with the pass by North at equal vul with AKTxx of diamonds. There is a chance that the AK of diamonds are useful assets to South and there could be a spade fit. Still, pass seems very reasonable.

 

South has a problem over 2♥. From his point of view, slam is possible, but not really very likely, opposite a partner who is a passed hand but has a sufficient diamond holding to convert his takeout double to a penalty double. South has 8 stone-cold tricks and it is not unreasonable to assume that there is a ninth trick available in notrump. Certainly it appears that 3NT is the most likely game. Why should he make a move towards slam?

 

I am sure that the reasoning at the table went something along these lines. All of these views, taken individually, are not unreasonable. Only the result is ridiculous.

[ahydra]

South gets most of the blame here - his hand is too good for 3NT. IMO South is strong enough for a 2nd X instead - tricky though as North hasn't a good bid now. Maybe he bids 3H asking for a stop and one wouldn't blame South for bidding 6NT after that.

 

So maybe South has to bid 4C (reasonable as it sets trumps - what do you call AKQJ10x etc) after which North bids 4D and then the club grand slam should be reached. Other 2nd bids for South such as 3C and 3H are totally reasonable but they're maybe less likely to result in the right auction - eg 3C-3H(ask stop)-6NT or 3H-3S-4S-argh or 3H-4D-5C-6C.

 

ahydra

[rhm]

For me the final pass by North looks wrong. All other bids look acceptable to me.

As a passed hand North could hardly have been any stronger and South showed a very powerful hand. North has only shown long ♦, but no strength so far.

So North should invite. 4NT looks reasonable, after which at least 6♣ should be reached.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

It would help to know the partnership agreement about the defence to multi....what families of hands did South show?

 

I would expect that over 2♥, 3♣ should be forcing......assuming that a direct 3♣ would have been a natural overcall, which would be a decent suit and an opening hand, in terms of minimum values over 2♦.

 

If this is so, then I don't see any reason to bid 3N now. And North has a monster opposite a hand that can double and then bid 3♣....I'd splinter.

 

Might not reach 7, but opposite a splinter, it isn't impossible.....tho I would be satisfied with reaching small slam unless playing a really good team, where I'd expect to lose imps more often than I won them if I reached small slam.

 

Btw. while I would pass as North in my current partnership, where we tend to be conservative, I don't mind 1♦....4 controls, ltc of 7 and no rebid problem = opening bid values to me in my favourite style.

[Cyberyeti]

It would help to know the partnership agreement about the defence to multi....what families of hands did South show?

 

I would expect that over 2♥, 3♣ should be forcing......assuming that a direct 3♣ would have been a natural overcall, which would be a decent suit and an opening hand, in terms of minimum values over 2♦.

 

If this is so, then I don't see any reason to bid 3N now. And North has a monster opposite a hand that can double and then bid 3♣....I'd splinter.

 

Might not reach 7, but opposite a splinter, it isn't impossible.....tho I would be satisfied with reaching small slam unless playing a really good team, where I'd expect to lose imps more often than I won them if I reached small slam.

 

Btw. while I would pass as North in my current partnership, where we tend to be conservative, I don't mind 1♦....4 controls, ltc of 7 and no rebid problem = opening bid values to me in my favourite style.

If it's any of the normal defences, south showed a weak no trump or a variety of big hands, X followed by 3♣ would be very big although I'm not sure if it would be forcing, but in this case N would certainly bid, and I'd bid 4♥ as N playing standardish methods.

 

I'd have opened the N hand routinely, but it's not a barrel of laughs over 1♦-(2♥)-3♣-P-3♦-P-.

[the hog]

IF Nth is going to pass the double of opening 2D bid, then 3C by Sth must be forcing. I suspect Nth - Sth have not discussed their agreements. Over 3C Nth could splinter, or bid 3D forcing again as per agreements. 3NT was the bid of a butcher.

[andrei]

no doubt if S bid 3♣ - which shows a (very) big hand - slam would be reached, but would♣ 3 be forcing?

 

the sequence was undiscussed ( :( ), but since N could have nothing (what else would he bid with a yarborough 3262), S thought it would not.

[benlessard]

North pass of the X doesnt promise a lot IMO. For most the X is a powerhouse or a balanced around 14-15 pts so with 4 pts and 5D i dont see why north would prefer to bid 2M on 3 card rather than pass 2D even 2DX making 3 might be a good board vs 2Mx going down in a 3-3 fit.

 

Imo after 3Nt he has a perfect 4H bid wich suggest

 

1- a good hand,

2- 5D

3- H shortness

4- probably tolerance in the 3 suits (since no 4C/4D bid)

[rhm]

no doubt if S bid 3♣ - which shows a (very) big hand - slam would be reached, but would♣ 3 be forcing?

What do you do as North if weak with a ♦ your longest suit over the double? I guess you pass. So North pass of an artificial bid doubled can not be construed as guaranteeing values.

(An interesting question would be what 3♦ over the DBL should mean.)

If North can be weak for his pass, I think 3♣ promises a strong hand but it can not be forcing and 3NT simply shows an even stronger hand than 3♣.

If you play 3♣ as forcing after the DBL, a direct 3♣ overcall over 2♦ would have to cover a very wide range of strength, which is simply not manageable at this level.

I do not understand what is wrong with South's bidding.

However, North never showed his hand opposite a partner, who had shown a hand, which must at least be close to a game force.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

IF Nth is going to pass the double of opening 2D bid, then 3C by Sth must be forcing. I suspect Nth - Sth have not discussed their agreements. Over 3C Nth could splinter, or bid 3D forcing again as per agreements. 3NT was the bid of a butcher.

Why on earth would 3♦ be forcing, by N, what's he supposed to do with xxx, xxx, QJ10xxxx, void or does he have to bid 3♦ first time (via lebensohl or not depending on which way round you play it).

[benlessard]

Why on earth would 3♦ be forcing, by N, what's he supposed to do with xxx, xxx, QJ10xxxx, void or does he have to bid 3♦ first time (via lebensohl or not depending on which way round you play it).

 

Simply pass the X of 2D and bid 3D/or lebensohl over 2M when its back at him.

[benlessard]

Why on earth would 3♦ be forcing, by N, what's he supposed to do with xxx, xxx, QJ10xxxx, void or does he have to bid 3♦ first time (via lebensohl or not depending on which way round you play it).

 

Simply pass the X of 2D and bid 3D/or lebensohl over 2M when its back at him.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq4ha542dcakqj62&n=sk832h8dakt42c974&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp2d(multi)dpp2h3nppp]266|200| andrei wrote "IMP's. N-S play 2♦ opening as weak with 1 major, so a weak 2 in diamonds is not available.

 

 

IMO Neither partner is to blame but some English players use an interesting convention that could help here. When partner bids 3N in a cramped competitive auction, and advancer has slam interest, then he can bid 4♣ as a general slam try. Any rebid other than 4N is co-operative.[/hv]

[the hog]

Simply pass the X of 2D and bid 3D/or lebensohl over 2M when its back at him.

 

Well I disagree totally with this.

You have 3 possibilities if (2D) x (P) comes to you.

My view is that passing with a weak hand and long Ds is not optimal. You give opener a chance to show his suit and his partner a possible raise. Why cramp your own auction? With QJxxxx Ds just bid 3D

So what is a Leb 2NT in this seat? I don't think Leb should apply as a weak hand bids 3D. 2NT should show the traditional 2NT bid, stoppers in both Ms about 10-11.

Pass should show a good hand with ds and be forcing in this auction

(2D) x (P) (P)

(2H) P (P)

To pass holding a good hand with Ds and a weak hand with Ds is hamstringing your partnership. Use their bids against them, don't give them help.

[MrAce]

South gets most of the blame here - his hand is too good for 3NT.

 

ahydra

 

Why do you think 3 NT showed less ?

 

If i was North, i would think ;

 

-Pd did not start 2NT over 2♦, which would be natural for most people showing apprx (15)16-18

 

-Pd did not bid 2 NT after his initial DBL over 2♥, which would be (18)19-20 hcp

 

-Pd bid 3 NT after his initial DBL over 2♥. I would take this as 21-23 hcp

 

Although i would not bid the way South did, i disagree that this 3 NT did not show the strength of South's hand, it just probably showed wrong shape though.

[rhm]

Why do you think 3 NT showed less ?

...

Although i would not bid the way South did, i disagree that this 3 NT did not show the strength of South's hand, it just probably showed wrong shape though.

I do not understand that either.

When you have a solid minor and 8 or 9 tricks and a stopper in the suit(s) bid by opponents what alternatives do you suggest?

When South bid 3NT he did not say he is balanced in a certain HCP range he simply announced he thought he could make 3NT.

North should simply ask himself whether he had shown his strength and whether South expects such a dummy to come down.

Without special agreements his Pass over 2♦ DBL promised nothing except ♦. For example I would certainly pass with ♠xx,♥xx,♦xxxxxx,♣xxx and probably also with ♠xxx,♥xxx,♦xxxx,♣xxx since 2♦ was artificial.

Claiming that 3♦ over 2♦DBL is weak while pass would be strong requires special agreements and I happen to think that a silly suggestion.

North could not have been any stronger than he was and 4NT must be safe.

I do not care whether North bids 4♣, 4♥ or 4NT, as long as he does not pass 3NT.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

snipped

 

Claiming that 3♦ over 2♦DBL is weak while pass would be strong requires special agreements and I happen to think that a silly suggestion.

North could not have been any stronger than he was and 4NT must be safe.

I do not care whether North bids 4♣, 4♥ or 4NT, as long as he does not pass 3NT.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Its not a silly suggestion at all. How can YOU distinguish between a QJxxxx D holding and out and the original posted hand. If you can only do so by Leb later, then I think THAT is silly. You clearly do not like using the options given to you when the opponents uses a bid with multi meanings and are later forced to clarify their holding.

[MrAce]

I do not understand that either.

When you have a solid minor and 8 or 9 tricks and a stopper in the suit(s) bid by opponents what alternatives do you suggest?

Rainer Herrmann

 

There are a lot of ways to do it

 

You can bid 3 NT over 2♦, and put the guy on lead who also doesnt know what his pd's preempt suit is. You are not comfortable with bidding 3 nt w/o knowing their suit ? Fine, then pass 2♦ and bid 3 NT after you learn their suit. You don't like this either ? Thats fine too, then DBL and then bid 3NT. Whatever you do, just don't try to convince everyone your way is the only way.

 

All these methods have ups and downs depending on what they hold and what they will bid, including pd's hands. I will not sit and try to tell your way is wrong and that you are letting preempter to actually be able to show his suit when your own strength is dependent on a long minor, even worse they may actually have a really good fit that they could never find had u decided to bid 3 NT and possibly make it bla bla bla. Because the way i choose also has a lot of downs, and i am not stubburn about it, i can be convinced otherway arround if someone tells me the reasons.

 

And why does it even matter if he has balanced or suit oriented strength ? As you said he has a hand that wants to play 3 NT vs pd's nothing but ♦ suit. Pd is supposed to pass with majority of hands and the hands that pd will make a move will work for both hand types most of the time.

[rduran1216]

passing the double with the north hand is bonkers, even more bonkers is not continuing after S shows ~22HCP and 8+ tricks in hand.

[rhm]

Its not a silly suggestion at all. How can YOU distinguish between a QJxxxx D holding and out and the original posted hand. If you can only do so by Leb later, then I think THAT is silly. You clearly do not like using the options given to you when the opponents uses a bid with multi meanings and are later forced to clarify their holding.

So tell us what to bid with a weak hand without a nice 6 card ♦ suit, say with with ♠xxx, ♥xxx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx or similar? Does partner's double necessarily show ♦?

Bidding 3♦ on nothing is simply asking for trouble, but I agree with you that Leb is of dubious value over multi.

My agreements, which I do not assume here, are that double over multi 2♦ either shows a takeout double against a weak two in ♠ or a strong hand.

With a takeout double against a weak two in ♥ we pass first and come in later. Consequently I would pass the double with ♠xxxx, ♥ xx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx or similar.

If you are broke you do not always have a nice 6 card ♦ suit, with which it might be relatively safe to go to the 3 level.

Much better and simple is to use 3♦ as a general game force, since you do not have a cue-bid available otherwise.

A cue-bid to establish an early game force is badly needed when opponents preempt and partner shows values. It is also much more frequent than a weak hand with a long ♦ suit.

 

To answer your question in this context is easy:

If you are weak with ♦ you pass and pass again. What could be more natural and safe?

If you are stronger with ♦ and you want to compete or emphasize your ♦ suit, pass and bid ♦ next. Looks to me quite natural too.

In the unlikely event that you want to preempt in ♦ you have the option of bidding 4♦ or higher immediately.

So North first pass is okay but conservative, so would have been an immediate more optimistic 3♦.

What is not acceptable is to pass and then pass again when partner jumps to 3NT.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

"Consequently I would pass the double with ♠xxxx, ♥ xx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx or similar."

 

You might find yourself defending 2D x

[rhm]

"Consequently I would pass the double with ♠xxxx, ♥ xx, ♦xxxx, ♣xxx or similar."

 

You might find yourself defending 2D x

I doubt it, since the 2♦ opener will have a tough time to pass with his 6 card major and you could also have a weak hand with long ♦s.

Anyway even if and they make it is at least not game. Far better than playing 3♦ doubled myself. I prefer to look for 6 tricks in ♦ on defense rather than for 9 tricks.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[phil_20686]

I would have unloaded 6N with the north hand rather than pass. South has about what I expected. The north hand is not only much stronger than it might be, it is also much more useful than other ten counts might be.

 

I think north has about a 4N bid in truth, which should fetch 6C from south.