ATB: disastrous partscore

[humilities]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqjh973dk9742c97&n=sa852hq2dcakt8642&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1c1hp2h3cp3dppp]266|200[/hv]

 

IMPs, game all, vanilla 2/1.

 

South didn't think his flat hand with bad suit hand was good enough for an immediate 2♦ and didn't like X. North feared a total misfit opposite a hand that couldn't bid 2♦ or X, and thought running to 4♣ would invite a double. Of course clubs are 2-2 and game is cold - but any number of ♣ is better than 3♦.

[han]

Often it is possible to understand what happened but here I have a hard time. What was the thought behind bidding 3D?

[whereagles]

I'm not sure what I'd make of 3D, but one thing is certain: I would never pass that. Why? Because the only diamond suit that plays better than clubs and is compatible with the bidding is something like QJTxxxxx (8 cards). I'll get that hand across once per lifetime.

[BunnyGo]

South has a really tough first bid. This is a great reason for playing that

 

1m-(1H)-1S shows a hand like this that has some points, but no bid (can't bid NT, can't bid spades, can't bid at the 2 level)

 

and

 

1m-(1H)-X shows a hand with 4 or 5 spades

 

That said, playing the system you'd agreed to, South does have to pass the first time (though I don't completely hate a double). The next time he's again painted into a corner, but I think 3♦ was a bad choice. There's a known club fit, and either he should try for NT or pass. I'd just pass since partner is assumed to have just two hearts at MPs, at IMPs even though they give a nice bonus for game, I'd still probably pass because you don't have a lot of controls and quick tricks for partner before they get their hearts.

 

Once South bids 3♦ I think North should bid 4♣, the seventh clubs hasn't been shown, and it's almost certainly better than playing 3♦. That said, I don't hate pass since partner should really have nothing in clubs (and have more than 5 diamonds, probably more than 6) to be bidding 3♦ now.

 

80% South, 10% North, 10% system.

[han]

I agree that passing 3D by north is not right, but it feels like north is a bridge player. He thought that he had shown long clubs, and partner must have a weak hand with very long diamonds, which is correct. South seems like he has picked up a deck of cards for the first time in his life, 3D is just impossible. Giving south less than 100% seems way too little.

[ggwhiz]

I can understand that South thinks he has good working values not shown yet but the bid for that is 3♥ not 3♦ on that suit.

[aguahombre]

bad vote by me. I gave North partial blame for the pass of 3D, but this is wrong. Whether we agree with South's initial pass or not North was not involved in that decision, so cannot have accrued any blame. By the time 3D comes around, South has already gotten 100% blame and there is nothing left to apportion.

[Phil]

LOL, I mistakenly clicked "100% North".

 

3♦ is rather strange, although there is a minor inference this does not show a great suit if the partnership plays WJS.

[nigel_k]

LOL, I mistakenly clicked "100% North".

 

3♦ is rather strange, although there is a minor inference this does not show a great suit if the partnership plays WJS.

I agree with this and have more sympathy for South and less for North than other people seem to have. 3♦ is not an attempt to find a superior part score. Obviously South should have better diamonds but I think something like Qxx xxx AQJxx xx would be ok. North's final pass was the worst call of the auction IMO.

[Finch]

I agree that passing 3D by north is not right, but it feels like north is a bridge player. He thought that he had shown long clubs, and partner must have a weak hand with very long diamonds, which is correct. South seems like he has picked up a deck of cards for the first time in his life, 3D is just impossible. Giving south less than 100% seems way too little.

 

This

[hotShot]

100% North

 

There is no nonforcing hand that South can have that would pass over 1♥ and has a standalone ♦ suit now.

 

OK the 3♦ bid is worth 100% blame too.

[jdeegan]

:P When Al Roth invented the negative double 50 years ago it was said to be for hands where you felt like you needed to bid but didn't have a proper call. When I innocently asked what the rules were, everyone laughed and said: "don't worry kid, you'll know one when you see one". They later added that you had to have at least 4♥ when you double one ♠, and a ♠ tolerance or better when you double 1♥.

The south hand is far from a perfect negative double, but a double is, imho., the lesser of evils. South's subsequent 3♦ call is ?????????????? I guess it shows eight diamonds and out as other commentors have said. Having passed the first time, South should pass again. It gets him to the par contract on the hand as bringing in the club suit is below 50%.

[Vampyr]

bad vote by me. I gave North partial blame for the pass of 3D, but this is wrong. Whether we agree with South's initial pass or not North was not involved in that decision, so cannot have accrued any blame. By the time 3D comes around, South has already gotten 100% blame and there is nothing left to apportion.

 

I did the same thing, and I agree with you.

[whereagles]

Obviously South should have better diamonds but I think something like Qxx xxx AQJxx xx would be ok.

 

Well, both Qxx xxx AQJxx xx and the actual KQJ xxx Kxxxx xx are obvious 2D bids in my book.

 

It is better to make a slight overbid and show the full hand early. Passing is a much bigger distortion and what happened subsequently should come as no surprise to anyone.

 

An interesting alternative would be to bid 1NT over 1H. That is probably an even lesser distortion than 2D and would certainly be my bid with a diamond less and a club more. The lack of stopper is a very tertiary thing. Pard can check its absence with a cue:

 

1C 1H 1NT 2H

3H

 

In this case responder, having none, would bid 4D or perhaps 3S.

 

By the way, as to the blame I'd say both made errors. I wouldn't blame anyone in particular but 50-50 seems fair. North for not realizing 3D cannot be a good contract and South for muddying the waters.

[jdeegan]

Well, both Qxx xxx AQJxx xx and the actual KQJ xxx Kxxxx xx are obvious 2D bids in my book.

 

It is better to make a slight overbid and show the full hand early. Passing is a much bigger distortion and what happened subsequently should come as no surprise to anyone.

 

An interesting alternative would be to bid 1NT over 1H. That is probably an even lesser distortion than 2D and would certainly be my bid with a diamond less and a club more. The lack of stopper is a very tertiary thing. Pard can check its absence with a cue:

 

1C 1H 1NT 2H

3H

 

In this case responder, having none, would bid 4D or perhaps 3S.

 

By the way, as to the blame I'd say both made errors. I wouldn't blame anyone in particular but 50-50 seems fair. North for not realizing 3D cannot be a good contract and South for muddying the waters.

:P One additional use for the negative (Sputnik) double is to show a good six bagger and some modest values. Having failed to make this call, I can't have the sort of hands you envision.

[whereagles]

hmm.. I don't think I understood that. What was the point again?

[Zelandakh]

South has a really tough first bid. This is a great reason for playing that

 

1m-(1H)-1S shows a hand like this that has some points, but no bid (can't bid NT, can't bid spades, can't bid at the 2 level)

 

and

 

1m-(1H)-X shows a hand with 4 or 5 spades

 

This is one option. Or you could play what I did as a junior, effectively stolen bid doubles where X shows a 1D response and 1S is a normal 1S response. Very simple, just a little more awkward when the opps barrage and the spade length across matters.

 

Edit: I will add that I also played 1C - (1S) - 1NT as a 1D response at that time, a treatment I have never seen given anywhere else (perhaps with good reason).

[JLOGIC]

This

 

I don't understand why you and han and bunnygo think passing 3D is not right? South seems to have a weak hand with really long diamonds, that's fine with me. Even if you play 3D as weak over 1H, you are vulnerable, surely there are hands that you would not bid 3D with directly because they are so weak but still can want to play 3D. Having AK A as a dummy for partner in 3D is way better than catching a yarborough wtih a club void as a dummy for 4C.

[pooltuna]

I don't understand why you and han and bunnygo think passing 3D is not right? South seems to have a weak hand with really long diamonds, that's fine with me. Even if you play 3D as weak over 1H, you are vulnerable, surely there are hands that you would not bid 3D with directly because they are so weak but still can want to play 3D. Having AK A as a dummy for partner in 3D is way better than catching a yarborough wtih a club void as a dummy for 4C.

 

So what are you trying to achieve by passing 3♦ the best partial? IMO the 3♦ caller ought to bail at 3♣ with a really weak hand even with a long ♦ suit or accept that any call (s)he makes will be a game forcing one. Since IMO the 3♦ call is forcing; passing it is a clear error.

[gwnn]

So what are you trying to achieve by passing 3♦ the best partial? IMO the 3♦ caller ought to bail at 3♣ with a really weak hand even with a long ♦ suit or accept that any call (s)he makes will be a game forcing one. Since IMO the 3♦ call is forcing; passing it is a clear error.

3♣ didn't promise the world and South already denied a good hand. Having a wide variety of game forcing bids seems misguided.

[pooltuna]

3♣ didn't promise the world and South already denied a good hand. Having a wide variety of game forcing bids seems misguided.

So when did south deny a good hand? Over 1♥?

[gwnn]

yes...

[nigel_k]

3♣ didn't promise the world and South already denied a good hand. Having a wide variety of game forcing bids seems misguided.

Obviously there are better uses for double and 1♠ but playing standard methods I think you should have decent values to bid 2♦ as you are taking the auction quite high with no fit and no stopper. And opener is going to have extras and good clubs to bid 3♣ opposite a passed partner so I think hands where responder wants to bid constructively will be much more common than those where he wants to improve the part score and also couldn't bid 3♦ the round before.

[jdeegan]

hmm.. I don't think I understood that. What was the point again?

:P I should have added a good 5 bagger as well, sry your point is well taken. It all goes back to Al Roth's original notion that a negative double shows any hand that has some values and can survive whatever bidding trap ensues.

[gwnn]

Obviously there are better uses for double and 1♠ but playing standard methods I think you should have decent values to bid 2♦ as you are taking the auction quite high with no fit and no stopper. And opener is going to have extras and good clubs to bid 3♣ opposite a passed partner so I think hands where responder wants to bid constructively will be much more common than those where he wants to improve the part score and also couldn't bid 3♦ the round before.

Cool, in that case I think what you think is false (and vice versa). :)