ATB x2

[Jinksy]

Playing weak and 4, fairly natural/standard methods, teams scoring. Opps are competent though not outstanding club players. Teams, IMP scoring.

 

Hand 1:

EW vul

 

x

KQ86

xxx

AQ842

 

x

xxx

AKQJ7x

K7x

 

N deals and the bidding proceeds:

1C P 1D 4S

P P 5D 5S

P P 6C X

 

(5S was off about 3)

 

Hand 2:

 

 

EW vul, N deals

 

T

AJ65

Q6

KQJT9x

 

KQ9743

K

AT85

43

 

The bidding, uninterrupted, goes

1C 1S

2C 2D

3C P

 

 

 

ATB on both?

[BunnyGo]

The first hand is tougher (IMO). I think South has a double of 5♠ though. Yes, he has only a singleton spade, but he has 3 losers in hearts, and no real interest in bidding slam. I don't understand how North bid 6♣ rather than 6♦.

 

The second hand seems easier to me. North should bid 2♥ after 2♦. He's already shown a minimum with 6(5) clubs, and at most 3 spades. Now finish showing your shape. Afterwards, South can bid NT since his stiff King will look much better.

[Jinksy]

It was S who bid 6C on board 1, not N.

 

Re 2H on board 2, I think that would be fifth suit forcing, more likely to be seeking a stop than showing one (and prob showing a good hand for his limit).

[Fluffy]

Board 1, south is close between double and 5♦, but doesn´t change much

 

Then over 5♠ forcing to slam is wrong, he has to dobule to show its our hand, doesn´t preclude partner from bidding on, but it is highly unlikelly.

 

 

Board 2, north has an obvious 2♥ bid, but what was south doing? if he wanted to show an invitational hand he should rebid 3♠, when he bid 2♦ he had considered the hand worth game forcing, so he should stick to the initial plan and be consistent with previous decisions.

[Slmplicity]

Hand 1: South's 6♣ bid was poor; it might well have been right to double 4♠ on the round before, but not putting aa flag on 5♠ was absurd.

 

Hand 2: How can South not show 6♠s? If you play WJS South might have shown a constructive hand with a 2♠ bid, or without that agreement bid 3♠ invitational. Having decided to force with 2♦ he cant just wimp out now and not GF. That said North had an obvious 2♥ bid.

[pooltuna]

South is more at fault IMO in both hands.

 

hand 1] betting that N has 2 of 3 aces before you even start trying to assess other losers is too anti %age. sometimes you just got to take what you can get so X of 5♠ is called for

 

hand 2] rebidding ♣ three times instead of 2♥/2♦ is too anti %age IMO

 

actually it was North in the 2nd hand that was more at fault

Edited November 28, 2011 by pooltuna

[Hanoi5]

South and North.

 

South pushed it too much on the first one. North was afraid 2♥ would be a reverse, but he had already limited his hand with 2♣, so I don't think it would have been a problem.

[Jinksy]

I was S on both hands. On 1 I agree with everyone in retrospect. My thought wasn't of making 6♦, but concern that W was bidding like someone with a ♣/♦ void, and N's bidding was consistent with long ♣s, a couple of soft ♥ values and not much else - in which case 5♠ looks to be making. But on LoTT I think it's clear that that's very anti%.

 

On 2, I don't agree with the reasoning people have given that 'having decided to bid 2♦, I have to see through the GF.' Why? Aren't we allowed to update our views based on new data? My reasoning on the pass was that a) with as much as xx in ♠s, P would be fairly likely to have given preference, unless she had very good ♣s, b) with very good ♣s and anything at all on the side she would have decided that her hand was too good for a 3C limp, c) opposite the singleton ♠ I therefore expected to find her with, my aceless suit looked pretty worthless in any contract, and if she had a really good C suit as a source of tricks the H suit was likely to be seriously weak, so 3N looked unlikely and 5C when I have about 2 playing tricks to offer partner looks ludicrous. If you do think N should have made a stronger move with the hand she actually had, then all this reasoning looks valid.

[Jinksy]

Hand 1 was against the winning team, incidentally who beat us by about 7 VPs after a moderate win against us in that set, so probably cost us the cup. *sighs*

[Fluffy]

Jinksy I think you are wrong about partner supporting with doubleton spade, partner won´t like to raise on doubleton at the 2 level when he is not under pressure. Specially not with low doubleton.

 

The other problem is that 3♣ doesn´t show a minimum hand, and you might be playing now a partscore with 12 opposite 14.

[bigbenvic]

On Board 1 what would 4nt be by south over 4S? If it showed 2 places to play ie 5♣ + 5♦ it would get your hand off your chest and let partner know of the double fit. If it doesn't mean that I bid 5♦ and I blame North for not doubling (80%) 5♠ but I'd still X 5♠ as South which I hope shows that I meant my 5♦ bid to make, not as a sack.

 

On the 2nd, agree with the above, once N has rebid 2♣ he should be bidding 2♥ (with 2♠ and 1♦ I'd bid 2nt) 3♣ doesn't describe the hand nor help you decide where you should go. It sounds to me that partner has opened a 1336 and is minimum for his bid.

[Jinksy]

Jinksy I think you are wrong about partner supporting with doubleton spade, partner won´t like to raise on doubleton at the 2 level when he is not under pressure. Specially not with low doubleton.

 

It's not a raise, it's showing preference. With say 2236 or 2326 and an uninspiring C suit it seems like a reasonable bid - or with 2435 if 2H is not natural. Does everyone think it should obviously *be* natural here, btw?

 

The other problem is that 3♣ doesn´t show a minimum hand, and you might be playing now a partscore with 12 opposite 14.

 

It doesn't promise an abject min, but she can certainly make more encouraging sounds over 2D. The absence of them lowers my expectation of her hand.

[whereagles]

Hand 1: 6C is way out of order. There's no reason to think it makes and 5S certainly goes down. Just dbl it.

 

Hand 2: I take it 2D was natural. I think south should bid over 3C. Opening + opening = game. Besides, pard might bid spades or have good clubs, both of which make game ok. Sure, it may go down, but you cannot be so pessimistic.