Described as competitive

[Bbradley62]

A little inconsistency with South's 3♠ bid:

[hv=lin=pn|~~M8889keh,~~M8815v4k,bbradley62,~~M8821hh8|st%7C%7Cmd%7C3S68KH7QAD245JC57A%2CS45H368KD9TQC348Q%2CS239TJQH29D67C6TJ%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%209%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7CWeak%20two%20bid%20--%206%2B%20S%3B%2010-%20HCP%3B%209%2B%20total%20%7Cmb%7Cd%7Can%7C3-5%20C%3B%203-5%20D%3B%203-4%20H%3B%202-%20S%3B%2013%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7C3S%7Can%7C3%2B%20S%3B%203-8%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CHJ%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CH6%7C]360|270[/hv]

[pigpenz]

yes maybe a little heavy for its call

would guess its the THE LAW

but interesting hand one of those Rodwellian quach hands inthe ♥ suit

and if defending 4♥ NS cant touch ♣ suit since its frozen

[Stephen Tu]

I don't see any problem with this. It thinks it will do better on average declaring 3s (making or down 1, very rare 170) than defending their 3-level partial, doesn't think prospects for game are great (I agree). I make calls like this all the time with 9 cd fit, I'm expecting to make a lot, or beat them if they bid 4h. I'm not making invitational ask (2nt) without at least a strong NT equivalent type hand.

 

Given that they are supposed to make 3h, and you are down 1 or 2 in spades, it was right.

[Bbradley62]

I don't see any problem with this.

I don't have a problem with South making the bid... I have a problem with describing the bid as showing 3-8 total points when it's perfectly reasonable for South to make the bid with 14.

[pigpenz]

I don't have a problem with South making the bid... I have a problem with describing the bid as showing 3-8 total points when it's perfectly reasonable for South to make the bid with 14.

probably it should just say either the law or 0-14 hcp

[georgi]

Does a bid with 14 HCP could be quite expected so the explanation should carry 8-14HCP or 0-14HCP?

 

After double it seems quite tricky to pick an appropriate bid. You could do this even with 1-2 cards preparing the double after.

 

It might be also dangerous if bid you find partner with 10HCP and 6331 ot 7321 shape. Should s/he raise to 4?

 

3♠ is most likely a trap bid for opponents. So any information could be misleading for both sides.

 

GIB tends to do with hands impossible to give GF call or natural forcing continuation. But how you could perfectly determine them?

 

You could give GF with 11HCP and not bid game with 16HCP.

 

Does this hand should bid game?

2♠ opening, pass,

 

♠x

♥Q109x

♦KJxxx

♣AKQ

[Stephen Tu]

Does a bid with 14 HCP could be quite expected so the explanation should carry 8-14HCP or 0-14HCP?

 

After double it seems quite tricky to pick an appropriate bid. You could do this even with 1-2 cards preparing the double after.

 

It might be also dangerous if bid you find partner with 10HCP and 6331 ot 7321 shape. Should s/he raise to 4?

 

I think 3 cds 0-14 HCP is fine. Opener should be barred on this auction, traditionally, must pass, not allowed to sim. I don't particularly think 7321 should be allowed to open only 2 in first/second chair, should open 3 or 1.

 

3♠ is most likely a trap bid for opponents. So any information could be misleading for both sides.

Misleading North isn't a problem if he is barred from bidding 4. And 0-14 doesn't mislead EW.

 

GIB tends to do with hands impossible to give GF call or natural forcing continuation. But how you could perfectly determine them?

Don't see what this has to do with the auction in question. Over pass or double it has to sim to decide whether it's worth exploring game with 2nt or not.