Comments on auction?

[wyman]

r/w MP

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt74hajt94d52c9&n=saj53h85dkjt3cj42&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1s2c3cd4s5cpp5sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Can we assess 4S, pass (over 5C), and 5S?

[straube]

I like 3H over 3C. Even if South wants to be in 4S (he's something like a 6-loser hand), he needs to let North evaluate whether there is a double fit or not. Had he done so, North has the easiest double of 5C.

 

After 4S (5C) I think we're in a force because partner has jumped to game and we're unfavorable vulnerability. I like double. Reasons not to double include the fourth trump and little wastage in clubs. Reasons to double are the minimum nature of the hand and length in their suit. Even though length in their suit makes it probably that partner has shortness, that's a reason for partner to upgrade, not for me. I think pass is a reasonable second choice.

 

After 5C is passed around to South he has very much endplayed himself in the bidding. He has created a force and has overbid his hand already. He has no idea whether 5C or 5S is making, but he has promised (imo) to act. I would guess to double, but it's a guess that should have been avoided.

[ahydra]

4S is absolutely fine - perhaps one could bid 4H to let partner know if it's a double-fit deal or not, but that might show more strength than South has.

 

Was North's pass over 5C forcing?

 

I'm wondering about 3C. The N hand has 9 losers, flat shape, long-ness in the opponents suit. I'm not sure it's worth 3C - I would treat the N hand as a limit raise (3S). Imagine the same hand with HK instead of CJ - now that's a 3C bid, and 5S is an OK contract since the DA rates to be onside. Having said that, perhaps 5S is pushy anyway (unless pass is forcing, in which case it's North's fault for not X'ing).

 

So to sum up: North gets most if not all of the blame.

 

edit: argh, the cross-post. But I see straube shares a similar opinion to mine.

 

ahydra

[ArtK78]

3♥ is sufficient with these cards. Pard is a passed hand - let him in on the evaluation problem.

 

I was thinking that if you were going to bid to the 4 level anyway, you should bid 4♥, but that would imply a much stronger two-suiter than you have. So I am back to the 3♥ call.

 

There is a point when you have to bring the vulnerability into the picture. Jumping willy-nilly to the 4 and 5 levels vul against not requires more power and/or shape than this.

[jillybean]

I agree with the comments above. South is sailing single handedly.

[aguahombre]

I see straube shares a similar opinion to mine.

Not exactly. You believe 4S was fine, and then blame North; he would have chosen 3H to let North make the final decision, and then tries to cope (as North or South) with the fact that South didn't do that.

[bd71]

 

I'm wondering about 3C. The N hand has 9 losers, flat shape, long-ness in the opponents suit. I'm not sure it's worth 3C - I would treat the N hand as a limit raise (3S).

 

It's not specified, but in these methods (and I thought standard methods), 3♣ is a limit raise. 3♠ would be 4+ spades pre-emptive.

[Fluffy]

4♠ is awful

[wyman]

3♥ is sufficient with these cards. Pard is a passed hand - let him in on the evaluation problem.

 

I was thinking that if you were going to bid to the 4 level anyway, you should bid 4♥, but that would imply a much stronger two-suiter than you have. So I am back to the 3♥ call.

 

There is a point when you have to bring the vulnerability into the picture. Jumping willy-nilly to the 4 and 5 levels vul against not requires more power and/or shape than this.

 

So, it's my fault for not including this in the OP.

 

We play HSGT, as opposed to long suit/natural game tries. 4S is a clear overbid, but 3H could be on Axx, and partner may accept with a void, singleton, or heavy with a doubleton. Not clear he'd accept with Qxx (and he certainly wouldn't with xxx(x)), though he would with the K. I'm used to natural game tries and I think 3H would be perfect in that context. I'm not used to HSGT; does AJ109x qualify? I thought Axx(x) was the textbook try, and partner accepts with like Kx, KQxx, x, or holdings such as this.

 

Perhaps you'll still think that 3H is a lesser evil than 4S, but I'm interested to hear.

 

The other call I considered was 4H, but as you say, this seemed to be overstating things (perhaps even more dramatically than 4S, and at least 4S gives opps no information).

 

Thanks for the comments so far. We both agreed pass was forcing after 5C, and as much as I hated it, my only defense was the ♥A. And if 5C is making, we're getting a 0 for 5Cx anyway, so I bid 5S thinking that it might be a reasonable save.

[quiddity]

Agree, 4♠ is awful. South has a stiff club and given the vul and that the opps have half the deck he should know a 5♣ save is very likely. He must show his second suit to help partner make a decision over 5♣. After a heart bid, North would have an easy double.

 

Given the jump to 4♠, I like North's pass. He has the trump length so, imo, one of the main factors in whether or not to double is whether he has a trump trick. Jxx doesn't look promising. He has a fourth spade, his ace is in spades, he has a ruffing value and some offensive diamond cards which will help if partner has diamond length.

 

South's final decision is close but that's his own fault. I guess I would probably pass. Why should he be forced to act opposite a passed hand? That really doesn't make any sense to me. Forcing passes are forcing because partner could have significant extra convertible values, or because he could be planning to pull a double to show a slam try. That is not the case here; North's hand is limited.

[mgoetze]

This hand is a good advertisement for 2NT = 4-card support, Cue = 3-card support. South's hand is much more powerful knowing about a 9-card fit.

 

I strongly dislike the "HSGT in competition" method.

[JLOGIC]

I would just bid 4H over the double, describes my hand well. After that north could double 5C pretty easily with this diamond holding.

[JLOGIC]

 

 

The other call I considered was 4H, but as you say, this seemed to be overstating things (perhaps even more dramatically than 4S, and at least 4S gives opps no information).

 

You drove to game anyways (which I agree with obviously, your hand is powerful opposite a fit). 4H and 4S are the same, they are bidding game and not trying for slam so it's hard to see how 4H is more of an overstatement than 4S. It is just more desciptive in the not-so-unlikely event that the opps bid 5C, your partner will be well placed to judge what to do.

[straube]

Why should he be forced to act opposite a passed hand? That really doesn't make any sense to me. Forcing passes are forcing because partner could have significant extra convertible values, or because he could be planning to pull a double to show a slam try. That is not the case here; North's hand is limited.

 

This is an interesting question. I've thought that opposite a passed hand one can create a forcing situation that obligates oneself as well as partner. For instance, in this auction if a leap to 4S creates a force, then responder can pass hands that both want to bid 5S and want to double 5C but can't decide which is better. Were opener to pass 5C undoubled on the theory that a passed hand can't force, responder would be very disappointed.

[Cyberyeti]

I would just bid 4H over the double, describes my hand well. After that north could double 5C pretty easily with this diamond holding.

This, exactly what I was gearing up to say.

[bd71]

This hand is a good advertisement for 2NT = 4-card support, Cue = 3-card support. South's hand is much more powerful knowing about a 9-card fit.

 

What are the recommended parameters for when this treatment is on?

 

Is it just after 1y-(2x)? Or is 1x-(1y) also a good use? How about when we have overcalled...(1x)-1y-(p)-2N?

 

Obviously, I can try to develop some rules from scratch, but would appreciate advice from those with experience playing it.

[han]

I agree with mgoetze that one shouldn't play help suit gametries here, and with jlogic that 4H is best by a mile.

[mgoetze]

What are the recommended parameters for when this treatment is on?

See Robson & Segal, Partnership Bidding at Bridge