ATB

[Cyberyeti]

On what lead?

 

Spade

[ArtK78]

Really Art? EW have 5 top tricks (3♣ and 2♦) .

Sometimes the ♣J may be onside, in which case there are only 4 top tricks even if the ♦Q is offside.

 

I am not dealing with the actual lie of the defenders' cards. I am just looking at the declaring side's cards.If you give North the ♠J as was suggested earlier there can be 9 tricks - 3 spades, 5 hearts and a minor suit trick somewhere.

 

Even without the ♠J, there are chances of coming to 9 tricks. I have certainly made worse games than this one.

[CSGibson]

Because in a weak club game like the one here it absolutely slays most of the time.

 

 

This is really absurdly easy. South bid normally but aggressively, North bid abnormally and aggressively, opening an aceless 4-3-3-3 11 count for no good reason, and then confirming the opening hand with the 1N bid.

 

The only interesting thing about this problem is the OP, who asked for opinions, then argued with the opinions that he got in a fairly defensive manner, which makes me think that he decided to post this hand to prove a point to partner, then was shocked when it was his decisions coming under fire.

[Fluffy]

NMF gets a big part of the blame, the 2 alternatives I know stop in 2♥

[sathyab]

Even if North passes this hand, and the bidding goes p-(p)-1♥-(1♠), North is stuck for a bid. Unless you have 2♣ available as Drury, you have to underbid terribly or overbid a bit. I'd not be surprised if people that did'nt have a conventional 2♣ bid 2♠.

[neilkaz]

North and South would be well served by both tuning to the same frequency. Most of us cannot open the North hand which K&R says is worth only 9.75 pts. At best it is a 10 count. Deduct a pt for being aceless when opening may be a bit harsh but certainly deducting a pt for aceless 4333 is fine and may not be enough. Even playing Precision where 1♦ shows 11-15 I am not opening North's hand vul at MP's as -200+ can be the result when PD takes you seriously.

 

Many of us show more than a sub-min with a stop when we free bid 1NT in this auction.

 

Nothing wrong with NMF here and if North is permitted to bid twice this lightly, South should respect his 2♥ bid and not re-invite.

 

Playing opposite a PD who plays sound opening bids and who won't call 1NT with a dead min, it is safe to insist upon game after hearing the 2♥ response.

 

Most but not all of the blame goes to North who really is too light and doesn't really have 11 pts. I can understand why South re-invited as he has a sound opening bid, but if North can bid like this, South should think about just passing 2♥.

[rmnka447]

I agree with all that North's opening bid 1 ♦ wasn't really an opener. It's a flat 11 with only 1 1/2 QTs.

 

North compounds the problem with a 1 NT bid after the 1 ♠ overcall. Sure, North has a ♠ stopper, but the free bid really conveys that North has at least a very solid minimum opener with a ♠ stop. North has a pretty clear pass -- there is a ♠ stop, but the hand is awfully light. Passing conveys the message that North has a minimum and no clear cut bid. If later in the auction North gets a chance to show the ♠ stopper by bidding NT, then South knows that North has a bare minimum opener.

 

In the actual bidding, I think South actions are pretty normal.

 

Note that if North passes in the first round of the auction, South will open 1 ♥. West will likely overcall 1 ♠ (West bid with both North and South unpassed hands, highly unlikely that he'd pass with North a passed hand). Then North has to find a response. I'd probably bid 2 NT or try to show a 3 card limit by whatever methods you play. The rationale for bidding 2 NT is that the North hand can't make a short trump hand ruff and is therefore unlikely gain an extra trick in a suit contract versus NT.

 

In any case, it seems likely that the hand would still end up in 2 NT or 3 ♥ anyhow. The result might not be much different but, at least, the bidding would be better.

[rhm]

Why blame north exclusively? Once N shows a minimum with 3♥ exactly how many cover cards does S have a right to expect with 5.5 losers in the minors alone?

2♥ is declining an invite...what feature in the S hand makes it worth re-inviting?

It somehow goes against the grain to blame a responder holding a real opening opposite an opening bid with no apparent misfit for inviting game.

When I learned the game the notion was if you have an opening bid and your partner opens, make sure you reach game. Simple and it worked!

I understand with current opening standards you have to be a little bit more careful.

But can you really blame South? Was he really optimistic? I would call his bidding conservative.

 

With regard to North:

 

I would not open this hand, but I may be old fashioned. However, I can be quite aggressive on distributional hands with first round controls. Maybe a matter of philosophy.

However, I think North 1NT rebid got just what it deserves.

I do not understand, how this partnership ever finds out whether opener has a standard opening bid with a little to spare.

Usually the same people, who recommend light opening bids, also lower the standard requirements for responder to keep the bididng open.

How is this supposed to work when you are red?

 

I just could stomach 1NT at all white, where it might be important to be the first, who declares notrumps. At least it has an upside.

But in my view at all red it is a clear error in judgment. I just can't see any upside unless you believe you will on average do at least 2 tricks better declaring than defending notrumps. Even then I would not do it and suggest you work on your defense instead.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

If the 11 count bothers everyone so much, give N the J of spades in addition. 2♥ is still pretty much the last making spot.

If inviting on the 12 count bothers you so much, give S the J of spades in addition. 2♥ is still pretty much the last making spot.

[rmnka447]

Sorry, but if I were North and had bid this hand as shown ...

 

After the hand, I'd simply put my cards away and say to partner "Sorry, Partner, my fault." and move on to the next hand.

[VM1973]

I'd say that 80 percent of the blame needs to go to North. You just can't consider 4-3-3-3 and 11 an opening bid. South should not have rebid 3♥. If he thinks his hand is good enough for game, he should bid 3NT and if he thinks it's invitational he should bid 2NT. In either case his partner can pass or correct.

[aguahombre]

Tyler seems to have answered his own question with posts 6 & 8.

 

If that is their opening bid style, then South has invitational values. If they have a competent NMF structure, North has already shown a decline of invites with 2H.

 

We don't choose to reinvite when we already received a decline; in fact, South's 3H raise would be slammish for us.

[mikestar13]

Took the words right out of my keyboard, was posting the same thing when I saw your comment.

[Cyberyeti]

Tyler seems to have answered his own question with posts 6 & 8.

 

If that is their opening bid style, then South has invitational values. If they have a competent NMF structure, North has already shown a decline of invites with 2H.

 

We don't choose to reinvite when we already received a decline; in fact, South's 3H raise would be slammish for us.

 

No, their style is to open 11 counts, this is not an 11 count. I suppose you wouldn't criticise if they missed game after opening AJ109, K1098, AJ10, 109 as 11-13 either ? Don't just look at the HCP, work out what the hand's worth.

[aguahombre]

Your analogy is way off. You use a very powerful opening hand (13, not 11 and much stronger than that in reality) which would not be involved in a NMF auction and would be accepting all game invites to make some point about hands which would rebid 1NT and not accept invites in a NMF continuation.

 

But, thanks for the advice on hand evaluation beyond point count.

[cherdano]

But, thanks for the advice on hand evaluation beyond point count.

Well, unless the OP routinely opens balanced 10-counts, opening the actual hand was horrible evaluation. The OP seems unaware of this. Are we not allowed to point this out?

[aguahombre]

Well, unless the OP routinely opens balanced 10-counts, opening the actual hand was horrible evaluation. The OP seems unaware of this. Are we not allowed to point this out?

Sure, we are. But, it is not relevant. This North (or this pair) chooses to open with this hand. This South considers his hand to be invitational within their methods, and this North says no. Then this South invites again; we don't have reinvites in our arsenal.

 

If opener held what we consider a good 11 or 12, we wouldn't be down two in 3H. So, what? We shouldn't be in 3H.

[cherdano]

Sure, we are. But, it is not relevant. This North (or this pair) chooses to open with this hand. This South considers his hand to be invitational within their methods, and this North says no. Then this South invites again; we don't have reinvites in our arsenal.

 

If opener held what we consider a good 11 or 12, we wouldn't be down two in 3H. So, what? We shouldn't be in 3H.

So a horrible mistake that contributed to the problem is not relevant because partner also made a mistake?

[billw55]

Sure, we are. But, it is not relevant. This North (or this pair) chooses to open with this hand. This South considers his hand to be invitational within their methods, and this North says no. Then this South invites again; we don't have reinvites in our arsenal.

 

If opener held what we consider a good 11 or 12, we wouldn't be down two in 3H. So, what? We shouldn't be in 3H.

I understand this, but what muddies the waters is the free 1NT bid, which seems to show more than a bare minimum. How should south interpret north's entire sequence?

[mcphee]

North had a couple of opportunities to pass but chose to open and freely bid after the o/c. I would not even open this pail in third w/r.

[VM1973]

Sure, we are. But, it is not relevant. This North (or this pair) chooses to open with this hand. This South considers his hand to be invitational within their methods, and this North says no. Then this South invites again; we don't have reinvites in our arsenal.

 

If opener held what we consider a good 11 or 12, we wouldn't be down two in 3H. So, what? We shouldn't be in 3H.

To be certain everyone is entitled to have their own agreements. If they choose to open balanced 11 counts as a matter of style, this is not illegal. Nevertheless, this shouldn't stop us from pointing out that it's a spectacularly bad idea.

 

There are many reasons why people open the bidding. Bidding may lead to a profitable game, or part score. It may have preemptive value. It may suggest a profitable sacrifice. It may also help to guide the defense. Now people don't generally think of all of these reasons when they pick up ♠AKJxx ♥xx ♦ xx ♣KTxx but regardless, they are present.

 

The reasons why you should have 13 HCPs to open a 4-3-3-3 are probably well known, but I'll review them anyway. Since two 4-3-3-3 hands with 26 points between them generally make 3NT it makes little sense to pass balanced 13 counts as, should both partners do so, a laydown game could easily be missed. Additionally, assuming the balance of the points are evenly divided between the three other hands, your partner will have 9 HCPs and so your combined assets will be more than half the deck, and you will have every reason to believe that the hand belongs to your side.

 

Accordingly when someone opens a balanced hand with less than 13 HCPs the hand already has one strike against it. As such, there should be other, compensating factors in the hand to make the bid worthwhile. Looking at the hand in question, I really don't see any.

 

First of all, I don't see that a 1♦ opener has much preemptive value. At least the 10-13 1NT people are consuming the entire first level of bidding space. The same cannot be said for this bid as it will be child's play for East to mention any majors he would like to bring into the mix.

 

Second, bidding a three-card suit is unlikely to suggest a profitable sacrifice. I should also throw in here that his partner will probably read him for 4+ diamonds and may take unwarranted action should he have a 5-card diamond suit, such as taking a phantom save.

 

Third, if the opponents buy the contract it is unclear that North really wants to see a diamond lead. How will he feel, for example, if his opponents buy the contract in 3NT and his partner opens the ♦Q from ♦Q4? Won't his ♦7 look like a come-on signal and the bad start to the defense could easily result in overtricks - a costly mistake in matchpoint scoring.

 

Finally, I strongly deny that all of these problems can be solved just by having the partnership agreement that 4-3-3-3 and 11 can be an opening bid. This decision will skew the entire bidding structure. After all, if partner can have as little as 11, perhaps responder will decide that 6 HCPs and balanced is not enough to keep the bidding open or, if he does bid, he could easily find himself declaring a 17-HCP 1NT while doubled and vulnerable. A nice -500 when his opponents don't have a biddable game will be a bottom board. The partnership decision to not respond unless you have 7 (or even 8) HCPs then may result in shapely 17 HCP hands going 1♦-All pass when makeable games are available.

 

If we adjust the offensive hand above to the following:

 

♠K97

♥QT2

♦KQJ7

♣T72

 

Then maybe a better case could be made for a 1♦ opener, although I, personally, would still not take that action.

 

The hand in question has no part of a 1♦ opener.

[aguahombre]

Again, none of this matters to the only point I was making. Inviting and then inviting again is not a good thing.

 

You can even enforce a pass upon North with any of the slightly better hands ---containing 3 or four hearts --- and my point would still apply. North would Drury and get a demur from South; inviting again would be the same silliness. There is no bonus for making 3 when we bid 3, and maybe yu won't make 3.

[beatrix45]

Good heavens! North seems to be somewhat unhinged. The wretched opening bid is bad enough, but the freely bid 1NT is beneath contempt. Find a new partner who has a clue.

[cherdano]

Again, none of this matters to the only point I was making. Inviting and then inviting again is not a good thing.

You are welcome to make this point. But your insistence that this was the only point to make on this hand was a bit silly.

[rhm]

Sure, we are. But, it is not relevant. This North (or this pair) chooses to open with this hand. This South considers his hand to be invitational within their methods, and this North says no. Then this South invites again; we don't have reinvites in our arsenal.

 

If opener held what we consider a good 11 or 12, we wouldn't be down two in 3H. So, what? We shouldn't be in 3H.

To some extent this is true.

If this pair plays an opening style where North was maximum for his 1NT rebid, than 2♣ was already an overbid. 100% blame to South.

But what point is there asking people who have no experience with this style and how to reach games in this style to assign blame?

I at least would not feel competent to assign blame why a pair playing a strong pass system got too high or missed game.

If this partnership uses a style detached from what anybody else plays this thread asking other people about their opinion is plain silly!

 

Rainer Herrmann