Who bid too little?

[jeffford76]

[hv=pc=n&s=s62haqt64d953cq74&n=sakq8754h2daj7cj6&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1c1sdp2c3sppp]266|200|BAM, 4S= at the other table[/hv]

[wank]

north is just begging for south to show some life and he's sat there passing away with a hand with which most people would bid without prompting.

 

at unfav at this scoring, north's conservatism with regard to jumping to 4s is entirely fair.

[Cyberyeti]

On a heart lead, isn't 4♠ a horrible contract with most of the points with W ?

[ggwhiz]

On a heart lead, isn't 4♠ a horrible contract with most of the points with W ?

 

Or a diamond lead or a trump lead. I can't vote unless you include defense at the other table which may have been just an unlucky club lead or a hail Mary heart finesse.

[jeffford76]

Or a diamond lead or a trump lead. I can't vote unless you include defense at the other table which may have been just an unlucky club lead or a hail Mary heart finesse.

 

I don't really understand why "who bid too little" would be affected by the other table. If you think it's a bad game to be in, isn't the answer "Neither"?

 

The heart hook was on for a diamond pitch. At my table they started with three rounds of clubs, so you could actually make 5 if you risked the hook later.

[mr1303]

It's my style to put 4S on the table with those North hands. Even at unfavourable.

 

Having said that, South really should bid game.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't really understand why "who bid too little" would be affected by the other table. If you think it's a bad game to be in, isn't the answer "Neither"?

 

The heart hook was on for a diamond pitch. At my table they started with three rounds of clubs, so you could actually make 5 if you risked the hook later.

 

It's not obvious what to do on the third club, as you should potentially be getting overruffed

[kenrexford]

North is getting off the hook too much, IMO. After a 1S start, with 8 cashers, the heart stiff being a contextually false problem, 3C as a 3NT - inviting call both describes the hand better and is more likely to get the correct 3NT contract found.

 

of course south could have bid 1NT earlier,...

[Bbradley62]

It's not obvious what to do on the third club, as you should potentially be getting overruffed

Why would you ruff instead of pitching a diamond?

[P_Marlowe]

South? WTP?

 

I mean North marches to the 3 level, red vs. green without any

knowledge, that his partner has anything at all, he even bids

3S, not 2S, and we are discussing, who did bid too little?

 

And that game is not brilliant on the given set, is not really

relevant, change the North hand slightly, e.g. give it a 2nd

heart, and you want to be there, and the 7222 shape makes the

North hand a bit worser than the 7321 hand North actually has.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

Why would you ruff instead of pitching a diamond?

 

So you pitch a diamond and take the heart finesse when it's ruffed, if it's not going to be ruffed then the man with the clubs should have put a diamond on the table at trick 2, and probably shouldn't have bid 2♣.

[humilities]

Given South could be completely broke, North will be bidding conservatively - lots of medium hands will rebid 2S. As was said above, 3S is basically begging South for something, anything. Two trumps and an AQ10 should be automatic.

 

I don't like North jumping to 4S at all in BAM or matchpoints. You have the spade suit and 15hcp - it could easily be a partscore hand. Why voluntarily go minus?

 

ps: I love Ken's 3C call.

[HighLow21]

4♠ is a somewhat crummy game... borderline at best. I don't blame either frankly -- as many of half of South's points might be wasted and he has a worthless spade doubleton with no ruffing value.

 

And look at the game itself -- on a major suit lead it's a mediocre contract at best (lack of entries for a double diamond finesse) and even on a club lead, it might very well go down (either a 3rd round club ruff or a lack of entries for the double diamond finesse).

 

And by the way, the double diamond finesse CAN fail here.

 

I don't like 4♠ at all. In fact, I admire the restraint by both players. Change the Q♣ to the Q♠ and South should go 4♠.

[MrAce]

I think some people are over thinking this. N did fine against a passing pd. S was asleep when it was his turn.

 

4♠ is neither a great nor an awful contract, ♥ K is more likely to be with E when he showed 4-5 hearts. Yes W opened but E made a neg double. So E has some values too.

 

On a side note, if E does not have ♥ K, it is not a clear lead to lead from xxxx or Jxxx. Why would he ? All other leads increases the chance of 4♠.(not too much but still)

 

4♠ is obviously far from being a great contract also, for the reasons others mentioned.

 

All those who thinks that it was north in fault for the failure of playing 4♠, should ask themselves why 4♠ is not such a great contract even after pd provides an A Q in a suit, behind the owner of this suit + 2 card spades + another Q which may actually be 10th trick if defenders make a mistake.

[Cyberyeti]

4♠ is a somewhat crummy game... borderline at best. I don't blame either frankly -- as many of half of South's points might be wasted and he has a worthless spade doubleton with no ruffing value.

 

And look at the game itself -- on a major suit lead it's a mediocre contract at best (lack of entries for a double diamond finesse) and even on a club lead, it might very well go down (either a 3rd round club ruff or a lack of entries for the double diamond finesse).

 

And by the way, the double diamond finesse CAN fail here.

 

I don't like 4♠ at all. In fact, I admire the restraint by both players. Change the Q♣ to the Q♠ and South should go 4♠.

 

4♠ is a sub par contract, 3N requires spades not 4-0. I would rather be in 3♠ than 4♠, but 3N is the spot.

 

Both players could have taken other decisions, I like 3♣ by N and might try 3N over 3♠ by S, but both players decided to be a little conservative on the same board.

[HighLow21]

4♠ is a sub par contract, 3N requires spades not 4-0. I would rather be in 3♠ than 4♠, but 3N is the spot.

 

Both players could have taken other decisions, I like 3♣ by N and might try 3N over 3♠ by S, but both players decided to be a little conservative on the same board.

Excellent point Cyberyeti -- and that happens. Sometimes, both players decide to be a little too aggressive; sometimes, it balances out. If only bridge had half-bids available! ;-)

[gszes]

red vs white my p bids 3s all by their lonesome I have 2 probable tricks and my 2 small spades

 

greatly increase the chances of minimal to no spade losers I am bidding 4s.

 

I do not care one whit about club Q and if you changed it to dia Q I would merely consider it a plus.

 

this is more of a partnership trust issue than anything else if p does not think they have 8 tricks

 

they should not bid 3s since they can expect 2 tricks at most from me with this bidding. In my mind

 

it is that simple.

 

4s may end up being a poor contract but i have seen far worse and partnership harmony is more important

 

than a successful whim that works once in a while because p will tend to become either more aggressive or

 

more conservative depending on your whims:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

 

 

[Cyberyeti]

red vs white my p bids 3s all by their lonesome I have 2 probable tricks and my 2 small spades

 

greatly increase the chances of minimal to no spade losers I am bidding 4s.

 

I do not care one whit about club Q and if you changed it to dia Q I would merely consider it a plus.

 

this is more of a partnership trust issue than anything else if p does not think they have 8 tricks

 

they should not bid 3s since they can expect 2 tricks at most from me with this bidding. In my mind

 

it is that simple.

 

4s may end up being a poor contract but i have seen far worse and partnership harmony is more important

 

than a successful whim that works once in a while because p will tend to become either more aggressive or

 

more conservative depending on your whims:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

Some people won't have 8 tricks ever as they'd have started with a double. Opps appear to have something like 12 opposite 6 so K♥ is 2:1 to be offside modified slightly by the other hand being longer in hearts, so I don't see where you get 2 likely tricks from, 1.5 at most.

[CSGibson]

South needs to bid game, south has a moose in context, and the heart finesse has a much better chance of being on if needed after the negative double. This is true at both teams and matchpoints, but doubly so at teams. North bid the value of the hand.

 

While I sympathize with Ken Rexford's idea of 3♣ asking for a club control for NT, I personally have the agreement that when they have two bid suits and I could cue either one, I cue what I have, not what I need, which would be unavailable here; I would also bid 3♠, and hope that partner realized that they needed stops in both to try 3N - which would be a great bid in context.

[Cyberyeti]

I didn't actually say what I'd do at the table. I'd have overcalled 4♠ straight off. As little as ♦Kxx and a stiff spade could easily be enough for game, -100 may not be terrible, it's going to be difficult to double unless I'm walking into a stack as they don't know whether I have 7,8,9 spades at this vul, and if they bid, we could be taking quite a few.

[kenrexford]

South needs to bid game, south has a moose in context, and the heart finesse has a much better chance of being on if needed after the negative double. This is true at both teams and matchpoints, but doubly so at teams. North bid the value of the hand.

 

While I sympathize with Ken Rexford's idea of 3♣ asking for a club control for NT, I personally have the agreement that when they have two bid suits and I could cue either one, I cue what I have, not what I need, which would be unavailable here; I would also bid 3♠, and hope that partner realized that they needed stops in both to try 3N - which would be a great bid in context.

 

FWIW, I would suggest to you that your approach on cuebidding stoppers has a major problem, which this deal illustrates.

 

The ideal contract here is 3NT. However, if you cuebid stoppers, you have no bid, as you mentioned.

 

If, however, you cuebid holes, you have no problem. 3♣ suggests 3NT without a club control. If partner has clubs and hearts controlled, he bids 3NT. If not, he can try back by bidding 3♥.

 

Hence, contextually the heart hole is not a problem, but only if you cue holes and only because the space is available to ask both questions.

 

 

 

[Jinksy]

If the H gap is not a problem, couldn't you cue 3H?

[kenrexford]

If the H gap is not a problem, couldn't you cue 3H?

Huh?

 

There are three possible problems. No club stop, no heart stop, or neither stop. Both stops no problem. If 3H says no club stop, you have no way to say neither (below 3S). Unless 3C says no heart stop without saying anything about club stop, with Advancer bidding 3H as covering that but not clubs, which works out but is weird.

[CSGibson]

FWIW, I would suggest to you that your approach on cuebidding stoppers has a major problem, which this deal illustrates.

 

The ideal contract here is 3NT. However, if you cuebid stoppers, you have no bid, as you mentioned.

 

If, however, you cuebid holes, you have no problem. 3♣ suggests 3NT without a club control. If partner has clubs and hearts controlled, he bids 3NT. If not, he can try back by bidding 3♥.

 

Hence, contextually the heart hole is not a problem, but only if you cue holes and only because the space is available to ask both questions.

 

I've found the advantages of bidding where you have values in constructive bidding to be fairly pronounced - I've actually tried both, and was unable to make "bid what you need" work for me. The bid holes theory works similarly for finding 3N, but your partner doesn't know whether the hole is 3 small, 1 small, or what. Bidding what you have implies some length in the suit, and helps partner evaluate a fit in either a suit or NT contract.

 

Now, that being said, I'm not really a system wonk, so its possible that there is a way-too-complicated solution that I just wasn't up for working out, but a lot of these general rules are meant, for me, to simplify bidding situations, so any additional mechanism tacked on to them are definitely significant negatives in my mind.

[gszes]

Some people won't have 8 tricks ever as they'd have started with a double. Opps appear to have something like 12 opposite 6 so K♥ is 2:1 to be offside modified slightly by the other hand being longer in hearts, so I don't see where you get 2 likely tricks from, 1.5 at most.

 

During the bidding we do not now which player holds the heart K. Using the 12 6 above partner will have 14 and since we have no way

 

to determine relative heart length (both lho and p have long suits) there is no reason to assume p cannot have the heart K (looking

 

at both hands makes it harder since we KNOW the heart K is missing not so during the bidding). Using ony HCP the opps are favored

 

to hold the heart K 18 to 14. If p has the heart K we have 2 tricks for sure and not unreasonably 3 or even 5 14 times out of 32. Using the

 

HCP logic alone and not considering distribution factors lho favors to hold the heart K 12 times and rho 6 so we have an overall shot

 

of lho holding the heart K 12 out of 32 hands and either p or rho holding the heart K 20 out of 32 hands. Whatever adjustment we make for

 

rho having more hearts will only increase the probability of our hand being worth at least 2 tricks.

 

Low level doubles with hands that are extremely offensive can be scary since once in a while p converts one of those x to penalty and we

 

suffer hugely as a result. An overcall at least keeps us on the positive side limiting damage under those circumstances (just a thought).