GOREN SETTLES THE ARGUMENT

[quikwal]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9642hq87532d7cjt&w=sj7h64dat965ckq64&n=sak3hakjd8432ca32&e=sqt85ht9dkqjc9875&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1ddp1hp1n2d2hpp3dppdpp]399|300[/hv]

 

E-W were only down one while N-S can make (4H).

North thought that South had underbid the hand and with

no defence at all against (3D), South should have pulled

the double. However if they ended up in (3H) it would

have been worse than (3D*) down one (200).

 

Some folks thought that North should bid (2D) instead of (1NT) and I thought about that

because North does not have a stopper in diamonds.

 

Some thought that North should raise to (3H) instead of doubling.

 

Any comments are welcome.

[quikwal]

Question:

If I want others to read the comments on this topic on BBO Forums, what link do I send them?

Thanks,

Quikwal

[diana_eva]

Question:

If I want others to read the comments on this topic on BBO Forums, what link do I send them?

Thanks,

Quikwal

 

http://bridgebase.com/forums/topic/71973-goren-settles-the-argument/

[kuhchung]

http://bridgebase.com/forums/topic/71973-goren-settles-the-argument/

 

now I'm stuck in an infinite loop

[PhilKing]

Je suis Charlie.

[frisbee]

My guess is that South did not understand that his partner was showing a balanced 18-19 HCP. Since his hand is already limited by his 1♥ bid, he is strong enough to bid 2♠ over 2♦ (showing more ♥s than ♠s) or to simply drive to a 4♥ contract. North had his bids.

 

If North were to cuebid 2♦ instead of bidding 1NT, he would be showing a very different hand ... game forcing opposite a zero-count. Same problem with a 3♥ bid, North does not have the ♥ support that he would be promising. 1NT is the correct rebid.

[rmnka447]

The keys to this hand are South's 2 ♥ bid and East's ♦ raises.

 

Looking at North's hand, South can hold Qxxxx(...) in ♥s at best. South's 2 ♥ free bid shows something positive. If South holds only ♥ Qxxxx, South almost certainly holds some outside honor card. South might have less, but then it will be based on long ♥ and distribution. South won't bid 2 ♥ freely on only

baby ♥ and a stiff ♦ unless holding something outside, too.

 

East's ♦ raise and re-raise without any proof from West of a real ♦ suit is almost certainly made on 5 ♦. Give West 3 ♦s minimum. With North holding 4 ♦s, that leaves how many for South? South has to have either a stiff or a void.

 

Finally, all North's cards are working and are primes. The 1 NT rebid shows about 19 HCP but South can't know what they are. They could be a doubleton ♥ and a ♦ stack. So, at some point, North owes South a raise. With prospects apparent for a dummy reversal, I think North ought to bid 4 ♥ in response to the 2 ♥ free bid.

 

I disagree that South must pull the Double of 3 ♦ to 3 ♥. After all, North has bid NT and presumably has ♦ honors. Does South want to play 3 ♥ opposite a small doubleton and ♦ stack where 3 ♦ is going down 2 or 3 doubled? South's shown his hand and North has made a decision to defend 3 ♦. South should honor that decision.

[mike777]

prefer 3h rather than 2h.

 

 

shows more than 2h but less than 4h. we are limited by 1h.

[BillPatch]

My guess is that South did not understand that his partner was showing a balanced 18-19 HCP. Since his hand is already limited by his 1♥ bid, he is strong enough to bid 2♠ over 2♦ (showing more ♥s than ♠s) or to simply drive to a 4♥ contract. North had his bids.

 

If North were to cuebid 2♦ instead of bidding 1NT, he would be showing a very different hand ... game forcing opposite a zero-count. Same problem with a 3♥ bid, North does not have the ♥ support that he would be promising. 1NT is the correct rebid.

1 NT may be the best rebid in standard as based on Goren. Mike Lawrence, in The Complete Book on Takeout Doubles, 2nd ed., 2014, introduces the treatment of using the doubler's two diamond cuebid predominantly to show this type hand (18+ support points with three card support. I love this treatment, which is a much better way to bid this hand.

1♦(dbl)p( 1♥)

p (2♦)3♦(4♥)

ppp

 

See chapter 12.

[quikwal]

http://bridgebase.com/forums/topic/71973-goren-settles-the-argument/

How would I figure out this link on my own?

I don't see any url at the top of the page or anywhere else.

thanks

[kenberg]

I am pretty sure that as South I would have bid 3H on the first round. 2H is strong, 3H is weak and long. I'm weak and long. It's true that I have four spades, but with six hearts I don't care. Well, ruffing that last spade on the board is my tenth trick so I do care, but I don't know that I care.

 

If I do that, does my clone sitting North bid 4H? Probably. He would be pretty confident of six hearts, two spades and a club. As the cards lie they can't stop you from getting a fourth trick by ruffing a spade. but it seems chances are pretty good that there should be a tenth trick available one way or another.

 

I'm not sure what it would mean if, as suggested, I bid 1H on the first round and then 3H on the second. I prefer the immediate 3H.

[sfi]

Others seem to be focusing on South's bidding, but North is just as culpable IMO. I can live with the 1NT rebid, but failing to raise 2H immediately with a perfect hand for hearts is poor. Doubling 3D rather than competing to 3H is even worse, and shows a misevaluation of the offensive power of the hearts and the defensive power of the diamonds.

[helene_t]

quikwal, next time you want to reopen a discussion which we have already had (http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/71955-difficult-bidding/page__p__857622#entry857622), just make a new comment in the old thread. That way, people can still quote the comments in the old thread.

[Trump Echo]

I don't like anybody's bidding here.

 

I don't like West's opening.

 

I like North's double but not his second call of 1 NT.

 

I like East's raise of the Diamonds but not his second raise to level 3.

 

I like South's first bid but his second bid should have been game in Hearts, not 2 Hearts.

 

I think North should have raised the Hearts to level 3 on his second call, given the likely solidity of the Hearts and the ability to play with seven trumps. South would then raise, of course.

[GrahamJson]

Both N and S underbid. S was worth 3H on the first round. N was worth 4H, not double. He can tell S has at most one diamond so N's hand could harldly be better.

[jdonn]

1NT is wrong without a diamond stopper. A 2♦ cuebid looks best. Given the auction through 2♥, I would bid 3♥ as north. Partner is sure to be short in diamonds which means I have an incredible hand for him. Then south could have accepted based on the distribution.

 

I do not at all believe south should do more than 1♥ or 2♥ that he bid. He doesn't expect there to be game if partner can't raise 2♥, and the 3 level is far from safe. It seems like resulting to me quite frankly.

[mikeh]

1NT is wrong without a diamond stopper. A 2♦ cuebid looks best. Given the auction through 2♥, I would bid 3♥ as north. Partner is sure to be short in diamonds which means I have an incredible hand for him. Then south could have accepted based on the distribution.

 

I do not at all believe south should do more than 1♥ or 2♥ that he bid. He doesn't expect there to be game if partner can't raise 2♥, and the 3 level is far from safe. It seems like resulting to me quite frankly.

If partner had opened 2N, showing 20-21, you would have forced to game, wouldn't you? Admittedly that would be partly because there is no invitational sequence, but it is mostly because the odds favour bidding game rather than signing off. On the given auction partner has shown 19-20, positioned behind the opening bidder, with the likelihood of a good lead for our side, and you think that inviting game is 'resulting'?

 

I'm not saying that 3♥ is free of risk, but 2♥ is the call we make when, having heard partner describe a very good hand with at least tolerance for hearts, we don't want to sell out to 2♦. In my world, 2♥ has no invitational connotations at all, and seems to me to be more of an underbid than 3♥ is an overbid (and I do think that 3♥ is mildly aggressive).

[PhilKing]

Sorry MikeH, but I think North HAS to be worth a raise to 3♥ - you can basically count 9 tricks on a dummy reversal (possibly even opposite a 3514 zero count), and partner can go on to game with an extra trick. And I think there is a considerable chance that a jump to 3♥ by south will lead to a minus.

 

Sure, 2♥ is not invitational, but that can't mean don't raise with five primes and a fit.

 

Anyway, the people who raise all the way to FOUR hearts as North are getting too excited. Raising to three is almost certain to get the job done when game is on, and you are just punishing partner when nine tricks are the limit. Sure, you might fluke 10 tricks opposite Qxx xxxxx x xxxx, but if partner passes 3♥ game is not likely to be cold.

[johnu]

I liked the final 3 passes. Who's this GOREN and how did he settle the argument?

[mikeh]

Sorry MikeH, but I think North HAS to be worth a raise to 3♥ - you can basically count 9 tricks on a dummy reversal (possibly even opposite a 3514 zero count), and partner can go on to game with an extra trick. And I think there is a considerable chance that a jump to 3♥ by south will lead to a minus.

 

Sure, 2♥ is not invitational, but that can't mean don't raise with five primes and a fit.

 

Anyway, the people who raise all the way to FOUR hearts as North are getting too excited. Raising to three is almost certain to get the job done when game is on, and you are just punishing partner when nine tricks are the limit. Sure, you might fluke 10 tricks opposite Qxx xxxxx x xxxx, but if partner passes 3♥ game is not likely to be cold.

Hi Phil. No need to apologize. It's been a while since the hand was originally posted, but I think that while I blamed S for what I see as an underbid of 2♥, I also said that on this hand N was worth a raise. I see nothing inconsistent with that. 2♥ is not the least bit invitational, but N is still allowed to think! S has a hand willing to compete in hearts opposite at most a tripleton, and opposite values in diamonds, some of which may be pulling less than full weight. N can look at AKJ in hearts and xxxx in diamonds, with S often stiff, given the auction, and should bid anyway. The point is that S's action is based on expecting a somewhat different, less heart-suitable, hand than N had.

[lbellicaud]

I agree with every bid, except the last double. When the partner says 2 heart, he has at least 6 cards and a pretty good hand. Moreover you know that he his single in diamond. At this point you have 9 tricks in your hand, so you need almost nothing to do 4 !h .

Instead of doubling, i would have bid 4 heart, or at least 3...

[kenberg]

1NT is wrong without a diamond stopper. A 2♦ cuebid looks best. Given the auction through 2♥, I would bid 3♥ as north. Partner is sure to be short in diamonds which means I have an incredible hand for him. Then south could have accepted based on the distribution.

 

I do not at all believe south should do more than 1♥ or 2♥ that he bid. He doesn't expect there to be game if partner can't raise 2♥, and the 3 level is far from safe. It seems like resulting to me quite frankly.

 

Since I am pretty sure my action at the table would have been an immediate 3H over the double, I hope I can hear a little more about this.

 

If my partner doubles an opening minor and I have a six card major with very little in highs, I generally bid 3M. My worry here was hiding the four spades. Indeed, with the actual strong N hand there are 9 obvious tricks and then a tenth from a 3-3 spade split (not happening) or a spade ruff (which can't be stopped because of the 2-2 trump split.. So my fourth spade is a big deal.

 

After seeing the full hand I was worried that after I bid a direct 3H then North might count 9 tricks but see no obvious 10th and pass. You are saying, as I understand it, that 3H is unsafe. Since I have a lot of shape here, that was not a worry (for me).

 

Of course partner does not always have a monster when he doubles. But if partner doubles and I have ten cards in the majors I don't expect the auction to be at the 2 level when it comes back to me, so it seems that I should make the most descriptive bid available, and a bid showing length but weakness seemed right. Now or never, I thought.

 

Moving on to the layout, with a variation or two. There are 17 total trump in hearts and diamonds, and 18 total tricks, 10 in hearts and 8 in diamonds. Rearrange a bit so that E has three hearts, Maybe trade the heart 4 for the club 5.W one, and now there are 9 tricks in diamonds (reason enough not to play 3DX ) and I think only 9 in hearts, assuming that W starts with a trump and E continues trump at every opportunity. For example, trump to A, AK of spades and a spade, N is in and leads another trump. Declarer cannot afford to win with the Q on the board and ruff the last spade with the K, but if he wins in hand he cannot get to the board without giving E a chance to lead a third trump. Ok, if he plays club and a club, W is in and has to underlead in diamonds, but he is brilliant. Of course if the defense to 4H begins with a diamond, I think the contract comes in even when hearts are 3-1 and spades are 4-2.

 

LOTT is off here in its totals, but we can be forgive. With Ace third of clubs opposite two clubs, N is losing one club. And W is losing only one club playing in diamonds as the cards lie, but trade the J or the T for the 3 or the 2 and then W has more of a challenge. I am not at all an advocate of LOTT, but it may when we note that 4H makes and 3D is off only one, it is perhaps worth mentioning that LOTT predicts 17 total tricks, not 18.

 

But mostly I post this because I am interested inn why folks think that a direct 3H over the double is wrong.On a (very) different layout W may come in with 2C or 3C, over 1H, and it seems worthwhile to prevent this.

[PhilKing]

Since I am pretty sure my action at the table would have been an immediate 3H over the double, I hope I can hear a little more about this.

 

 

This is the standard meaning for 3♥, but quite a few of the English contingent on BBO forum play it as showing five hearts and a hand a bit too good for 2♥.

 

I can't see anything strong with your approach, and I think partner would raise on the chance that there is a tenth trick somewhere.

[kenberg]

This is the standard meaning for 3♥, but quite a few of the English contingent on BBO forum play it as showing five hearts and a hand a bit too good for 2♥.

 

I can't see anything strong with your approach, and I think partner would raise on the chance that there is a tenth trick somewhere.

 

Thanks. I seemed to be way outside the general thinking so I was wondering,. I can see the value of playing that an immediate 3H is five cards and stronger than 2H, but I have always played it as long and weak.

 

 

There are peculiar features to the hand, for example the doubler is the one with four diamonds, fourth hand is the one with the stiff. I suppose that after (1D)-X-(Pass) I should look at my stiff diamond and wonder a bit where they all are. But still I just bid 3H and let the future take care of itself.

[BillPatch]

Other than the initial subminimum opener I agree with the first 5 calls made by our four contestants. If the defenders are unfamiliar with Lawrence's new treatment of the cue bid rebid by the TO doubler primarily to cover this intermediate three card raise predominantly in addition to the real strong hands I prefer either a 3 heart raise or a 2 heart raise. (The lack of the forth trump makes the underbid more palatable.) The explanation that makes the most sense for responder's rebids in partner's suit is that in their system opens 1 club on all balanced hands without five of a suit. Otherwise, responder needs bridge lessons. I think advancer should probably rebid 4♥ rather than 2. My second choice here is 3♥ (limit). (I think a 3♦ cue unambiguously shows the 5 card heart choice of games(except of course a 2♠ reverse would offer the choice of spades, which I am not offering.) (Perhaps I am overcomplicating this.) Opener's subsequent passes are sound. The initial TO Doubler probably should have raised next to support with support even with his minimum NT rebid. After responder's 3♦ advancer surely should have rebid 4♥. 3♥ is a distant second choice. The actual pass causes me to shudder. The final penalty double could only have been caused because the doubler was attempting to double the man and the doubler knows how poorly the opponents bid. A good bridge maxim, but if he looked at his cards he should have realized that if he had reevaluted his hand according to the bidding, another bridge maxim, he had a minimum hand for defending, poor trump, and a good fit for partner he had not shown. 3♥ is the indicated rebid here. Finally advancer should the opportunity to remove the penalty double.

 

From the joy of the poster at achieving a 30 points better result from the penalty double, I deduce the game was matchpoints, in the novice room, and it was Miss Scarlet with the candlestick. In the future please indicate the scoring conditions. Some of us like to know what sort of game we're kibitzing.