phil_20686 Posted August 17, 2015 Report Share Posted August 17, 2015 Copied from the other thread, since the hand diagram here is better laid out.....I would have bid 3H initially with the south hand. Opposite a t/o double a jump here does not show a good hand, since all inv+ hands would go through 2D. It shows a pre-emptive hand. Something that looks a bit like a weak two only weaker. 6+h 3-6 points, usually not 6322. This is a reasonably bad hand even for that, but two things might be going on here: (1) Partner has a classic t/o double and opponents have the balance of the points and a huge diamond fit. We should be preempting with an eye to making the right 5/5 decision against 5d.(2) Partner has a strong balanced hand. In this case, its important to tell him that I have a weak hand whose only strength is hearts. He will then know that I have a hand that is mostly about hearts, and will make a good decision about a raise. Also this might give the opener a problem, as it is dangerous for him to bid over 3H. EDIT: Unlike some others I have no problem with the 1N bid - it gets your hand off your chest and stops aren't that important after a 1m opener, rho most likely just a wk NT with 4 diamonds - but after the opponents bid 2d and partner bids 2H your hand has now got a lot better. Your partner is expecting to see diamond values, and you now know with almost compete certainty that he has a diamond shortage opposite your xxxx, I would have bid game now with the north hand over 3D. I think double is really bad, and shows a failure to re-evaluate your hand in the context of what you have learned when the auction comes back around. Definitely north is to blame for missing game. South was in a tough spot and 1h and 2h cannot really be blamed I think. He thought this was a part-score hand and that you had wasted diamond values. When you axed 3D he thought you had scored a goal on a part-score hand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted August 17, 2015 Report Share Posted August 17, 2015 quikwal, next time you want to reopen a discussion which we have already had (http://www.bridgebas...622#entry857622), just make a new comment in the old thread. That way, people can still quote the comments in the old thread. In fairness, I think he was right to create a new thread with the hands laid out properly. You get a lot more interest when you can use the hand diagrams correctly. Maybe a moderator can transfer the old comments across and delete the other thread? There were not many..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted August 17, 2015 Report Share Posted August 17, 2015 Had North held some Diamond values to go with his 1N rebid, then on the same total values 4H may be something of a stretch, and it is the absence of such wastage that is what makes the game contract so good. Whether he ought to have Diamond values is possibly contentious, but the expectation that he has some, even if not a requirement for the bid, is not unreasonable, although the repeated Diamond raises by East may provide a clue. Would 3H instead of X by North clarify that ambiguity? I would not have thought so, in which case South is not much better placed to bid 4. I am not sure what North meant by his final double. The main options are (1) a suggestion of penalties on the one hand, or (2) a full-blooded game try in Hearts on the other (where 3H would be more competitive). Option 2 would be more useful on this occasion, but it would seem that South read the bid as the former, and if that is the agreement then I am not keen on North's hand for the call (which is not to say that it will never work). I think that there is something to be said for North bidding 4H instead of the final double. North knows that South has Diamond shortage by now, and North knows that he has no wastage in that suit. South has volunteered a second bid when not forced to do so. That would be enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillPatch Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 ....I am not sure what North meant by his final double. The main options are (1) a suggestion of penalties on the one hand, or (2) a full-blooded game try in Hearts on the other (where 3H would be more competitive). Option 2 would be more useful on this occasion, but it would seem that South read the bid as the former, and if that is the agreement then I am not keen on North's hand for the call (which is not to say that it will never work)....I don't see the ambiguity. responder's 3♦ was unlikely to improve TO doubler's hand into a game try. If he wanted to make a game try he had a clear 3♥ bid for that purpose. I see no reason to override the presumption that any double by a natural NT bidder is penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 I don't see the ambiguity. responder's 3♦ was unlikely to improve TO doubler's hand into a game try. If he wanted to make a game try he had a clear 3♥ bid for that purpose. I see no reason to override the presumption that any double by a natural NT bidder is penalty.Yes, I think that North's pass of South's 2H on the previous round is wrong. BTW I don't generally play doubles for penalties just because I bid NT earlier. I know that that is a valid style. I think it is a bit old hat, but maybe it is a geographical thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.