What went wrong

[wanoff]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt6h96d8542ck985&n=sahaqjt84dajt973c&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hppd4ddp4sppp]266|200|Imps. East doubled for takeout. Result -200 [/hv]

[mike777]

nonexpert answer but it seems north forget to bid 5d

 

May we sssume that east/west are true experts/world class given the forum?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt6h96d8542ck985&n=sahaqjt84dajt973c&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hppd4ddp4sppp]266|200|Imps. East doubled for takeout. Result -200 [/hv]

South has wasted black suit values so, IMO, his pass of 4♠ is understandable unless North's actions have created a forcing pass. I agree with Mike777 that North might do more -- over 4♠, I rank

1. 5♦ = NAT. Does more justice to a 10-11 playing trick hand
2. X = T/O. With the modern nuance that you really want to bid one more but you are taking the safety play of allowing for a terrible misfit.

[rhm]

nonexpert answer but it seems north forget to bid 5d

Expert answer South forgot, particularly after North did not double 4♠.

How many red suit cards did you expect North to hold when he jumped to the four level in a second suit voluntarily in red opposite a partner who was unwilling to keep the bidding open?

North gave a very good description of his hand.

As usual the weak hand needs to take the key decision.

If South has

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt62h6d82ck98532]133|100[/hv]

 

Bidding on by North will be a disaster. South might be in a position to double 4♠.

 

 

Rainer Herrmann

[wank]

jumping to 4d shows the absolute nuts. south with 6 cards in his partner's suits has a good hand for the occasion.

 

north could double 4S though with his transferable values. this should be a subtle reminder to south to support diamonds.

[Jinksy]

So is the jump to 4♦ basically a forcing 'I only didn't open 2♣ because I had an extreme two-suiter that I'd never get to bid' bid?

[wanoff]

So is the jump to 4♦ basically a forcing 'I only didn't open 2♣ because I had an extreme two-suiter that I'd never get to bid' bid?

 

Yes, though I don't suppose North need be quite as strong. Maybe he should start with XX.

[rhm]

Yes, though I don't suppose North need be quite as strong. Maybe he should start with XX.

XX with 6-6?

No!

I also think he must hold a strong hand when red.

 

So is the jump to 4♦ basically a forcing 'I only didn't open 2♣ because I had an extreme two-suiter that I'd never get to bid' bid?

How can it be less than a 2♣ opener if you volunteer 10 tricks in red with a two-suiter opposite a partner, who does not keep the bidding open at the one level?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mcphee]

South has a tremendous hand all of a sudden and apparently was not aware of it. Raise to 5D imo is a no brainer. I do not think N needs to dble 4S, who is to say he can even beat it.

 

For those who think N should have done more, please make appointment with Dr Phil.

[wank]

South has a tremendous hand all of a sudden and apparently was not aware of it. Raise to 5D imo is a no brainer. I do not think N needs to dble 4S, who is to say he can even beat it.

 

noone. fortunately noone's suggesting double is penalty.

[wank]

So is the jump to 4♦ basically a forcing 'I only didn't open 2♣ because I had an extreme two-suiter that I'd never get to bid' bid?

 

yes right. playing strength to open 2C, but not necessarily much in defence. smacking 4S would then show it had the defence for a 2C opener as well, i.e. a good quota of aces as opposed to something like kqjxxx kqjxxxx which is 11 playing tricks but no defence.

[rmnka447]

North has to bid 5 ♦. Even with a passing partner, if he/she can find one useful feature in partner's hand 5 of a red suit looks pretty sure to make. If you have a good 6-6 hands you've got to keep bidding.

 

This hand reminds me of a hand we played some years ago in a KO semi. My partner and I voluntarily bid to 4 ♠ after opening a weak NT, but an opponent with a similar but a little weaker red suit hand kept bidding eventually ending up in 6 ♥ doubled. We couldn't bid 6 ♠ which would go down, but we still couldn't beat it enough to make up for the vulnerable game. Our teammates had competed to the 5 level, but not to 6 so the result was a critical swing for our opponents.

 

It taught us all a valuable lesson which is that you should bid a lot with any decent 6-6 hand.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt62h6d82ck98532]133|100|

Bidding on by North will be a disaster. South might be in a position to double 4♠.[/hv].

Even on such a misfit, 5♦ has chances,

[WesleyC]

I assign most of the blame to North on this hand. I can understand opening 1H, but i don't think that the 4D rebid in this context shows a SUPER STRONG jump shift with lots of defense. It's still just an offensive hand with big shape.

 

If north does bid 4D, they can't pass on their next action. Double feels like the most reasonable choice, to at least tell their partner that were bidding to make (and have plenty of defense).

[Fluffy]

Is 4♦ game forcing?, it was for north, but not for south.

 

Anyway south has a clear raise.

[wanoff]

I was North and wanted to bid in tempo.

I take the point from some posters that double shows defensive values as well but in the short time that I had to bid, thought that double was suggesting defending.

[SteveMoe]

Would have bid 5♦ not 4 the first time.

[gszes]

void AQxxxx KQJTxxx void I think this looks a ton more like 1h 4d --- the given problem seems to be much better off starting with 1hxx (are we really afraid to be left in 1h xx I don't think so). The xx at least gets the good hand idea across to partner. The 4d bid just smacks too much of a preemptive hand and with 3 aces this hand has a lot of values for both offense and defense. This does not completely absolve south of all blame. With what appears to be zero chance of defeating 4s maybe bidding 5d is not such a bad thought as a sac but the decision to not press on was caused more by the poorly made 4d bid not thinking about the different type of hands that the bid could represent. As an aside I am not even all that sure starting with 2c is a poor idea but 1h just seems to feel better.

[rhm]

Would have bid 5♦ not 4 the first time.

Of course

Partner bids 5♥ down one

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gszes]

Of course

Partner bids 5♥ down one

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

:)) you gotta get some better partners---it has to be depressing watching them constantly take preference with 2 card support rather than leave you in a contract with 4 card support:)

[MrAce]

I agree with everything Rainer said.

[mike777]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt6h96d8542ck985&n=sahaqjt84dajt973c&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1hppd4ddp4sppp]266|200|Imps. East doubled for takeout. Result -200 [/hv]

 

 

:)

 

The rules of the game tell us we get to assume our partner, not us, is a true expert/world class partner...I have my doubts on this south. :)