Five-level decision in a county match

[VixTD]

This is another hand we were discussing from a recent inter-county teams match (cross-IMPs -> VPs):

[hv=pc=n&s=skt85hqj762dk7ct6&w=sj63h43dq42caj942&n=saq974hat85djt5cq&e=s2hk9da9863ck8753&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1s2n3s4c4s5cpp5sppp]399|300[/hv]

This was the auction at our table.

1♠ was natural, Acol, 4+ spades

2NT was unusual (minors)

3♠ was purely competitive

 

What do you think of East's 2NT bid?

How many "Guthrie points"(*) would you award North at his final turn for (i) pass (ii) double (iii) 5♠ (and why)?

 

*Guthrie points: give 10 for your preferred choice, then lower scores for other choices you think have some merit, down to 0 for those you consider irredeemably wrong.

[ahydra]

2NT is OK, though you'd like to have some more stuffing in the long suits.

 

I'd have treated the South hand as a limit raise (3D in the version of UvU we use). This would create a forcing pass situation over 5C... perhaps South should double in that case, as his hand is flat with 2-2 minors including a defensive DK, and North would pass. Or if South passes, North should double.

 

I don't like 5S by North on the actual auction. J10x of diamonds is clearly a negative feature, CQ is waste paper, so he has really nothing more than a minimum. I'd say pass = 10, X = 7, 5S = 1 (5CX doesn't rate to go more than 1 off especially with partner having shown nothing more than a moderate hand in support of spades, and may make on a bad day)

 

ahydra

[broze]

3S is an underbid assuming they can show a limit raise. Even in Guthrie points I would award 5S a big fat zero.

[WellSpyder]

I think the first two replies have nailed this one. 5S seems crazy to me (though no doubt worth a token "Guthrie" point since Nigel is always generous to doubtful actions). I also agree that 2N is a bit of an underbid, and I can't help suspecting that south might have tried to rectify this by hesitating on the next round.... Pass=10, X=5, 5S=1.

[Kaitlyn S]

Why didn't West bid 5C?

Why did East bid 5C (having already shown his hand?) For all he knows, partner has 4S beat, or has cleverly deflected them from slam.

I also would bid a limit raise with South, and would not bid 5S with North (in fact, I don't think I would have even bid 4S as North but South probably would take a shot at 4S with his 7-loser hand and well placed ♦K.)

 

Other than that, I think everybody bid fine :D

[rmnka447]

+1 for ahydra's comments.

 

Playing unusual versus unusual, 3 ♦ (showing values and ♠ versus a competitive raise) would also be my bid over 2 NT. The doubleton ♦ K has increased in value behind the player with ♦ length. The doubleton ♣ also is a positive. So in terms of a ♠ contract, it's more like 11-12 value hand. Especially at IMPs, where making thin Vulnerable games are often decisive, you want North to push opposite this hand. So simply making a "competitive" bid is overly conservative.

 

I'm with Kaitlyn on West's bidding. White versus Red at IMPs, West's hand seems like an automatic 5 ♣ bid to me. It puts North/South immediately to the test.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt85hqj762dk7ct6&w=sj63h43dq42caj942&n=saq974hat85djt5cq&e=s2hk9da9863ck8753&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1s2n3s4c4s5cpp5sppp]399|300|

This is another hand we were discussing from a recent inter-county teams match (cross-IMPs -> VPs):

This was the auction at our table.

1♠ was natural, Acol, 4+ spades

2NT was unusual (minors)

3♠ was purely competitive

What do you think of East's 2NT bid?

 

How many "Guthrie points"(*) would you aware North at his final turn for (i) pass (ii) double (iii) 5♠ (and why)?

*Guthrie points: give 10 for your preferred choice, then lower scores for other choices you think have some merit, down to 0 for those you consider irredeemably wrong.

[/hv]

Thank you for reviving the point allocation method that attracted so much ridicule (10 for the chosen action; 0-9 for other considered actions; 0-4 for actions deemed most unlikely to work). Here IMO:

• Double = 10. You have 2 aces. The minor-suit quacks are defensive.
• Pass = 8. Timid.
• 5♥ = 7.
• 5♠ = 6. Your 5431 shape is better for attack than 5332 or 5422 would have been. Aces work in attack as well as in defence. Partner didn't double 5♣. On this auction, ♥ finesses are likely to work. I reckon that 5♠ might well work and would get some votes from an expert panel in a bidding-competition. Anyway, IMO, 5♠ doesn't qualify as a SEWOG.

Comments on other bids.

 

East's 2N is a slight overbid but fine at the vulnerability; East's later 5♣ was bad. Prefer 4♠ to 3♠ on the South hand. With 5 card ♣ support, West should have bid 5♣ not 4♣.

[msjennifer]

We play Lebensohl under these conditions.

1 3C is a game forcing bid in heart suit.

2 3D is the normal limit raise in Spade

3 3H is a competitive bid ,with no spade support at all.

4 3S is a totally preemptive bid in Spade

5 4H/S is to play

6 4C/D are cue bids with a slam oriented hand in Spade

7 Double is for penalties mainly.If LHO bids a minor and opener has a sure guard in the minor he is to make a double(informatory)or pass without one.He can continue with a strong hand if he is not interested in penalties.

8 Pass shows a hand unfit for any of the above bids

With exactly 7 losers in the hand I, personally,would have bid 4S over 2NT bid by RHO.

This type of Lebensohl bids can equally be applied in other hands where RHO announces any double suiter hand over a major suit opening by partner( and equally ,if you play 4plus cards minor suit openings) by making the appropriate changes in responders bids.

[ahydra]

That's not Lebensohl, that's Unusual vs Unusual (UvU).

 

ahydra

[nekthen]

Consider Norths position from the view point of total tricks. Lets be generous and assume he feels there are 20 tricks available.

This is the actual case and is a result of the hidden but probable heart fit.

There are three scenarios

1. Neither side makes 11

2. We make 11 they make 9

3. They make 11 and we make 9

 

I do not think it is possible to judge which out come is more likely (consider swapping the K♥ and A♣ while maintaining shape) However South did not take charge and bid 5♠ so maybe he has a defensive trick.

I think I'd x at pairs but the risk/reward ratio is not great at imps so I pass.

 

Or as my dear old mother used to say "The 5 level belongs to opps", which saves an awful lot of thinking :rolleyes:

[nekthen]

imho The ideal bidding is

 

1♠ 2N 4♠ 5♣ all pass

[nekthen]

I have been thinking about the risk/reward for bidding 5♠

 

Compare results to other room playing 5♣ undoubled I will assign 40% to 1 and 2 and 20% to scenario 3

 

Result for bidding 5♠ 1 lose 150 2 win 550 3 win 0 (sometimes they will double)

So expected return from bidding 5♠ is 40% -150 40% +550 and 20% 0 = 160

 

So, maybe at teams, 5♠ is actually correct? You have to think that scenario 1 is 2-3 times more likely than scenario 2 to make not bidding 5♠ correct

[VixTD]

Thank you for reviving the point allocation method that attracted so much ridicule (10 for the chosen action; 0-9 for other considered actions; 0-4 for actions deemed most unlikely to work).

It's essentially the scoring method used in the bidding challenge in Bridge Magazine (if that has any readers left).

[VixTD]

imho The ideal bidding is

 

1♠ 2N 4♠ 5♣ all pass

I think the most sensible auction went 1♠ - P - 4♠ - AP.

 

This was found at only one table.

[VixTD]

Of the twelve tables in play, only one played in 4♠ (one down). Two NS pairs were allowed to play in 4♣ (making and two off), five played in 5♣ (two doubled), one in 6♣ doubled. The remaining three tables were in 5♠-1.

 

In our discussion afterwards I was alone in thinking the 2NT bid unwise, with too much defence and not enough playing strength. The only good thing I could see in bidding 5♠ was the upside if it makes, but the chances of this look so slim to me it seems an obvious pass (or double), yet four tables bid on to 5♠. For that reason I might give it 2-3 GPs rather than 0. I was in a minority in that discussion as well.

 

I would also have bid 3♦ or similar with the South hand, if that showed a limit raise or better.

[nekthen]

Of the twelve tables in play, only one played in 4♠ (one down). Two NS pairs were allowed to play in 4♣ (making and two off), five played in 5♣ (two doubled), one in 6♣ doubled. The remaining three tables were in 5♠-1.

 

I think maybe you should be discussing the declarer play rather than the bidding <_<

 

10 tricks appears fairly mundane in both clubs and spades

[WellSpyder]

I think maybe you should be discussing the declarer play rather than the bidding <_<

 

10 tricks appears fairly mundane in both clubs and spades

I agree with you about 10 tricks looking straightforward in clubs. I think I would only find 10 tricks mundane in spades if someone told me which defender had DA and which DQ...

[GrahamJson]

Presumably 4S went off because declarer played E for the DQ, maybe after E switched to a small diamond when in with the HK. I can't see how 4C failed though.

[GrahamJson]

Somebody beat me to it.

[palustris1]

First, 3S is an underbid. Even so, 5S equals 0 Goren point. You just défend against a défense. Pass 10 points, double 5 points. i'm not so sûre 5C will fail , even if it does, the penalty will not be enormous.

It would have been different if partner had made a limit bid, 3C for example, then double would have been clearcut.

[VixTD]

It did strike me as strange that anyone could fail to make 4♣, but I didn't look into it any further. Strange things happen in these matches. Now I have done, I can explain it. I got the result from a hand-typed excel spreadsheet prepared by a hard-working team-member. The entry reads 4♣(W), 8 tricks, NS -130, so it looks like a typing error. Sorry for not spotting it.

[IGoHomeNow]

3S seems OK. This hand really isn't a limit raise.

 

I think 4C is an awful bid. West does not want to defend game in spades, so why not pass and

see if they bid it. Look at the North hand, would it bid 4S freely? Its pretty clear that the opponents

may have settled for 3S.

 

4S by north is a direct result of the bad 4C call. Without that call, I don't see how North can

take this mediocre opener and raise a sign-off type bid to game. Pard should have 4 trumps,

but its pretty likely this hand has 4 losers. But facing a 4C call, North is a lot more likely to think

the hand is double fit and that bidding a bit more will be correct.

 

5C by East is really quite awful. This hand is a defensive MONSTER for this action. The only

real excuse here is that 5C might just make. But this hand is not very different from what

partner expects. Oddly, the hand that partner has is NOT a good 4C bid, so East should assume

partner has a good 4C bid. But what IS a good 4C bid. I'd say its a hand that is happy to defentd

4S. But the east hand has so much defense, that is hard to imagine. Nevertheless, its always

better trust partner over opponents. Therefore I, as East, assume partner WANTS to hear them

bid 4S, or is at least OK with defending.

 

5S is AWFUL. I would expect this from hand-hog novice players ONLY. 4S was already a thin

call, but defensible in light of the auction. I would not even make a forcing pass, but in this

auction, there should not be a forcing pass implication. I would not play with a partner who

made such bids more than once in a blue moon.

 

Here is how I think the auction should go.....

 

1S - 2NT - 3S - P

P - P

 

If NS bids 4S freely, West should bid 5C.

[miamijd]

Lots of bad bids in this auction. 1S and 2NT look pretty normal in any system. But after that:

 

1. 3S is a bit of an underbid. You have four spades, not three; the Kd is well-placed; and partner rates to have a heart honor, so the QJ will be working. Better to bid 3D (unus over unus) showing a limit raise or better in spades.

 

2. 4C is fine, although I would consider 5C.

 

3. 4S is OK as a two-way bid in IMPs. It might make (doubtful, but you never know), or the opponents could make 4C.

 

4. 5C by East is poor. He's already shown his hand. Why bid again? If someone is going to sacrifice here, it needs to be West.

 

5. South should X 5C

 

6. North should probably X with two bullets, but I guess I could live with a pass (this is why it's important for South to bid 3D at his first turn; then he can make a forcing pass over 5C).

 

But bidding 5 over 5 with the North hand is just plain awful.

 

CHeers,

Mike

[msjennifer]

That's not Lebensohl, that's Unusual vs Unusual (UvU).

 

ahydra

Sir,I beg your pardon,there are 6(Six) situations where Lebensohl is applicable.It s likely that perhaps you know only one.The remaining five situations is what I leave it to you to find out.The six situations were given in details by an International player to my daddy who passed it to me.If you wish to call it by any whatever other name it's your pleasure to do so.For me it is and will remain LEBENSOHL.

[VixTD]

....this is why it's important for South to bid 3D at his first turn; then he can make a forcing pass over 5C)

Is it standard to play that a limit raise+ sets up a forcing pass over the enemy game? Or does it depend upon whether:

 

(i) your side has actually bid game

(ii) the vulnerability

(iii) the level of the enemy action

 

?