ATB: 3Cx=

[Jinksy]

[hv=pc=n&w=sqj32h854dakt3c85&e=st86hkj73dqj5ckq9&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1n(12-14%2C%20inc%20any%204441%20or%205422)p2c3cppdppp]266|200[/hv]

 

IMP teams. X was TO. NS a strong pair.

[ahydra]

What's the agreement on double? Looks like West thought it was takeout and East penalty.

 

ahydra

[hrothgar]

3♣ doubled looks like a pretty nice place to be sitting as E/W

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sqj32h854dakt3c85&e=st86hkj73dqj5ckq9&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1n(12-14%2C%20inc%20any%204441%20or%205422)p2c3cppdppp]266|200|

 

IMP teams. X was TO. NS a strong pair.[/hv]

East might show his 4 ♥s, but pass is reasonable with his flat hand.

Well bid even if 3♣X is a lucky make.

East-West might be at fault in the defence rather than in the bidding.

Anyway, if opponents don't make the occasional doubled contract,

then you aren't doubling enough.

[johnu]

Was 1NT forcing? :)

[nige1]

On reflection, JohnU makes a good point. With West's hand, opposite a 12-14 NT opener, it's conceivable that Stayman would improve the contract but Pass seems a better call.

[rmnka447]

I didn't vote because in IMO neither player acted reasonably.

 

East opening 1 NT in 1st seat vulnerable with a 1 1/2 QT 12 HCP pancake is overly aggressive. West has a maximum pass opposite a weak NT, but chose to use Stayman.

 

After the 3 ♣ overcall, East properly passed. West has a tough call and chose to reopen with a double. West knows that East/West have somewhere between 22-24 HCPs, but a "strong" North has pushed the bidding up to the 3 level opposite an opening East and West whose hand is still unlimited. 22-24 ought to be pretty safe for a 2 level contract, but the 3 level is lot more uncertain without a known fit. Maybe, pushing to compete further should be reconsidered especially since already having bid the value of the hand and then some.

 

Likewise, after West's reopening double of 3 ♣, East has to consider whether sitting for it is right with East's sub-minimum opener. ♣ KQ9 tight is probably worth 2 tricks at most, but the rest of the hand is lacking much additional defense. West's double also seems to indicate ♣ shortness. It's been my experience that a good 3 card holding in the opponent's suit often isn't good enough to defeat a part score even when holding a majority of the points. 3 ♣x making is an often fatal vulnerable game swing, so it needs to be pretty certain to go down to sit and defend it. So, East needs to seriously think about bidding something over 3 ♣x.

[Tramticket]

1NT = A normal weak NT (sorry RMNKA447, but playing weak NT I would open this every time).

 

2C Stayman = This is a bit strange. It can sometimes improve things, but since West is maximum I see little point in this bid.

 

Double of 3C = Aggressive action at these colours. Why do we want to compete aggressively for a part-score, red vs red at IMPs?

 

Penalty pass = I might do this at pairs, trying for the magic +200. But this it is a silly risk at teams - doubling opps into game.

[Cyberyeti]

I am not unknown to make a stayman bid on hands with W's shape, but usually weaker when I don't fancy 1N so much. If 1N is making I'm less inclined to do it particularly at teams.

Presumably the intention was to invite if partner showed spades, looking for say K109x, Ax, Qxx, Axxx or similar where game is not certain but will make unless they keep leading trumps, and the vul at teams bonus is very inviting, but I think you're trying to hit a pretty small target, particularly if partner upgrades freely out of a 1N opener.

 

I think most people who play a weak NT would open this one in first seat (although I might pass in 3rd).

 

Double of 3♣, aggressive, you probably want partner to pass, and this could be worth 500 against nothing if he can.

 

Penalty pass, In two minds, if partner has the 4441 version of his hand, you almost certainly want to bid, if partner has a tiny touch more with his existing shape, you want to pass.

 

I wouldn't assign too much blame, presumably the 3♣ bidder had a stiff diamond, but 3♥x would be no bargain if he had the other red singleton.

[gszes]

I see zero reason for the 2c bid opposite a 12-14 NT. The odd part about the west hand is that they not only over bid with 2c they continued to bid as if nothing was wrong when they x 3c. Poor east looking at KQx behind the club bidder has to pass

despite an otherwise motley collection of values (what else does one expect from a 12-14 nt anyway). One might argue that since the opps aren't crazy that maybe bidding 3n is a safer action but it is hard to imagine 3n making with 3c not going down

for a significant number. The real problem is that east is looking at a probable 3 defensive tricks sitting behind the club bidder and is expecting (at the very least) a balanced hand that is just short of an opening bid. This point of view means that

3c appears doomed from the start and as the odds of making 3n increase so should the penalty for letting the x ride for penalty. It is important to remember that the 2c bid should have been made with a hand that is invitational or better and that

means a vul game bonus is plausible.

Let us take the same start with west passing instead of overbidding for zero apparent reason. 1N p p 2/3c p p x p now east has an easy heart bid since their expectation of making game is miniscule at best and there is far too much risk in sitting for 2/3 c clubs x since they are no longer worried about having to make up for a vul game bonus. I personally think west just forgot to realize they needed more values to use stayman and reflexively bid as if their partner had opened a 15-17 nt.

[Tramticket]

Penalty pass, In two minds, if partner has the 4441 version of his hand, you almost certainly want to bid, if partner has a tiny touch more with his existing shape, you want to pass.

 

If partner has extras and his existing shape, I still think that I prefer bidding the vulnerable game. 3NT (with my double stop), rather than passing for penalties looks to be the best bet. Your opponent can see the vulnerability too and it's not as if you have some big surprise for him in terms of a bad trump break.

 

In this case 3NT is too high, because partner has been overly-aggressive.

[Cyberyeti]

If partner has extras and his existing shape, I still think that I prefer bidding the vulnerable game. 3NT (with my double stop), rather than passing for penalties looks to be the best bet. Your opponent can see the vulnerability too and it's not as if you have some big surprise for him in terms of a bad trump break.

 

In this case 3NT is too high, because partner has been overly-aggressive.

 

3N is no bargain opposite the same hand with ♠KQxx rather than QJxx, but I might well get 500 out of 3♣x and certainly 200.

[Tramticket]

3N is no bargain opposite the same hand with ♠KQxx rather than QJxx, but I might well get 500 out of 3♣x and certainly 200.

 

North/South are described as a strong pair. A strong player doesn't stumble into a -500 penalty, unless things are sitting badly. I don't see that we have any surprises, so I expect North to have a very shapely hand for his bid. My guess is that, if we pass, we are playing for +200 and risking them making a vulnerable game.

 

I agree that 3NT is no bargain, but at teams it is worth a go, with less down-side if we fail.

[JanisW]

 

I see zero reason for the 2c bid opposite a 12-14 NT. The odd part about the west hand is that they not only over bid with 2c they continued to bid as if nothing was wrong when they x 3c. Poor east looking at KQx behind the club bidder has to pass

despite an otherwise motley collection of values (what else does one expect from a 12-14 nt anyway). One might argue that since the opps aren't crazy that maybe bidding 3n is a safer action but it is hard to imagine 3n making with 3c not going down

for a significant number. The real problem is that east is looking at a probable 3 defensive tricks sitting behind the club bidder and is expecting (at the very least) a balanced hand that is just short of an opening bid. This point of view means that

3c appears doomed from the start and as the odds of making 3n increase so should the penalty for letting the x ride for penalty. It is important to remember that the 2c bid should have been made with a hand that is invitational or better and that

means a vul game bonus is plausible.

Let us take the same start with west passing instead of overbidding for zero apparent reason. 1N p p 2/3c p p x p now east has an easy heart bid since their expectation of making game is miniscule at best and there is far too much risk in sitting for 2/3 c clubs x since they are no longer worried about having to make up for a vul game bonus. I personally think west just forgot to realize they needed more values to use stayman and reflexively bid as if their partner had opened a 15-17 nt.

 

 

+1

bidding 2♣ is unreasonable and bidding on is even worse, perhaps E should've saved the day, but 3CX could've easily been the best spot.

 

regards

JW

[NickRW]

1NT = A normal weak NT (sorry RMNKA447, but playing weak NT I would open this every time).

 

I know this "normal" in the sense that most people would. I remain to be convinced that opening balanced 11s and poor 12s is +EV to your overall system.

[The_Badger]

Flat 12HCPs. 1st seat. 4333 shape. Aceless. Less intermediates (10,9,8) than small cards. No touching intermediates. Vulnerable. NOT A WEAK OPENING 1NT.

 

Kaplan & Rubens hand evaluator - used after writing the above - calculates this hand as a crummy 10.05 count.

[Tramticket]

I know this "normal" in the sense that most people would. I remain to be convinced that opening balanced 11s and poor 12s is +EV to your overall system.

 

If you have chosen to play a weak NT then you will open 1NT with 12 HCP, unless you consider the hand worth a downgrade, because it will fall within partner's range of expectation. I'm no fan of the 4333 shape, but the hand is otherwise a normal 12 count. It has an average number of intermediates (one 10, one 9) and honour cards supporting each other. I don't feel that this hand has sufficient negative features to downgrade and treat as an 11-count.

 

But I agree that it is right at the bottom of the range and has only a three-card club suit, so I would not make a penalty pass of 3♣ at IMPs. Yes the club honours are nicely placed, but I would want a fourth (and fifth?) club to persuade me to pass.

[Cyberyeti]

North/South are described as a strong pair. A strong player doesn't stumble into a -500 penalty, unless things are sitting badly. I don't see that we have any surprises, so I expect North to have a very shapely hand for his bid. My guess is that, if we pass, we are playing for +200 and risking them making a vulnerable game.

 

I agree that 3NT is no bargain, but at teams it is worth a go, with less down-side if we fail.

 

You really not overcalling on AK(x), AQ, xx(x), AJ109xx assuming responder was using garbage stayman ? there is also very real possiblility declarer is never getting to dummy so might lose extra spade tricks while unable to take finesse(s).

[rmnka447]

1NT = A normal weak NT (sorry RMNKA447, but playing weak NT I would open this every time).

 

2C Stayman = This is a bit strange. It can sometimes improve things, but since West is maximum I see little point in this bid.

 

Double of 3C = Aggressive action at these colours. Why do we want to compete aggressively for a part-score, red vs red at IMPs?

 

Penalty pass = I might do this at pairs, trying for the magic +200. But this it is a silly risk at teams - doubling opps into game.

Even though I live in the US where strong NTs dominate, with my main tournament partners, I've also played weak NT with some success for 40+ years. It's been my experience that opening such dregs is a losing proposition in the long run especially against strong players.

 

Otherwise, I'm in line with your other comments.

[rmnka447]

I see zero reason for the 2c bid opposite a 12-14 NT. The odd part about the west hand is that they not only over bid with 2c they continued to bid as if nothing was wrong when they x 3c. Poor east looking at KQx behind the club bidder has to pass

despite an otherwise motley collection of values (what else does one expect from a 12-14 nt anyway). One might argue that since the opps aren't crazy that maybe bidding 3n is a safer action but it is hard to imagine 3n making with 3c not going down

for a significant number. The real problem is that east is looking at a probable 3 defensive tricks sitting behind the club bidder and is expecting (at the very least) a balanced hand that is just short of an opening bid. This point of view means that

3c appears doomed from the start and as the odds of making 3n increase so should the penalty for letting the x ride for penalty. It is important to remember that the 2c bid should have been made with a hand that is invitational or better and that

means a vul game bonus is plausible.

Let us take the same start with west passing instead of overbidding for zero apparent reason. 1N p p 2/3c p p x p now east has an easy heart bid since their expectation of making game is miniscule at best and there is far too much risk in sitting for 2/3 c clubs x since they are no longer worried about having to make up for a vul game bonus. I personally think west just forgot to realize they needed more values to use stayman and reflexively bid as if their partner had opened a 15-17 nt.

 

A problem on this hand is that North, a strong player, has competed to the 3 level vulnerable when his opponents arguably have at least game invitational values from the bidding. What can North have that would justify stepping into this situation? Well, it can't be a preponderance of points, so it must be distribution or playing tricks unless North has some bizarre death wish. I wouldn't be surprised to see North with something like ♠ AKxx ♥ x ♦ x ♣ AJ10xxxx or similar.

 

Against this, East has what looks like 2 sure ♣ tricks and otherwise soft defensive values. Defeating 3 ♣ is far from a certainty. Beyond the ♣, East has another 1/2 QT. So beating 3 ♣ looks like it needs 2 1/2 to 3 defensive tricks from partner West which is a lot to assume.

[Cyberyeti]

A problem on this hand is that North, a strong player, has competed to the 3 level vulnerable when his opponents arguably have at least game invitational values from the bidding. What can North have that would justify stepping into this situation? Well, it can't be a preponderance of points, so it must be distribution or playing tricks unless North has some bizarre death wish. I wouldn't be surprised to see North with something like ♠ AKxx ♥ x ♦ x ♣ AJ10xxxx or similar.

 

Against this, East has what looks like 2 sure ♣ tricks and otherwise soft defensive values. Defeating 3 ♣ is far from a certainty. Beyond the ♣, East has another 1/2 QT. So beating 3 ♣ looks like it needs 2 1/2 to 3 defensive tricks from partner West which is a lot to assume.

 

If N has this, how big a number do you think you're dialling in anything you bid ?

[dokoko]

West may

 

- bid Stayman, then pass 3C; or

- pass 1NT, then dbl 3C for takeout.

 

but should not bid, then double.

 

All vul is the worst vulnerability for balancing at imps for the partscore. If partner takes out the double your action wins imps if both sides make 9 tricks somewhere, which is rather unlikely. In fact, holding both majors opener would probably have doubled 3C.

 

Opposite a genuine inv+ hand 3C figures to go down, while there might be no fit our way and 3NT is far from certain.

 

On the actual layout, taking out the double to 3H will be no fun and might cost 500 as well.

[wank]

west has done too much twice.

[Jinksy]

You really not overcalling on AK(x), AQ, xx(x), AJ109xx assuming responder was using garbage stayman ? there is also very real possiblility declarer is never getting to dummy so might lose extra spade tricks while unable to take finesse(s).

 

With a hand that good, N would have the option (which I, in his seat would certainly exercise) to make a values-showing X of 2♣.

[Cyberyeti]

With a hand that good, N would have the option (which I, in his seat would certainly exercise) to make a values-showing X of 2♣.

 

It shows clubs for me but not necessarily a real hand, lead inducing, so didn't think of that.