Who to blame (6)

[HeartA]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=skq973hq72d975ckq&s=sajha653d4caj8652]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Bidding went:

N -- S

1S - 2C

2N - 3C

3N - all passed[/hv]

3NT wend down 1 but 6C was makeable (cold).

[Cascade]

2NT is poor with less than half a stopper in the red suits. I would rebid 2♠ this should show a minimum and can be only five spades.

 

3NT was worse. Having misdescribed with 2NT I would not want to re-emphasise my red suit stoppers. 4♣ seems fairly normal with the excellent ♣ KQ.

 

Blame 120% North. The rest South. :D

[pbleighton]

To the extent that there is blame, it is all North.

 

What system and agreements are you playing? What do the 2NT and 3C bids mean?

 

2NT looks shaky to me, but if you play that 2S would promise 6, then it better than 2D.

 

Does 3C show a reasonable 6 card suit and a decent hand? If it does, then 4C or 5C is better than 3NT. We've all been burned at the 5 level, however, so I don't think 3NT is terrible, particularly with an aceless minimum.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you had a lot of company in 3NT. I think 6C is very difficult to bid in standard methods. The stars are in alignment. 26 hcp and a 6-2 fit isn't the stuff percentage slams are made of, IMO.

 

Peter

[Walddk]

I think 2NT is ok. It doesn't promise stoppers in both red suits as I play it, merely a description of the hand type. I assume 2/1 since responder rebid 3♣, but now 3NT is wrong, because that would definitely tell partner that we are well covered in the reds.

 

4♣ would be my choice at IMPs, but I don't mind 3♥, showing values and denying a diamond stopper. 100% to North.

 

By the way, 6♣ is not exactly a great contract on a heart lead with the king sitting on my right, but it's better than 3NT on a diamond lead.

 

Roland

[mike777]

I think 2NT is ok. It doesn't promise stoppers in both red suits as I play it, merely a description of the hand type. I assume 2/1 since responder rebid 3♣, but now 3NT is wrong, because that would definitely tell partner that we are well covered in the reds.

 

4♣ would be my choice at IMPs, but I don't mind 3♥, showing values and denying a diamond stopper. 100% to North.

 

By the way, 6♣ is not exactly a great contract on a heart lead with the king sitting on my right, but it's better than 3NT on a diamond lead.

 

Roland

Well said Roland, agree strongly.

 

Once again bidding out shape and where HCP are works.

 

Can live with south pulling 3nt and bidding 4s since it sounds as if P is 5332 but then P did bid 3nt so why override p decision? As Roland says P could have bid 3d or 3h to show doubt. Sounds like North has:

 

QXXXX

KJX

AQX

XX

[reisig]

No doubt about the blame ...Wayne is right! But for Roland (of all people) to say - not a good slam)...amazing :D)) 12.82% is good to him.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

it would be nice to know, what kind of system you

are playing.

 

Assuming the 2NT from North is systemic, showing

12-14, I would prefer 3H from South instead of 3C.

Afterall North may still hold a 4 card heart suit, unless

you are play, that a reverse does not show extras.

 

Over 3H north will likely bid 3NT and thats the end

of it. Of course South could move on, but then North

may hold concentrated values in Diamonds and nothing

in spade, and we would sing a different tune, if 3NT makes,

while 5C goes down.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Walddk]

Afterall North may still hold a 4 card heart suit, unless

you are  play, that a reverse does not show  extras.

Must be a slip of the hand or mind P. Marlowe. Opener has denied 4 hearts when he rebids 2NT (or 2♠ for that matter), and 2♥ is not a reverse on this auction:

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♥

 

....

 

1♥ - 2♣

2♠

 

is a reverse.

 

A reverse is described as a suit bid at the 2-level, higher ranking than the suit you open. Has nothing to do with responder's first bid. New suit at the 3-level could also be called a reverse, and in that case it is lower ranking than the suit you open.

 

Reverses do not exist at the 1-level, by the way.

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠

 

is not a reverse.

 

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Afterall North may still hold a 4 card heart suit, unless

you are  play, that a reverse does not show  extras.

Must be a slip of the hand or mind P. Marlowe. Opener has denied 4 hearts when he rebids 2NT (or 2♠ for that matter), and 2♥ is not a reverse on this auction:

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♥

 

....

 

1♥ - 2♣

2♠

 

is a reverse.

 

A reverse is described as a suit bid at the 2-level, higher ranking than the suit you open. Has nothing to do with responder's first bid. New suit at the 3-level could also be called a reverse, and in that case it is lower ranking than the suit you open.

 

Reverses do not exist at the 1-level, by the way.

 

1♣ - 1♥

1♠

 

is not a reverse.

 

Roland

Hi Roland,

 

yes you are right, 2H is not a reverse.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I can't blame it on the wiskey, because

it is to early in the morning.

[Fluffy]

if 2NT is sytematic then the blame goes for 3NT.

 

after 3♣ North has to rebid 3♥ or 3♠.

 

Its true that south might bid 3♥ instead of 3♣, but only if he judges his hand is worth reopnening 3NT with 4♣, wich is not the case.

[EricK]

I don't think much of North's opening bid (Aceless hand, KQ doubleton in ♣, unsupported ♥Q).

 

I don't like 2NT rebid either with two unstopped unbid suits. If 2NT is mandated by the system then I think even less of the opening bid, since two of the likeliest responses (1NT, 2♣) will force me to make a bid I don't want to.

 

I don't like North's 3NT. Since he has denied holding 4 ♥ he could bid 3♥ here to warn of the ♦ weakness.

 

All in all, I blame North.

 

Eric

[whereagles]

I don't care who's to blame. I would bid it like this

 

1♠ 2♣

2NT 3♥

3♠ 4♠

pass

 

3♥ = bidding shape

3♠ = with the diamond hole it's better not to insist on NT and instead suggest good spades

4♠ = happy to play the 5-2 fit with all the fitting honors

 

I wouldn't get close to 6, but would reach a decent contract nonetheless.

[Walddk]

I don't care who's to blame. I would bid it like this

 

1♠ 2♣

2NT 3♥

3♠ 4♠

pass

 

3♥ = bidding shape

3♠ = with the diamond hole, better to suggest good spades

4♠ = happy to play the 5-2 fit with all the fitting honors

 

I wouldn't get close to 6, but would reach a decent contract nonetheless.

3♥ by responder shouldn't promise a suit, merely a feature. With a different hand, what else would you bid with

 

xx

AQJ

xxx

AKxxx

 

Roland

[whereagles]

I don't care who's to blame. I would bid it like this

 

1♠ 2♣

2NT 3♥

3♠ 4♠

pass

 

3♥ = bidding shape

3♠ = with the diamond hole, better to suggest good spades

4♠ = happy to play the 5-2 fit with all the fitting honors

 

I wouldn't get close to 6, but would reach a decent contract nonetheless.

3♥ by responder shouldn't promise a suit, merely a feature. With a different hand, what else would you bid with

 

xx

AQJ

xxx

AKxxx

 

Roland

Well, I prefer 3♥ as (shock, horror) natural. But anyone plays it the way he likes :)

 

With the hand you showed I would bid

 

1♠ 2♣

2NT 3NT

 

Evading the 3NT bid should show a singleton and/or concern for the last suit. (As was the case in the original hand.)

 

Note: the aim of this style of play is not really to sort out stoppers, but to evaluate where shortnesses lie and how well hands fit for for a shortness-type slam.

[Fluffy]

3♥ by responder shouldn't promise a suit, merely a feature. With a different hand, what else would you bid with

 

xx

AQJ

xxx

AKxxx

 

Roland

Don't you show some shape with that 3♥ bid Roland?

[Guest Jlall]

2N I hate but depends on system, meckwell for instance play 2N as the "default" bid instead of 2S so may be right according to system. 3N bid is unfathomable, I mean seriously? I like 4C with the north hand, though have some (not alot) of sympathy for 3H over 3C.

[beatrix45]

;)

Just happened to be reading Chapter III of Mike Lawrence's 'Workbook on the 2/1 System'. In his view opener should have rebid 2♠ (not NT since red suits not both stopped). After that, responder has to bid 3♥ (3♣ would not be forcing). Auction is now in a game force, so opener will probably bid 4♣. Responder now can try either 4♠ or 5♣. Both are OK game contracts.

[adf]

Interesting bidding discussion, but I find the potential symmetry in the play beautiful. If you end up in 6♠, then...

> If the defense plays two rounds of diamonds, you need spades to break 3-3 (or 10-8 doubleton), but 4-1 clubs are okay.

> If the defense knocks out the ♥A, you need clubs to break 3-2, but 4-2 spades are okay.

So of course, assuming best defense you need both suits to break.

 

6♣ is better, as you need only a good spade break on any lead, and clubs no worse than 4-1.

[Walddk]

6♣ is better, as you need only a good spade break on any lead, and clubs no worse than 4-1.

Not sure if we are on the same wavelength. If they knock out your ♥A, you need spades to break 3-3 or 10x with either defender.

 

♥A, two rounds of clubs, back to hand with a spade to the ace, draw trump(s) - and now you must overtake ♠J.

 

Maybe that is what you mean by a good spade break?

 

Roland

[Fluffy]

Surelly yes, that is better than a ♦ blockage :)

[HeartA]

This is the first time I got all the blame. There must be a conspricy here. :)

 

I was sitting North, we have played a few hundreds of boards. Though we agreed that 2♠ does not guarantee 6+, for the hands we played as I remember, we took it as 6+. I didn't think of 2S, but decided to bid 2NT after all with 5332 distribution. After 3C (2C is game forcing as you can guess from sequence, otherwise I would have passed 3C), I did think of 4C as well. But I was afraid of by-passing 3NT with my aceless hands and 3Qs.

 

Finally, if I held South's hand, I would rebid 3H (surprise, only one person mention that) after North's 2N. IMO, thought North denied 4-card of ♥, 3♥ would still be good, showing an unbalanced hand and suggested long C as well. So if a clone of mine sit South, we would not reach 3NT.

[Winstonm]

Depending on your systemic approach, I don't have a big problem with the 2N rebid - if that is what you agreed to then you live with it; however, if partner were interested in NT then he would simply raise NT and not bid 3C - 3C in itself in this auction has to imply 1) and unbalanced hand 2) a powerful hand, or 3) both of the above.

 

As such, I think a bid of 3S is most descriptive of the north hand - it implies doubts as to the correct-ness of 3N, does not show any extras, and gives responder the chance to support on Ax.

 

As there is a "known" 6/2 fit and doubt about 3N, I would not object at this point for South to try once more for slam with whatever the system calls for: 4C is no longer a force in some methods. Give North the same hand with the K of hearts and the slam is at least decent. Even the QJ of hearts helps.

 

I am extremely aggressive to a point when trying to bid low-high-card slams, so I would make one more try over 3S, (4C-forcing in my systemic approach) but when partner can only bid 5C I will have to respect that decision and pass.

 

I wouldn't reach the best MP contract of 4S, but I would reach a good 5C contract and avoid the hopeless 3N.

 

In my opinion, the problem bid on this hand was 3N.

 

WinstonM

[adf]

6♣ is better, as you need only a good spade break on any lead...

Not sure if we are on the same wavelength. If they knock out your ♥A, you need spades to break 3-3 or 10x with either defender.

 

Maybe that is what you mean by a good spade break?

Yep. And in 6♣, it doesn't much matter if they knock out the ♥A.

 

(And my earlier post erroneously stated 10-8, rather than 10-x, in addition to 3-3 breaks.)