We missed a good diamond fit, who's fault?

[mikl_plkcc]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj843hqdkq7cj7432&n=s2hk87daj9863cat6&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1d1sp2sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

We got a bottom letting their 2♠ made because everyone else played in ♦.

 

We use Standard American so 1♦ suggests 4 ♦s with the exception of 4=4=3=2. Who's fault missing our 9-card fit?

[sfi]

South's mostly. 1NT looks like a fine bid. North could double 2S, but the hand is minimum with only three hearts and partner hasn't shown any values.

[Winstonm]

Both. Although south made no moved north can deduce a smattering of cards because of the limited nature of the opposition’s bidding. South could have helped with 1n but I think north should have been more aggressive.

[smerriman]

Would bid 1NT as South. As North, I would bid 2NT if playing the good/bad 2NT convention in order to compete to 3♦. Otherwise pass.

[apollo1201]

Mostly South. A first bid of 1NT is acceptabl with such a hand.

 

After the pass, contemplating 9 HCPs, and knowing partner is kinda unbalanced with a likely S singleton, balancing with 2NT for minors (suggesting C and a tolerance for partner’s D who rate to often be 5+ long) is not unreasonable as well. At worst, with very active opps, partner is 2443 and 3C should not be a desperate contract.

 

Both actions will convince N to bid 3D.

 

A brave N could also bid 3D by themselves, but personally I’d like a little more (a 7th D, an extra Q or K in one of my suits) to be fully at ease.

 

*edit* had overlooked (phone…) the 3 passes, so N can alone bid 3D knowing partner is around an 8 balanced, having decided to open, you are not doing it for the opps playing an easy 2-level contract in their 5-3 major fit, maybe pass or 3D were better calls for the opening?

[akwoo]

Both.

 

South has a 1N bid, and North should understand to (almost) never let opponents play in 2 of a fit.

[LBengtsson]

Am I not the only one to find it strange that players are suggesting a 1NT bid by South here? stiff ♥Q, poor stop in ♠ suit. Partner raises to 3NT and down we go! lol! (although the player with the 5 card ♠ suit is under us so we might get through.)

 

I do not like giving support with three small, but if partner had opened 1♥/1♠ in a 4 card major system like Acol then bidding 2M would be accepted. I do not see that with 5431 shape and good ♦ support here that bidding 2♦ instead of 1NT to be not reasonable, especially if partner's 1♦ opener promised 4m+.

 

maybe I am the lone one to see it like this but it is only my opinion...

[mcphee]

I hand all the fault to the pass of 1!S. I think 1N is a poor choice although ok on values developing tricks could be a major problem so I like a simple raise of D, i do not think it could be worse than 4/3 fit. I might give 1NT consideration playing pairs, but not much.

[DavidKok]

I can understand not liking pass or 1NT by South, but why are we choosing 2♦ when we have 2♣ available?

 

North had a chance to shine on the actual auction. East failed to open with 5(+) spades, so they have at most 11 points and likely 10 or less. West could not produce an invitational raise (and also failed to open, of course) and is limited to approximately 9 points. Along with the 12 in hand this marks South with at least 8 points and 3-4 spades. Failure to bid over 1♠ indicates at most 3 hearts and weak spades, so 6-7 cards in the minors. With assurances of both values and a fit North could have taken charge and bid on to 3m, possibly via a 2NT gadget.

 

Lastly North would have done well to open 2♦ in fourth hand, due to the spade shortage.

[mw64ahw]

1NT would be my bid suggesting some sort of length/control in ♠.

As North, and In the absence of a negative double, I would place South with at worst 4324 and a non-minimum responding hand.

3♦ then looks reasonably sound with a 6.5ish MLT

 

Playing my unbalanced ♦ approach makes bidding more comfortable as a 5 card minor is likely. A subsequent bid of 3♣ after North's pass then shows 3+ in each of the minors; Pass/Correct.

With a weak hand South can bid 3♣ pre-emptively. If North is 1444 then expect the pass.

[DavidKok]

Playing my unbalanced ♦ approach makes bidding more comfortable as a 5 card minor is likely. A subsequent bid of 3♣ after North's pass then shows 3+ in each of the minors; Pass/Correct.

Does 2NT then show 4(+) clubs? More generally, do you have a way to distinguish relative lengths in the minors? "3+ in each of the minors" is very little to go on.

[mw64ahw]

Does 2NT then show 4(+) clubs? More generally, do you have a way to distinguish relative lengths in the minors? "3+ in each of the minors" is very little to go on.

2NT in this situation would be a 4(324)/ type invitational hand

With a non-GF hand I'm looking for the 8 card fit so no need or space to distinguish relative length of minors.

Opener is either 5431 w. 3+♦, long ♦ or 4♦(441).

Very occasionally you could end up in a minor suit Moysian fit when responder is weak & flat w. 1NT looking horrible , I doubt that would occur in competition.

With GF type (1♦-1♠) there is space without competition for opener to show their shape & strength precisely.

 

Happy to share the structure if interested

[DavidKok]

With a non-GF hand I'm looking for the 8 card fit so no need or space to distinguish relative length of minors.

 

Happy to share the structure if interested

I'm very interested, please do!

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj843hqdkq7cj7432&n=s2hk87daj9863cat6&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=ppp1d1sp2sppp]266|200| mikl_plkcc 'We got a bottom letting their 2♠ made because everyone else played in ♦. We use Standard American so 1♦ suggests 4 ♦s with the exception of 4=4=3=2. Who's fault missing our 9-card fit?'

+++++++++++++++++++

Good problem, mikl_plkcc. After East's 1♠ overcall, for South, I rank

1. 2♦ = NAT. Underbid but lead-directional.

2. 1N = NAT. But the singleton ♥Q is a draw-back.

3. Pass = NAT Prefer ♥ and ♦ holdings reversed.

4. 2♣ = F/1 Overbid, and not the desired lead.

After West's raise to 2♠, for North, I rank

1. X = T/O Weak in high cards but typical shape for this call.

2. Pass = NAT. (But timid, IMO).[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

I'm curious Nigel considers 2♣ an overbid, since we're a passed hand this is 9-10 or so for many strong NTers if they open a lot of 11s, yes the ♥Q is awful but the ♦KQ are good.

[mw64ahw]

I'm very interested, please do!

Sent you a PM, but understand there may be a problem with these?

 

 

 

[bgm]

At the balancing position, S knowing EW has 8-9 ♠ fit, and partner has 0-1 ♠

 

Therefore, partner is unbalanced with ♦ length, worst case is 1444 (and it depends whether you open 1♣ with 1444)

 

So South should know that EW has major double fit while we likely have minor double fit.

 

I am not sure how others will interpret Dbl here; I guess some of them may even think of PEN over T/O as S fail to act on first round.

If that is T/O, it should be a minor T/O as the hand with ♥ length will likely to have negative Dbl in the first round.

 

And one possibility balancing with 2NT which could not be natural as S fail to bid 1NT in first round. So I guess that make sense to interpret that as minor take out with 3♦ 4+ ♣. With 4+♦ we likely to compete in the first round already.

 

The most important thing is: Whether you want to defend opp 4M - this is the ultimate question you ask when you evaluating the hand. If S think that is risky to push them to 4M, then you may not want to balance at this point.

[mw64ahw]

At the balancing position, S knowing EW has 8-9 ♠ fit, and partner has 0-1 ♠

 

Therefore, partner is unbalanced with ♦ length, worst case is 1444 (and it depends whether you open 1♣ with 1444)

 

So South should know that EW has major double fit while we likely have minor double fit.

 

I am not sure how others will interpret Dbl here; I guess some of them may even think of PEN over T/O as S fail to act on first round.

If that is T/O, it should be a minor T/O as the hand with ♥ length will likely to have negative Dbl in the first round.

 

And one possibility balancing with 2NT which could not be natural as S fail to bid 1NT in first round. So I guess that make sense to interpret that as minor take out with 3♦ 4+ ♣. With 4+♦ we likely to compete in the first round already.

 

The most important thing is: Whether you want to defend opp 4M - this is the ultimate question you ask when you evaluating the hand. If S think that is risky to push them to 4M, then you may not want to balance at this point.

A good analysis which identifies North as likely (barring 4 card overcalls & 3 card raises) to be unbalanced

In my post above DK asked what 2NT should be? I suggested an invitational balanced hand with ♠, but this should only be over 1♠ in my UBD.

Perhaps logically X should suggest equal length ♣&♦, 2NT should suggest longer ♣ and 3♣ longer ♦ with at least 33 for either option. I think this bidding makes reasonable sense with a singleton ♥ and 4♠

[EricK]

In 4th seat, North should open 2♦ or pass. Weakish hands with short Spades are dangerous in 4th seat as often the opponents will have a spade fit and be able to outcompete you.

 

A 4th suit pre-empt is not a weak hand, but a minimum single-suited opening bid. It makes it harder for opponents to enter the auction and makes it easier for partner to know when to compete if opponents do butt in.

[Douglas43]

I agree with EricK. I would only open in fourth where my hcp plus number of spades equalled 15 or more, and would pass this one out. Think this is known as a Pearson count?

[mycroft]

If I'm uncomfortable bidding 1NT with that spade holding over 1♠, my spade holding isn't good enough to let them play 2-of-a-fit. Sure, partner is minimum, because she passed 2♠ with the known singleton [note, this inference may not be available to you. My partner and I Balance In Direct Seat in this auction], but *I'm not*, and it's time to tell him.

 

I like 2NT if partner will recognize it as Not Natural (again, assuming my spade stopper isn't good enough for 1NT last round); otherwise 3♦ and hope. Partner isn't one of those crazies that will open 1=3=4=5 minimums 1♦, right :-)?

[Douglas43]

I agree with EricK. I would only open in fourth where my hcp plus number of spades equalled 15 or more, and would pass this one out. Think this is known as a Pearson count?

 

Just to add to that, in a robot tournament in fourth seat, none vul, l I just passed a 1-3-4-5 hand with 13 hcp. It's a bit of a top or bottom strategy because most people would bid. 94% on the board as there is a 5-5 spade fit.