Bidding disaster

[Wackojack]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s7hq1065dkq9ca10742&s=sa9862hak72d2c865]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

This was North's thoughts:

 

Pass pass 1S 2D

X pass 2H pass

?

 

After my take-out double, partner's bid of 2H could be a forced response holding only 3 hearts. Say 4333 or 5323 with no diamond stop prepared to play in a 4-3 heart fit. So since I have a double diamond stop and 11HCP, the hands may well play better in no trumps if partner has only 3 hearts. Partner should know that I have 4 hearts, so will correct my bid of 2NT if he does indeed have 4 hearts himself. So I will bid 2NT.

 

Pass pass 1S 2D

X pass 2H pass

2NT pass 3C pass

?

 

What do I make of this? I have no idea except that it must be showing at least 3 clubs, so just in case partner has only 3 hearts, I will pass.

 

This was South's thoughts:

 

Pass pass 1S 2D

X pass 2H pass

2NT pass ?

 

What do I make of this bid? Partner did not bid 2NT initially, but made a take-out double, which I would expect to show a 4-card heart suit. Had he instead bid 2NT in this position, we have agreed that this bid is natural. Could partner have a 1435 or 1444 distribution with diamond stops, or perhaps 1345 with 11 points and too weak to bid a forcing 3C, or even 2443 with diamond stops? One thing is certain; we don't want to be in 2NT even if partner has only 3 hearts. So the choices appear to be:

a) Bid 3H, hoping that partner does indeed have 4 hearts, but possibly leading partner to believe that I have 5 hearts.

:rolleyes: Bid 3D, leaving partner to make the decision. (This looks like a dangerous cop-out).

c) Bid 3C. This should tell partner that I don't like no trumps, having at most a singleton diamond and since I did not bid clubs before hearts, I must be either 5404 or 5413 and I cannot be 3323 (otherwise I would not take out of 2NT)

 

It looks, therefore like I should bid 3C which partner will pass with 1345 or bid hearts with 1435 or similar. OK I will bid 3C.

 

 

Apportion the blame please.

[Echognome]

Although I have some sympathy for some of the thoughts going on, this is MPs for goodness sakes. NT and Majors are priorities. If North doesn't want to insist on NT's (and I can understand why), then at least try to play in the 43 heart fit, especially as it may be a 44 fit as here.

[helene_t]

3♣ sounds more like a 5314 to me. South must insist on hearts. Btw, would you open 1NT with a 5-card spades? 1NT is 12-14 in your system, right?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Sry, but you and your partner think to much :rolleyes:.

 

Altough 2H maybe bid with a 3 card suit sometimes,

the probability for that is close to zero, in other word:

treat it as natural.

 

2NT over 2H ? No idea, especially if a direct 2NT

would have been natural. Partner would have

lost me here, and what ever I do, I can blame partner,

unless ... I bid 3C with a suit, that does not deserve

the name.

For what's it worth, 3C should probbaly show

5-4-0-4, i.e. responder could still bid 3H.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Finch]

South got too cute.

 

South is entitled to believe partner has 4 hearts for the take-out double, and to bid on that assumption. He has a 3H or 4H bid over 2NT (I'd be tempted to bid only 3H as partner's diamond honours don't look very helpful).

[Walddk]

North's double could perhaps have been on 3 hearts, but only if he had three spades and a good hand, given his initial pass. However, 2NT must deny three spades, and therefore it is obvious that he has four hearts.

 

North bid his hand well in my opinion; South on the other hand made it too difficult for his partner. 3♣ denies four hearts in my methods. It sounds more like a 5314 hand where 2♥ looked reasonable.

 

Roland

[inquiry]

North should think to open when holding openng values.

[Finch]

I'm quite happy not opening the North cards. It's not as if you have an easy rebid if partner responds 1S. Swap the black suits around and it's a different matter.

[coyot]

North should think to open when holding openng values.

Against the likely 1♠ response, those aren't exactly opening values because you then have to repeat your clubs. Should the HCP be located in 2 suits only, it would be a sound opener...

 

Otherwise, South has to trust the partner to have 4 hearts - that is what negative doubles are for. If he happens to have 3 hearts only, he will either bid a 6card club suit or 2NT with good diamond stoppers or pass (with 1-3-4-5 and 10 HCP, he will not miss a good contract unless his partner has something extra to reopen the bidding with.)

 

I'd definitely blame south for not bidding 3♥ here. Don't hang yourself just because you think that your p could not hold himself from giving a bad takeout double.

[cherdano]

North should think to open when holding openng values.

Ben, independently on whether I agree with this or not, I find these kind of remarks rather unhelpful. The style issue whether you consider this an opening hand or not is, IMO, absolutely unrelated to the bidding mishap later in this auction.

 

I don't want to single you out, but there is a tendency in this forum to answer the question "How would I have bid these hands, given my agreements and style?" instead of discussing where the actual auction by the posters went wrong, by bad understanding of THEIR or wrong judgement. If it is judgement and not system that decides bridge matches, we should be discussing judgement and not system...

 

Arend

[inquiry]

North should think to open when holding openng values.

Ben, independently on whether I agree with this or not, I find these kind of remarks rather unhelpful. The style issue whether you consider this an opening hand or not is, IMO, absolutely unrelated to the bidding mishap later in this auction.

 

I don't want to single you out, but there is a tendency in this forum to answer the question "How would I have bid these hands, given my agreements and style?" instead of discussing where the actual auction by the posters went wrong, by bad understanding of THEIR or wrong judgement. If it is judgement and not system that decides bridge matches, we should be discussing judgement and not system...

 

Arend

While this may be true in general, this was a very specific question about what went wrong with auction, followed by tons of what this player thought and that player thought. With addressing the real problem with the auction, which was Norths passing of a clear opening hand.

 

Thus, rather than argue what went wrong with 2NT versus 2H, verus pass, versus 3H raise, one can point out the true problem with the hand. North passed an opening hand.

 

Let;s imagine for a moment that south is able to work out that 2NT showed hearts, and he "corrects" to 3H. What is north to do? Singleton in spade not good when partner bid it, partner opened THIRD SEAT, does he even have an opening hand? Game wich on these cards is good bet (losing 1D and 2C) can never be bid other than by north saying "you know, I passed an opening hand, and we have heart fit, sure hope partner has an opening hand.. and then bidding it).

 

One need not get into their heads with the who thought what. The answer to the question posed in the TITLE of this thread of assigning the blame, I assign 120% to north of the intial pass.

 

Normal auction

 

1C - 1S     *insted of 1N, 2C if you don't rebid with stiff

1N* - 2D     2D checkback nmf

2H - 4H     painless.

 

IF WEST overcalls 2D after north opens, north can DOUBLE if takeout or pass if not (say playing support double). Either way, south introduces hearts, and game is still reached, If double is takeout, south will jumpt to 4H over 2D X. If norht passes, south will bid 2H and north will raise to 3, still reaching game.

 

That IS MY Assessment. Does all the typing add to the blame assessment? I think not. The original answer, ?north should think to open with an opening hand" was just as accurate, and just as "complete" as needed to be.

[Finch]

You can assess that North passed on opening values if you like, but we reserve the right to disagree. The North hand is a marginal opening bid that many people, including I and other posters, would pass. It also was not the source of the disaster, as a heart contract was easily achievable after passing in first seat. You then suggest an auction using a convention which not everybody plays, when that was also not the source of the difficulties.

 

By the way, 4H is no picnic and at matchpoints I have no problem with playing in 3H (at IMPs game is correct I agree). You have only 3 losers but you may struggle to find 10 winners.

[cherdano]

After an 1C opening, the bidding may still go:

1♣-1♠-(2♦)-P-X-2♥.

Now responder may bid 2NT and you have absolutely the same problems. Also I think the disaster was not so much missing game, but ending in 3♣ rather than hearts. (And at least here you would have the same problem South had been dealer instead of North.)

 

Claiming that after an initial pass you cannot have a sensible auction any more doesn't make sense to me, sorry. (Btw, I would pass this hand when playing with Han, open it with other partners.)

 

Arend

[coyot]

After an 1C opening, the bidding may still go:

1♣-1♠-(2♦)-P-X-2♥.

Now responder may bid 2NT and you have absolutely the same problems. Also I think the disaster was not so much missing game, but ending in 3♣ rather than hearts. (And at least here you would have the same problem South had been dealer instead of North.)

I wouldn't like this bidding sequence much.

1♣-p-1♠-2♦

p-p-x-p

 

Why not bid 2♥ instead of x? Perfectly natural bid, we might still land in 2♠ on misfit and I certainly don't fear partner passing with a minimum hand without full heart support (and I expect even minimal partner to raise 2♥ to 3♥.

 

If partner happens to have an unsuitable hand for my majors, he will find the least expensive contract (2NT with stoppers, 3♣ with a good 6 card or 2 in whichever major he seems will be cheaper.).

 

(I would use the takeout double with 5-3-2-3 shape - if p happens to have 4 diamonds, opps will be punished for their wrong overcall, if he happens to have 5 clubs, we might make 9 tricks there, if he has 4 hearts, we could still play on misfit.... Such reopen double should never be played as strict as negative.)

[helene_t]

1C - 1S     *insted of 1N, 2C if you don't rebid with stiff

1N* - 2D     2D checkback nmf

2H - 4H     painless.

Playing Acol, the 1NT rebid is not available (which may be the reason for North not to open). I think the auction should be

1♣-1♠

2♣-2♥

3♥-4♥

[cherdano]

After an 1C opening, the bidding may still go:

1♣-1♠-(2♦)-P-X-2♥.

Now responder may bid 2NT and you have absolutely the same problems. Also I think the disaster was not so much missing game, but ending in 3♣ rather than hearts. (And at least here you would have the same problem South had been dealer instead of North.)

I wouldn't like this bidding sequence much.

1♣-p-1♠-2♦

p-p-x-p

 

Why not bid 2♥ instead of x? Perfectly natural bid, we might still land in 2♠ on misfit and I certainly don't fear partner passing with a minimum hand without full heart support (and I expect even minimal partner to raise 2♥ to 3♥.

 

If partner happens to have an unsuitable hand for my majors, he will find the least expensive contract (2NT with stoppers, 3♣ with a good 6 card or 2 in whichever major he seems will be cheaper.).

Yes, sorry, I didn't give much thought to this auction. Anyway, my point is you can play bridge well without opening marginal hands with a rebid problem. You cannot play bridge without being able to find 4-4 major fits after a negative double.

 

Arend

[whereagles]

I would have opened North's hand, but that's hardly the source of the problem.

 

The problem doesn't have ANYTHING to do with bidding, but with psychology. North simply too a too pessimistic view of his hand (no doubt influenced by the current high oil prices and world economy stagnation ;)) and failed to bid the obvious 3♥ :lol:

[Echognome]

I personally don't see what's wrong with someone having an opinion about why a disaster occurred is because of an opening bid rather than a pass. The question was posed as "assign the blame" and we were given the facts (down to the thoughts of the players). One of the facts was that North passed.

 

We each have our own opinions on why the contract was in clubs and not hearts. Ben has his. I don't see what's wrong with expressing that and why it's not helpful.

 

The fact is that each of North and South decided to bid their hand the way they felt like they should bid it and we are asked to say at what point could things have gone differently to their betterment. Many say South should have bid 3♥ instead of 3♣. Ben happens to say that North should bid 1♣ rather than pass. Wtp?

[Wackojack]

1C  - 1S      *insted of 1N, 2C if you don't rebid with stiff

1N* - 2D      2D checkback nmf

2H - 4H     painless.

Playing Acol, the 1NT rebid is not available (which may be the reason for North not to open). I think the auction should be

1♣-1♠

2♣-2♥

3♥-4♥

 

 

Quote Whereagles "The problem doesn't have ANYTHING to do with bidding, but with psychology. North simply too a too pessimistic view of his hand (no doubt influenced by the current high oil prices and world economy stagnation ) and failed to bid the obvious 3♥"

I was South and now take almost all of the responsibility for the disaster. Yes my partner has a tendancy to take the most pessimistic scenario at times, but I now think it is clear that I should have bid 3H and not 3C. Then partner with a 7 loser hand would raise to 4H. (We don't play especially light opening bids in 3rd position and require 7 losers to open)

 

I understand why my partner did not open 1C, because the rebid of 1NT is not available. (We play 12-14 NT and rebids 15-17) So 1C-1S-2C would not describe the nature of the hand very adequately. (I recall in another thread that playing this system this type of hand being called "the hand from hell". I appreciate Ben's verdict, so that I can balance "judgement limitations" against "system limitations". Here judgement being the more important. :)

[whereagles]

I would be weary to take the blame in any bridge situation. In the vast majority of the cases, mistakes are compond. It takes two to tango..

[Double !]

In the vast majority of the cases, mistakes are compond. It takes two to tango..

10-4

I agree

 

Someone suggested that the neg X hand might be 1345. If such a hand has some values in diamonds, this hand should not (IMO) make a negative double, but instead should pass. The template distributional pattern for a negX on this sequence is 2434. The farther one deviates from the template, the better the hand needs to be. So, unless P has a 1-suited hand that is not strong enough to bid the suit directly, I think it's reasonable to assume P has 4 hearts (if nothing else, make this a default feature of a negX).

 

It brings to mind an old cartoon that was in some bridge magazine eons ago. Two elderly ladies are sitting at a bridge table. One lady says to the other. "Now remember, Mabel, 4NT is always blackwood!". Now this is not an expert position to take, but there is a message there. Specifically, better to have clear criteria for or meaning of a bid, even if they're poor or less optimal, if it reduces poor results due to misunderstandings.

[awm]

Normal auction

 

1C - 1S     *insted of 1N, 2C if you don't rebid with stiff

1N* - 2D     2D checkback nmf

2H - 4H     painless.

 

IF WEST overcalls 2D after north opens, north can DOUBLE if takeout or pass if not (say playing support double). Either way, south introduces hearts, and game is still reached, If double is takeout, south will jumpt to 4H over 2D X. If norht passes, south will bid 2H and north will raise to 3, still reaching game.

 

That IS MY Assessment. Does all the typing add to the blame assessment? I think not. The original answer, ?north should think to open with an opening hand" was just as accurate, and just as "complete" as needed to be.

I've always found it amusing how many people seem to like to open most 11-counts, and force game with most 11-counts opposite an opening bid. And indeed, on this particular hand game is okay (although I'd hesitate to say it's great, as others have commented you may have trouble tracking down 10 winners despite having only 3 losers). But wouldn't the bidding go the same way if opener held:

 

xx

QTxx

KQx

AJxx

 

It seems like for every well-fitting game that you find by opening 10 and 11-counts (and forcing game with 11-counts and a fit opposite them), you will probably go down in four or five games where the hands just don't quite fit right. But that's just me, I've seen plenty of experts who go for the "open all 11s, GF with most 11s opposite opener" style.

 

On the actual hand I'd place the blame with south. A negative double followed by 2NT must show four hearts. Since a direct 2NT would show essentially the same hand (balanced-ish shape possibly short spades, diamond stoppers, invitational strength) I don't see any reason not to bid 2NT directly except for the desire to find a 4-4 heart fit.

 

Bidding game on these hands is a bit of a stretch opposite the known diamond wastage. I would probably try 3♦ as south over 2NT (showing the singleton, some game interest in hearts) which will get me to game if the north hand is:

 

x

QTxx

Axx

KJxxx

 

but probably not on the actual hand.