[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

At both tables, the auction was virtually the same up until a point. The third bid decision led to a large swing. Paul Chemla got it right. What do you think he bid and what was in his mind when he made this bid. I'm certain I don't know.

S W N E
1♣ 1♦ 1♠ P
2♥ P 2N-P
??

Here the auction deverged. What call do you make?

---

[P_Marlowe]

Hi

3C.

The interesting question is, is 2NT artificial, i.e. is it
moderateur (lebensohl / inger???) ...

I discuessed it with partner and the answer is yes, so
3C stands out, since I have minimal values.

I can still bid 4H, if partner bids 3H.

Marlowe

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Dec 9 2005, 12:17 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

At both tables, the auction was virtually the same up until a point.  The third bid decision led to a large swing.  Paul Chemla got it right.  What do you think he bid and what was in his mind when he made this bid.  I'm certain I don't know.

S   W    N    E
1♣ 1♦ 1♠ P
2♥ P 2N-P
??

Here the auction deverged.  What call do you make?

---

3H

Showing 6c-5h now.

For me 2nt in "structured reverses" shows non game force hand with exactly 4s and less than 4 hearts. 2nt does not promise any stopper but can be passed. In fact 2nt can be an unbalanced hand but often will be balanced. Responder does not have the option of bidding 3 clubs over 2h with a weak hand and clubs.

[mikeh]

I cannot imagine rebidding ♥ because even if partner has 3 of them, 4♥ going to be risky: partner has wasted (for ♥) values in ♦ and thus we may lose 3 or even 4 trump tricks.

If 2N was artificial: usually a puppet to 3♣ either to play or to show some complex hand: then I bid 3♣, but obviously that is not the case given that this is a problem.

So the choices seem to be a natural and somewhat descriptive 3♣ or 3N.

3♣ is problematic because partner, who has already suggested 3N, probably lacks the right hand to bid 3N now, and may be effectively endplayed into raising ♣.

So I bid 3N.

Ok, did I bid (and/or think) as did Monsieur Chemla?

I suspect not, since both my bid and my rationale seem mundane

[Winstonm]

The auction at Chemla's table was:

1C-1D-1S-P
2H-P-2N-P
3H-P-6H-P
P-P

Chemla's 3H call make it simple for his partner to visualize his hand because he held:

10762
AKQ
Q875
72

To be reversing and then rebidding 3H on at most Jxxxx had to show great controls and at least a club suit as good as held, though probably better.

At the other table, Chemla's hand bid 3N. All Swish.

Winston

[whereagles]

Hum.. I see these so-called experts no less gunslingers than most people... lol.

[Winstonm]

Well, I think the point here is that Paul Chemla has three world championships to his credit - but it ain't because of his bidding!!!!

P.S. This is a joke. I have no idea of their agreements.

[pbleighton]

The 2NT bid with 11 hcp opposite a reverse is interesting. I would interpret it as showing 6-7 hcp, and NF.

Peter

[Cascade]

Chemla knew something that I wouldn't. I would have expected the 2NT bid to show much less. For Chemla 2NT must have shown significant extra values or been forcing.

[Winstonm]

Cascade, on Dec 9 2005, 09:57 PM, said:

Chemla knew something that I wouldn't.  I would have expected the 2NT bid to show much less.  For Chemla 2NT must have shown significant extra values or been forcing.

I think the 2N was simply natural and invitational - the interesting point is that the 3H bid allowed his partner to reevaluate his AKQ of hearts as monster cards, and as Justin pointed out, with 2-card support 3N doesn't rate to be real good anyway unless the clubs produce 6 tricks. I would like to ask Chemla if he would have bid 3N instead of 3H with AKQxxx of clubs.

Winston

P.S. I should have said the equivalent of an invitational bid - of course forcing in this auction - but looks to be natural.

[han]

11 pts is not invitational over a reverse, so it must have some other meaning, and they probably have a different bid for minimal hands. Without knowing their agreement about 2NT, it is hard to pass judgement over 3H.

[HeartA]

Hannie, on Dec 10 2005, 02:29 AM, said:

11 pts is not invitational over a reverse, so it must have some other meaning, and they probably have a different bid for minimal hands. Without knowing their agreement about 2NT, it is hard to pass judgement over 3H.

Agree.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Showing 5Hs and 6Cs does not always promise the stiff Aces of both unbid suits.

A 4-1 break would often push you into Minus City 'if' an Ace was missing.

Perhaps a jump to 5H 'asking' for a diamond control might get you to any decent slam and avoid some silly ones.

As far as the bidding goes, most decent pairs play some form of 2NT Lebensohl type bidding. Without some more details about the systemic agreements, answering this question is very difficult.

If partner is 'showing' a weak hand type, bidding higher than 3C is a big overbid.

Regards,
Robert

[beatrix45]

I vote for 3♣. Pard can show three card heart support and extra values if she has them.

P.S. Reviewed the thread. Wrong again! But, only due to the lie of the defender's cards. I presume some game will be reached over a 3♣ bid.

[Fluffy]

Partner doesn't wanna play game, w don't either, so 3♣ and pass whatever he wants to play

[whereagles]

According to French standard, Chemla's bidding showed a 6-5 with around 3-4 losers. His bidding is completely straightforward within what he's playing. There is nothing strange or different about his bidding, let alone "expert"

[Winstonm]

whereagles, on Dec 11 2005, 03:18 AM, said:

According to French standard, Chemla's bidding showed a 6-5 with around 3-4 losers. His bidding is completely straightforward within what he's playing. There is nothing strange or different about his bidding, let alone "expert"

Thanks for the explanation. Seemed to work well on this hand.