[benlessard]

Scoring: IMP

---

1s----2d----2s----all pass.


4s was a very good spot.




should north open 1nt (15-17)

Do you agree with the 2s bid ?

[paulg]

It appears that this game requires the ♦A to be well positioned and spades to behave. There is 24% chance of losing a trump trick (and it is unclear that you can cope with any 4-1 break).

So this seems to make game around 38%. This is on the limit for bidding a vulnerable game but should be avoided when non-vulnerable.

So, although 4♠ may have made, it is better bridge to avoid the game.

In terms of your bidding, it depends what system you were playing. Most 5-card major systems (including SAYC, 2/1, etc) promise a rebid if you respond at the 2-level, so perhaps you were playing a 4-card major system such as Acol (as South does not have the values to respond 2♦ in most systems).

However, whatever your system I would have expect South to raise to 3♠ and for North to pass. This is not a game I'd expect people to bid unless they were playing a 14-16 1NT and, even then, it's not a game I'd want to be in.

Paul

[HeartA]

No, I don't agree with the 2S bid. Depending on the agreement, South could bid 2NT or 3D (or even dbl).

[Free]

Agree with cardsharp's analyse. Btw, you can't cope with 4-1 split since you'll ruff a ♣ in dummy and need a magic insight to see you need to play ♠ to the 10 next.

This is another one of those LTC mess-ups: in your wildest dreams south has 8 losers and north has 7, and still game is on.

[kenrexford]

IMO, the problem is the Opening. If 1NT can be opened with a five-card major, a good five-card major, primed out to 14 HCP's, should be opened 1NT. Aces undervalued, and such.

Responder, assuming this, is off the hook. True, he holds what appears to be a plausible four cover cards (adding the doubleton club as another cover). But, it seems that he needs good trumps and partner primed out to about 14 HCP's, with which Opener should have opened 1NT. Thus, Opener cannot have that fitting hand.

Further, from Responder's standpoint, all necessary finesses, except the diamond finesse, should fail. Diamonds even produce a threat, because he holds too many. When the diamond King is a needed trick/cover, it often falls to a second-round ruff when overcaller has the expected sixth diamond.

[FrancesHinden]

In an Acol-type (4CM) system, I see nothing wrong with the auction.
In a 5-card major system I would bid 1S - 2S - Pass. You don't particularly want to be in game as others have pointed out.

I hate opening 1NT on that hand. It is far too suitable for suit play. I agree it is strong enough, but why open 1NT with 3 aces and no pips?

[mikeh]

I assume that the 2♦ was an overcall, not a response by South.

In that case, S has a maximum 2♠ and a minimum limit raise, and either is ok with me...

And N has a maximum pass of 2♠ and a relatively clear acceptance of a limit raise.

The auction ending in 2♠ has hit a seam in the valuation/bidding methods of N-S. There will always be hands like this, and one cannot get upset over them. Look at how perfectly the hands mesh... not a wasted J in them, and even so game is far from cold.

So I miss this one and don't worry at all.

[kenrexford]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 14 2006, 10:00 AM, said:

I hate opening 1NT on that hand. It is far too suitable for suit play. I agree it is strong enough, but why open 1NT with 3 aces and no pips?

The opening of 1NT does not force the partnership into a notrump contract. What it does is describe playing strength and general shape. This hand has playing strength that is intermediate (15-17 if HCP's is required), with no sixth card in a major and no stiff.

Sure, I like suit contracts better. That is why I may compete to 2♠ in a competitive auction and would be thrilled with partner using Puppet Stayman or the like. But, if I bury my playing strength by opening 1♠, I run into the problem of partner not pressing with 10-11 HCP's for a game that I expect to have decent chances opposite 10-11 HCP's.

If partner can make a constructive raise of spades, I am well-placed. After an uncontested 1♠-P-2♠, I can bid 2NT confidently. But, if 2♠ was a pressure bid, I am in trouble.

Partner's solution to my predicament of stretching on a nice nine-count punishes me for opening a rat 1♠. In the long run, I'd prefer to open 1NT with this hand to protect my ability to make a ratty 1♠ opening and not have partner hang me.

Make the major hearts, and a rat 1♥ is less appealing, and accordingly the balance may tip to a 1♥ opening. Rat 1♠ opening simply pay too much, IMO.

[mikeh]

I strongly disagree with the idea of opening 1N as north.

I have no problem upgrading good 14 counts to open 1N, and thus rarely open 1N with 17 and a 5 card suit, since it upgrades out of range, just as the lower hands can upgrade into range.

But, Aces are suit oriented values and we seem to be lacking intermediates as well.

So 1♠ is 100% clear, to the point that I would consider 1N a clear error.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Aug 14 2006, 12:08 PM, said:

I strongly disagree with the idea of opening 1N as north.

I have no problem upgrading good 14 counts to open 1N, and thus rarely open 1N with 17 and a 5 card suit, since it upgrades out of range, just as the lower hands can upgrade into range.

But, Aces are suit oriented values and we seem to be lacking intermediates as well.

So 1♠ is 100% clear, to the point that I would consider 1N a clear error.

If a 1NT opening is "an error" on this hand because of the Aces and spaces, what do you open with Axxx-Axx-Axx-Axx? Again, a 1NT opening does not force a notrump contract.

Further, there is one type of hand where Aces are critical to the success of 3NT contracts, or at least more favorable. Namely, the running-suit 3NT.

Give Responder KQxxxx in a minor, and Axxx-Axx-Axx-Axx is ideal. Slower values hurt here.

When the opening of 1NT is based upon Opener having the trick source, the same principle is valid. Give Responder some help in spades, and 3NT has play because of the Aces and spaces. In fact, opposite the actual hand, 3NT is actually probably the better contract. Both contracts need spades to split 3-2. 3NT makes whenever the diamond Ace is well-placed (a probability here) and whenever the person overcalling does not have five hearts (almost assured). 4♠ requires the diamond Ace well-placed as well, but it also requires diamonds to not be 6-1 (not so unlikely) and clubs to not be 6-2 (a fair possibility).

Thus, even on this hand, 3NT is a superior contract, notwithstanding the Aces and spaces. Strange, perhaps, except that notrump contracts based upon a running suit (here, spades) actually benefit from Aces.

[awm]

I wouldn't open the north hand 1NT. Even though the values are right, the hand is too suit oriented. Partner won't go looking for a 5-3 spade fit (usually it is wrong to play a 5-3 major fit with two balanced hands, see Inquiry's thread on this if you're interested). But on this hand, 4♠ is much superior to 3NT (which can go down on a heart lead even if spades break and the diamond ace is on, and will never make if 4♠ doesn't make, and may go down multiple tricks when 4♠ is only one off). This isn't just "luck": a good player looking at the north hand will know that this is one of those hands where we really want to find the spade fit, and where notrump (if it's right) is likely to play better from partner's side.

If there's a mistake on this hand, it's south's failure to make a limit raise. South has 9 hcp plus a doubleton, and an eight loser hand. This is pretty close to a limit raise already. But the position of the diamond king after the 2♦ overcall should be upgraded -- the ace is virtually guaranteed to be properly positioned.

On the actual auction I think game is probably around 50%. The diamond ace is probably onside, so basically you need spades breaking and diamonds not 6-1 (or no diamond lead from AQJxxx). Without the overcall, I agree with bidding only 2♠, and would miss a game which is only around 33% to make (since the diamond ace will only be onside half the time).

[kenrexford]

Why is a heart lead so feared? We have seven of them. The opponents have six. If the diamond King is placed right, hearts must be 5-1 to be a problem. A stiff King or even stiff Queen solves that problem.

Sure, if the diamond King is poorly placed, we might lose a few hearts and a few diamonds, if played poorly. If spades are 3-2, and a heart lead hits the table, we can cash five spades, the heart Ace, and one top club before touching diamonds. That's seven tricks before we test diamonds. The "big set" fear is also a tad misplaced, therefore.

Finally, if Responder, hearing 1NT as the opening, deems his nine-count with two four-card suits sufficient for a game, he presumably has a method to handle 4-3 in the majors and can get to 4♠.

One final point. Change Responder's diamond to the Ace, and we have more Aces and spaces, but better prospects, again, at 3NT.

[benlessard]

When i saw dummy I knew game would make unless trumps were 4-1 (on a non-diamond lead)

after the 2d overcall the K become almost a sure trick.

The k of clubs also increase in values.


So with strong possibilty of bringing 4 tricks south hand is a clear limit-raise.

Its very unlikely south hand wont bring 3 tricks So 3s should make even if i have a dreadful minimum.


Most people ive asked said 2S is ok. At the table i might have bid 2S.

But after thought its seems a clear limit for me.