[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

NS were a couple of "experts" who took a bath on this one.

Scoring: IMP

---

Pass pass to West, who opened 1♦.
North overcalled 2♣.
East raised to 2♦.
South passed.

West passed.
North re-opened with a double.
East passed and South now bid 2NT.

West bid 3♦, passed around to South, who doubled.
3♦ doubled played by West was the final contract.

The play:
t1. North opened with his King of ♣, felling West's stiff Queen.

t2. Seeing the Jack of ♣ in dummy, North then switched to his weakest suit , and led the 3 of ♠. Dummy played low, South put up his Queen and declarer took his King of ♠.

t3. Reading the position perfectly, and with the 9 of ♠ in dummy, declarer played the ♠ ten from his hand and ducked when North played the 8, declarer's ten holding the trick.

t4. Declarer then takes the Ace of ♠ in dummy.

t5. Declarer leads the ten of ♦ from dummy, covered by South with his King, and declarer takes his Ace of ♦.

t6. Low heart from West, taken by South with his Ace.

t7. Club back from South, declarer ruffing.

t8, Another ♥ by West, North winning his Jack.

t9. Ace of clubs by North, West ruffing again.

West now ruffs a ♥ in dummy for his 7th trick. and scores his two top trumps to make his contract.

[jtfanclub]

-W -N -E -S
--- --- Ps Ps
1♦ 2♣ 2♦ Ps
Ps Dbl Ps 2NT
3♦ Ps Ps Dbl
Ps Ps Ps


I didn't go through the play. There's lots of little things I'd have done differently, such as X'd instead of 2♣ the first time by North. But overall, NS should be happy playing against 3♦X. If you set the opponents every time you double, you aren't doubling enough.

[FrancesHinden]

The auction: South 100%. North bid impeccably.
South's pass of the 2C overcall was wrong.
South's 2NT bid was wrong.
South's double was OK in the context of the earlier calls, but only because he hadn't bid his hand yet.

I would have been making a club partial or going off in 3NT/5C on the N/S hands

(North's defence wasn't perfect, but defending a doubled partial for one off at imps was the main problem. And 3D looks very likely to make in practice even without the spade switch)

[TimG]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 1 2007, 11:20 AM, said:

The auction: South 100%. North bid impeccably.
South's pass of the 2C overcall was wrong.
South's 2NT bid was wrong.
South's double was OK in the context of the earlier calls, but only because he hadn't bid his hand yet.

I think you are being overly kind regarding the double. Three-card support for partner's suit should be a huge red flag.

FrancesHinden, on Aug 1 2007, 11:20 AM, said:

(North's defence wasn't perfect, but defending a doubled partial for one off at imps was the main problem.  And 3D looks very likely to make in practice even without the spade switch)

Isn't the proper spade to lead the Jack?

[Fluffy]

The only not reasonable thing I see on this hand is passing 2♦ with 9 HCP and good support.

[ralph23]

Fluffy, on Aug 1 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

The only not reasonable thing I see on this hand is passing 2♦ with 9 HCP and good support.

And ironically, he had a chance to redeem himself and bid ♣ when North re-opened with a double ... but still he refused to support his partner's suit.....but apparently you think it's OK for him to fail to support it the second time, yes ?

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 1 2007, 11:20 AM, said:

South's 2NT bid was wrong.

I hate 4333s, and he has a stopper in all suits besides clubs. I think he has the strength to bid 2NT over 2 diamonds, and if 2NT there meant something different I'd be tempted to bid it the way he did.

I'm not going so far as to claim that what he did was right, but if my partner did it I wouldn't even blink.

[helene_t]

As for the bidding, N and S were obviously not on the same wavelength. S thought N's double showed extra general values while N meant it as extra offensive values only. I have no strong opinion about what their agreement should be but clearly they need some agreement. FWIW I would not have doubled 2♦ with this N hand in any of my IRL partnerships but that's just me.

W's 3♦ bid is quite funny, you never sac against 2N and certainly not at IMPs vulnerable. It looks like a message to the opps: "You overestimate each other's values so I bet you double this 3♦ and it makes."

[ArtK78]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with North's bidding (and there is no chance in the world that I would ever make a takeout double on the North hand as my first action).

South's pass over 2D is wrong. 2NT is an overbid, but 3C is quite reasonable. Pass is not on the list.

After the double, South's 2NT is wrong again - it is right on values, but the stopper is very weak - he is bidding his hand like he held QJTx of diamonds instead of Kxxx.

Finally, the double of 3D is insane. Where is your defense? Partner rates to have -1 diamonds on this auction.

[FrancesHinden]

jtfanclub, on Aug 1 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 1 2007, 11:20 AM, said:

South's 2NT bid was wrong.

I hate 4333s, and he has a stopper in all suits besides clubs. I think he has the strength to bid 2NT over 2 diamonds, and if 2NT there meant something different I'd be tempted to bid it the way he did.

I'm not going so far as to claim that what he did was right, but if my partner did it I wouldn't even blink.

I maybe wasn't clear enough: I don't like the 2NT bid because South is too strong for it. He had a bid over 2D the first round; then partner doubled 2D showing something extra and he showed a minimum unsuitable hand.

3NT is a better call.

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 1 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

I maybe wasn't clear enough: I don't like the 2NT bid because South is too strong for it. He had a bid over 2D the first round; then partner doubled 2D showing something extra and he showed a minimum unsuitable hand.

3NT is a better call.

My apologies, you're right, I did not understand.

Edited to add- I guess I still don't get it. He's too weak for 2NT the first time and too strong the second time? This isn't that uncommon a hand. It shouldn't fall into a hole like this.

This post has been edited by jtfanclub: 2007-August-01, 13:35

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Aug 1 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 1 2007, 02:22 PM, said:

I maybe wasn't clear enough: I don't like the 2NT bid because South is too strong for it. He had a bid over 2D the first round; then partner doubled 2D showing something extra and he showed a minimum unsuitable hand.

3NT is a better call.

My apologies, you're right, I did not understand.

Edited to add- I guess I still don't get it. He's too weak for 2NT the first time and too strong the second time? This isn't that uncommon a hand. It shouldn't fall into a hole like this.

It does not fall into a hole. This hand doesn't pass the first time, you can bid 2N or 3♣.

[Fluffy]

ralph23, on Aug 1 2007, 05:13 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 1 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

The only not reasonable thing I see on this hand is passing 2♦ with 9 HCP and good support.

And ironically, he had a chance to redeem himself and bid ♣ when North re-opened with a double ... but still he refused to support his partner's suit.....but apparently you think it's OK for him to fail to support it the second time, yes ?

I don't say its good, but 2NT aims towards the most likelly game in our way if there is one. At least has a point.

[Halo]

Agree with Frances. When South passes after 2C, 2D he has inexplicably messed up the hand.

[ArtK78]

2NT is an underbid? Hardly.

In the context of the auction, partner has not necessarily shown a strong hand - he has shown an unbalanced hand, typically 6-4-3 like the one he actually has.

3NT on Kxxx of diamonds is silly. Unless partner has solid clubs, 3NT is likely to have no play. 3NT should show AT LEAST two diamond stoppers on this type of auction, as it is likely that partner is void in diamonds.

2NT is a misdescription of the hand. It leads partner into believing that you have a great deal in diamonds, which would be wasted in a suit contract. A raise to 3C immediately would have been fine. After passing over 2D, South has a choice of bad actions. 2NT is again misleading, and 3C is an underbid.