[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  1♣
 Pass  1♦    Dbl   2♦
 2♥    2♠    Pass  3♦
 Pass  4♦    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

Casual partner, no agreement other than we both think we are playing bridge.

[helene_t]

Did North intend 4♦ as forcing? It's not quite clear to me if it is, although I have the agreement with regular p's that 4m is forcing unless it's obvious that it isn't. Without such an agreement, 3♥ is better. Or just 5♦.

I can understand if N would invite only here. Then again, who wants to play 4♦, it is either pass or 5♦.

Anyway, I think S should have bid 5, for two reasons: 4♦ might be intended as forcing. And S has 14 points with decent shape and all honors working, that's significantly more than promised.

[jtfanclub]

I'm curious as to what you think of the 3♦ bid on this auction, Helene.

[helene_t]

I think 3♦ was ok. Maybe this was time for S to show extra's with 3♥, but N could have a hand that only wanted to invite for game if 3NT is an option. In fact 3♣ might make N recognize the value of ♣Q but if I say S should bid 3♣ for that reason I'm probably resulting. I'm curious as to what the better bidders on this forum would think of a 3♣ bid

5♦ is good because the honors coloborate perfectly. Give N ♠Q instead of ♣Q and it's a lot less good.

Btw, what did S plan to rebid if N had bid 1♥ or 1♠? Maybe a 1NT opening would have been better.

[neilkaz]

helene_t, on Sep 27 2007, 10:10 AM, said:

I think 3♦ was ok. Maybe this was time for S to show extra's with 3♥, but N could have a hand that only wanted to invite for game if 3NT is an option. In fact 3♣ might make N recognize the value of ♣Q but if I say S should bid 3♣ for that reason I'm probably resulting. I'm curious as to what the better bidders on this forum would think of a 3♣ bid

5♦ is good because the honors coloborate perfectly. Give N ♠Q instead of ♣Q and it's a lot less good.

Btw, what did S plan to rebid if N had bid 1♥ or 1♠? Maybe a 1NT opening would have been better.

As one who is not a fan of off shape NT openings, I'll point out that S has only 14 HCP. I can understand those who'd upgrade due to the fine ♣ suit, but the wide open ♥ and 2245 shape means that I won't upgrade. I"ll happily open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ over 1M which such a great 5 card ♣ suit. Note that by not playing Walsh I get to find my ♦ fit easily on this hand as did the players.

[pclayton]

I think I'd try 3♥ as North. 9 tricks are cheaper than 11 and the 4=2=4=3 wants to be in 3N if possible. I think its still possible South has a heart stopper, even though NT was bypassed over 2♠.

Even then, I think 4♦ is 100% forcing, so they both get a ding here.

[neilkaz]

Hmmmm...who dropped the ball. I think both players did and the result was missing a nice minor suit game due to good fitting cards. I'll assume SAYCish bidding without Walsh responses as that seems to be what was played and look at each bid.

1♣ normal opening with some extras

1♦ normal response and with a fine 13 HCP, 3 quick tricks, and Qxx in PD's suit, N should be thinking game all the way unless H is wide open and opener is a dead minimum so 5m has no play.

2♦ showing support over the delayed take out X is fine. I value Opener's hand as 16 support points. (perhaps Kx isn't worth 4, bit that K maybe onside, and the ♣ are very strong) so this is a max.

2♠ this high reverse is at least invitational and still looking for a possible 4-4 ♠ fit, as opener may have 4♠ and a min and not wanted to bid them over the take out double, IMHO.

3♦ just looks like a minimum to me. But with max values for what was allready shown and now my K of ♠ looks better, I'd bid 3♥ to show my max, and to play 3NT if PD has a stopper.

4♦ strongly invites game, IMHO. But with 14 pts in support of ♦ and good controls, I think I'd force game here. N may be reluctant to jump to 5♦ in case S opened some 2-2-4-5 trashy 11 count (but many pass those) but with 13 HCP I think N should bid 3♥ just in case S has a stopper. 13 fine HCP opposite an opening bid really should be strongly looking for game and leave no chance of a pass.

Pass .. this is too wimpy over N's invite (some may even play 4♦ as forcing) and especially since 4♦ is a poor place to play in an auction that only had weak comp from the opps. S has an absolute max for his bidding so far and passing 4♦ is very wimpy, IMHO.

OK now..I change my original assessment and the blame is 20% N and 80% S as I really can't dream of passing 4♦ on this auction.

[jdonn]

I would have been in 3NT for sure unless west overcalled on the first round. So you did well in a sense.

[hrothgar]

neilkaz, on Sep 27 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

2♠ this high reverse is at least invitational and still looking for a possible 4-4 ♠ fit, as opener may have 4♠ and a min and not wanted to bid them over the take out double, IMHO.

2♠ is not a "high reverse" and should not be referred to as such

[neilkaz]

hrothgar, on Sep 27 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

neilkaz, on Sep 27 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

2♠ this high reverse is at least invitational and still looking for a possible 4-4 ♠ fit, as opener may have 4♠ and a min and not wanted to bid them over the take out double, IMHO.

2♠ is not a "high reverse" and should not be referred to as such

Perhaps my terminology is incorrect..I guess it is a normal reverse by responder ?

Anyhow it is at least GI .. neilkaz ..

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

If I had set down opposite a random partner I would have (probably) opened 1♦, intending to rebid 2♣ if partner advanced 1M or 1N. Hard to say how the auction would have developed. Depends a lot on whether you get a 2♥ overcall, whether 2♥ gets raised, etc.

1NT also looks reasonable, give the quality of the club suit (which I suppress in the initial sequence) and the positional Spade guard.

Quick question for the peanut gallery about North's 2♠ call... What would a double show in this same sequence?

[neilkaz]

jdonn, on Sep 27 2007, 11:27 AM, said:

I would have been in 3NT for sure unless west overcalled on the first round. So you did well in a sense.

This is true as this auction will often go 1♣-1♠-1NT-3NT as lots of players will bid their 4 card major before their 4 card ♦'s and the opps who don't have much may then not get their chance to show ♥.

Unfortunately, on BBO IMPs you'll usually find that you have to make game with this many HCP to get a decent score, since not everyone will lead a ♥ and some may do so and still fail to set it.

I was in this type of dead 3NT the other day and after a ♥ lead and return won by the opening leader, he shifted and after the hand, stated that he felt certain I had it stopped !

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Sep 27 2007, 11:50 AM, said:

Quick question for the peanut gallery about North's 2♠ call... What would a double show in this same sequence?

I suppose I'd be laughed out of the room if I proposed hearts well stopped, penalty oriented?

[Walddk]

I think you did very well until South sounded weak/weak (3♦). Given the auction after partner's 2♠, South has excellent cards, a very healthy minimum. In my view 3♥ should get that message across.

"Good cards, no heart stopper".

2♠ promises a rebid, but it's possible to stop in 4♦. However, with two aces and ♦K North could perhaps jump to game now, alternatively bid 4♣ as a game try. If he does, South can bid game.

I confess that all this is much easier with all cards in view, and I don't think it's a serious error to stop in 4♦. Perfect fit which is not always easy to spot.

Roland

[skjaeran]

IMO 4♦ is forcing here. But even if it was invitational only, south's got an obvious raise. Thus south dropped the ball.

For those where 4♦ is invitational, both dropped the ball. Still south's fault is the bigger one since after that there was no way back.

[pclayton]

Here's why I think 4♦ should be forcing. You may or may not agree with me.

If North was solely interested in a heart stop for 3N, he could have asked via 3♥. If the partnership doesn't have shortage or high cards in hearts, then 4♦ is an attractive stop.

However, North has bidding his hand like a strong 5-4 with poor round suit controls that has bigger aspirations than 3N. Wouldn't you bid: AKxx, xx, AKQxx, xx much the same way? Doesn't 4♦ sound like a hand that is fishing for a heart control?

What tempers my thinking is that this a SAYC situation. Doesn't SAYC play SJS? I'd be surprised if the rules were as rigid as the ones for a Soloway JS and that a hand like AKxx xx AKQxx xx would qualify as a SJS.

[jillybean]

I was north here and thought 4♦ was 110% forcing. I didnt go looking for a ♥ stop since pard bypassed 2nt and we had a fit in both minors.
Maybe I should have been happy with game, oh well.

[han]

I like the auction up to 3D.

I would have bid 3H with the north hand.

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Sep 27 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

I was north here and thought 4♦ was 110% forcing. I didnt go looking for a ♥ stop since pard bypassed 2nt and we had a fit in both minors.
Maybe  I should have been happy with game, oh well.

Slam from North's point of view is virtually out of the question for a couple of reasons:

- 1. South is unlikely to have have the ♥A, or king (guarded); else 2NT over 2♠.
- 2. South does not have a singleton heart either. With 10 hearts between them and non-vulnerable we would likely have heard more noise by EW.

And finally, the fact that South bid no more than 2♦, then 3♦ strongly suggests that he has no heart control. If he had a singleton heart, his hand would probably have been worth more than 2♦/3♦.

Roland

[awm]

I think it would be fairly normal for south to bid 2NT over 2♠ if holding a heart stopper. After all, the diamond fit is already known. It seems to me that 3♦ should say "I have a minimum and no heart stopper." If north follows this with 3♥, I wouldn't take that as "just a stopper ask" since south already denied a stopper by bidding 3♦. Probably 3♥ is a cuebid looking for a diamond slam (or maybe looking for a partial heart stopper).

In contrast to Phil, I think 4♦ is not forcing because with slam interest north would either bid 3♥ (heart control) or just blast 5♦ (knowing we have no heart control based on south's 3♦ call). On the other hand, I have no problem with a non-forcing 4♦ by north. Note that south's bidding is consistent with the same hand minus the ♦Q, and 5m is in fact quite poor opposite that hand. I blame the missed game on south, who showed a minimum over 2♠ (by rebidding 3♦) and then showed a minimum again over 4♦ (by passing) when holding a queen more than minimum and what certainly looks like working cards for 5♦.