[karlson]

In response to Justin's last comment and some others -- I didn't give the information about the players because that's not often available, and I thought it was interesting in a vacuum. But in this case, both opponents were very good club players playing together for the first time, and partner was an intermediate-level junior who is on the conservative side.

[han]

I'm with Frances on the murky 3S. Who knows where we'd end up.

[skjaeran]

Hannie, on Nov 14 2007, 11:38 PM, said:

I'm with Frances on the murky 3S. Who knows where we'd end up.

Me too. But I'm quite sure we'd end up in 4♣. I'd not be too excited with the north hand.

[mike777]

karlson, on Nov 14 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

This is kind of a funny hand, because given our 1N bid, we have the minimum length in the minors that we could possibly have. Because of that, I didn't really want to raise (I certainly wasn't thinking about slam, that seems nuts). As far as placement, well the aces in the majors are higher ODR than we might have, but as jdonn says, we'd gladly trade one for a minor suit K. In particular ♦xxx seems really bad.

I thought double was pretty clear at the table, but a local world class player said he would bid 4♣ for sure. Pass is perhaps also an option. I have to say that the discussion hasn't been particularly illuminating, as in, I still don't know what I'd do next time.

4c is the winner (well, I don't know what partner would do over 3s), as the full hand was

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> East </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> x </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AJxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AKQxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> QTxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> KQTxxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> T </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> x </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KJx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Jxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> KQ9x </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Txx </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> Axx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> A9x </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> xxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> Jxxx </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

I guess west was not allowed to bid 2d over 1nt? Geez let's not tell partner our hand and let her in on the decisions.

I am not even going to ask why west passed first round in third seat

[jdonn]

I think 3♠ bidders are kidding themselves to say they won't end up in game. Partner has about the most he can have to not do more (if you add the diamond queen to his hand would you seriously just bid 3♣, a bid that can be a 5-5 minimum?), and you didn't bid his shortness so he will think it's a great fit. Why shouldn't we have, for example, Axx xxx Kxx xxxx is either misdefense (try to cash 2 hearts) or finesse. AQx xxx Qxx Jxxx is even better, etc. These are not game bids as, among other reasons, partner can easiliy have two heart losers. Saying partner will bid 4♣ over 3♠ seems to me like subconcious resulting.

I think 4♣ turned out to be right for the exact reasons that should have been expected. We had a major suit loser and avoiding two losers in the minors turned out to be too much to ask.

[helene_t]

P should have pulled the double of course. He knows opps are in a 9-card fit.

[han]

Please tell me that you are joking!

[helene_t]

Was that addressed to me, Han? If p is supposed to leave that dbl in, how should he be interpreting the double? Like "I have four good hearts which I overlooked at my first bid"? Or like "I have KJx of hearts and somehow feel that AQ is to the right of me (contrary to what the auction suggests)"?

This can't be a clean penalty double, p is allowed to pull, and with a 100% pure hand and both pairs having a double fit, he should.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Nov 16 2007, 12:00 AM, said:

If p is supposed to leave that dbl in, how should he be interpreting the double?

As "Since I have exactly what I have shown and what partner thinks I have (indeed better defense than I showed), I have no business pulling his doubles."

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Nov 15 2007, 10:00 PM, said:

I think 3♠ bidders are kidding themselves to say they won't end up in game. (...) I think 4♣ turned out to be right for the exact reasons that should have been expected.

Well, and I think this is resulting. It is true that chances are 3♣ was made on a min, in which case 4♣ is correct, but it could have been on a fair hand as well, in which case you belong in game (or at least should move towards it). At mps, 4♣ might be right, but at imps I'm sure at imps we shd be in game.

Anyway, a good-bad 2NT would definitely solve it all... lol.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Nov 16 2007, 05:26 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 15 2007, 10:00 PM, said:

I think 3♠ bidders are kidding themselves to say they won't end up in game.  (...) I think 4♣ turned out to be right for the exact reasons that should have been expected.

Well, and I think this is resulting. It is true that chances are 3♣ was made on a min, in which case 4♣ is correct, but it could have been on a fair hand as well, in which case you belong in game (or at least should move towards it). At mps, 4♣ might be right, but at imps I'm sure at imps we shd be in game.

Anyway, a good-bad 2NT would definitely solve it all... lol.

The WEAK hand helping bid toward a game? Who are you!

Seriously if you think the actual hand was a min, good luck to you passing when you have the king of clubs less (assuming no conventions). It's also worth noting 4♣ doesn't bar partner.

BTW how can you call it resulting, I chose and defended my bid before the actual hand was known. Pre-resulting?

[han]

EWRI-posting!

(expect win, result immediately)

[Apollo81]

The actual hand was clearly a maximum, and game wasn't a terrible place to be (better than pass or double). Game would have been the right spot if partner had the ♦AJ10 instead of the ♦AJx.

[jtfanclub]

Apollo81, on Nov 16 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

The actual hand was clearly a maximum, and game wasn't a terrible place to be (better than pass or double). Game would have been the right spot if partner had the ♦AJ10 instead of the ♦AJx.

I apologize for the dumb question, but if South's clubs are the J982, is 5♣ really unmakable? Seems like they're ought to be a way to throw in West...

But maybe not. I haven't found the way yet, at least.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Nov 16 2007, 04:34 PM, said:

It's also worth noting 4♣ doesn't bar partner.

4♣ is competitive. You know that. You could easily have an ace less.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Nov 16 2007, 06:14 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 16 2007, 04:34 PM, said:

It's also worth noting 4♣ doesn't bar partner.

4♣ is competitive. You know that. You could easily have an ace less.

LOOOOOOOOL
Pard how could you bid game! You knew I would have xxx Axx xxx Jxxx!

[han]

Wereagles, how could you bid 4C with an ace less. You have bid 1NT showing at least this much distribution and at least that much strength.

[whereagles]

lol dudes... of course you need a little more shape.

cant u read between the lines? geez