[rogerclee]

Scoring: IMP

---

(P) - P - (1♥) - 1♠
(1NT) - 2♠ - (3♥) - 3♠
All Pass

Assign the blame, if any, for missing this very good vulnerable game.

[655321]

North 100%.

I wouldn't assign any blame to South, because he heard North pass originally, then raise only to 2♠ (no cue bid, no bid to show 4 card support).

North needs to do more: lots of points, 4 card support, ♠A sitting over the notrump bidder. I would show a 4 card mixed raise, after which South has an easy 4♠.
If North is too worried about his 4333 shape to show 4 card support (not my choice, but some people do this) he should at least bid 2♥ instead of 2♠.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

If at all South.

I thinks 2S by North is fine, unless North could
show a constructive raise, in which case he
underbid considerably.

If 2S could still hold contructive values, or if your
min. requirements for a 2S are higher than standard,
I think South has to make a move, and the only thing
which is left is a maximum double.
North will accept the invite.

As it is, 3S is not a invite.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

Agree with 655321. N is far too strong for 2♠. If he's worried that S would not understand a cuebid, at least he could dbl.

[Free]

N should've shown a 3-level mixed raise (3♥)...

[kenrexford]

Assigning blame is very difficult in this auction.

As to South, I would want more information about agreements:
1. How sound is the overcalling style?
2. What is a red-on-white jump overcall?
3. What does 3♠ show in the context of what 2♠ showed and in consideration of whatever options North might have had other than 2♠?
4. What would South's double of 3♥ show?

As to North, more questions:
1. When would North double 1NT and then compete in spades rather than simply bidding spades?
2. Did North have any systemic options above 2♠ that would be justified by whatever South has already shown for his overcall?
3. Did North have any options below 2♠ of use here?

My gut instinct leads me to thinking that North somehow did not evaluate the spade Jack as as huge of a card as it seems to be contextually, but I'd want more info to be assured.

[inquiry]

I give the blame to north! Over 1NT, a 2♠ bid is just competitive and can be on very little value. With his hand, I would have bid 2♥ showing a good raise to 2♠, game is bid automatically after that.

[mcphee]

North is close to making a stronger raise than a simple 2S but the flat shape makes just 2S acceptable. South cuaght a raise of hi 6 card over call and made no game try, booooooo, surely a maximal double is clear rather than a timid 3S to play.

[hrothgar]

first of all, I don't think that I would characterize this as a very good vulnerable game...

You look to lose a club, a diamond, and and a heart. The Ace of Hearts is almost certainly sitting over the King, which means that you need to engineer some kind of end play to avoid two heart losers. Even if you can pull this off, you still need to pick up the King of Spades which doesn't look bloody likely after a 1NT advance.

4♠ isn't unattractive, largely because this looks to be a 10 or 8 hand. I suspect that many of the hands where 4♠ fails would fail by two which can shift the odds significantly.

For what its worth, I agree that 2♠ is a significant underbid.

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Apr 20 2008, 08:18 AM, said:

You look to lose a club, a diamond, and and a heart. The Ace of Hearts is almost certainly sitting over the King, which means that you need to engineer some kind of end play to avoid two heart losers. Even if you can pull this off, you still need to pick up the King of Spades which doesn't look bloody likely after a 1NT advance.

I think you've twisted things around: the 1♥ opening was in front of the hand with the ♥K and the 1NT response over the 1♠ intervention. That is, the bidding suggest both the ♥A and ♠K are onside.

I agree that north should show a four-card raise. I can understand downgrading a 4333 hand with four-card support, but this is a good example of the dangers of doing that.

[jdonn]

I disagree with the peanut gallery completely here, I vote about 90% south. I actually think both of their actions would be very frequently duplicated in a vacuum, but consider that south didn't even need the fourth trump or the jack of diamonds for game. Also the minimum end of the single raise is a little higher over the 1NT bid. In fact there is a case for south simply bidding 3NT at his second turn! Wouldn't you want to take your chances there opposite as little as AJx xxx xxxx xxx on this auction?

North meanwhile is 4333 with a 9 count and xxx of hearts. I posit that no one would be complaining about the failure to bid 2♥ if game had not been missed.

Out of everyone so far, Mcphee nailed it.

[goodwintr]

The suggestions (above) that North might have produced a "mixed raise" are baffling: doesn't the term mean a raise with both high-card and distributional values (hence "mixed"), not one based exclusively on one or the other? And isn't it a stretch to imply that a 4-3-3-3 hand possesses "distributional" values? What if advancer has the same hand, but with only three spades (and any other suit the four-card suit)? Is that a mixed raise, too? Isn't game still good if that is what advancer has?

In the original question/sequence, North has said (accurately, IMHO) that he is worth a single raise in spades, but he hasn't promised any particular number of trumps. (Sure, he would probably do more with four trumps and some shape, but he doesn't have that.) Maybe he has four trumps and a balanced hand, and maybe not; and if he does have that, maybe he is planning to take a push to three spades, and maybe not. The trouble is that South, by bidding three spades, indicated no interest in game, no matter what North might have.

So, 100% to South.

[inquiry]

Robson/Segal calls the direct major raise after the overcall and 1NT bid by RHO as preemptive. This hand is not preemptive, so 2@S seems clearly wrong to me.

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Apr 20 2008, 10:26 AM, said:

Robson/Segal calls the direct major raise after the overcall and 1NT bid by RHO as preemptive. This hand is not preemptive, so 2@S seems clearly wrong to me.

If they really call it preemptive then they are out of line with expert consensus, IMHO.

[jdonn]

inquiry, on Apr 20 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

Robson/Segal calls the direct major raise after the overcall and 1NT bid by RHO as preemptive. This hand is not preemptive, so 2@S seems clearly wrong to me.

Are we using standard meaning for bids, or one meaning you read in one place? Sure if 2♥ shows a good raise to 2♠ then you can bid it. But it doesn't unless you have agreed that specially.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

inquiry, on Apr 20 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

Robson/Segal calls the direct major raise after the overcall and 1NT bid by RHO as preemptive.  This hand is not preemptive, so 2@S seems clearly wrong to me.

Are we using standard meaning for bids, or one meaning you read in one place? Sure if 2♥ shows a good raise to 2♠ then you can bid it. But it doesn't unless you have agreed that specially.

So, we seem to now have two peanut galleries. One that assumes Robson-Segal and therefore blames North completely or almost completely. One that assumes the opposite of Robson-Segal and blames South completely or almost completely.

I'm glad that I asked what the agreements were before aligning myself with either type of peanut. I prefer waffles.

[655321]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

Sure if 2♥ shows a good raise to 2♠ then you can bid it. But it doesn't unless you have agreed that specially.

Huh? Without special agreements, what else does it mean?

It would not occur to me to make the feeble 2♠ bid as a passed hand, even if it turns out that game is not good.

[655321]

goodwintr, on Apr 20 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

The suggestions (above) that North might have produced a "mixed raise" are baffling: doesn't the term mean a raise with both high-card and distributional values (hence "mixed"), not one based exclusively on one or the other? And isn't it a stretch to imply that a 4-3-3-3 hand possesses "distributional" values? What if advancer has the same hand, but with only three spades (and any other suit the four-card suit)? Is that a mixed raise, too? Isn't game still good if that is what advancer has?

In the original question/sequence, North has said (accurately, IMHO) that he is worth a single raise in spades, but he hasn't promised any particular number of trumps. (Sure, he would probably do more with four trumps and some shape, but he doesn't have that.) Maybe he has four trumps and a balanced hand, and maybe not; and if he does have that, maybe he is planning to take a push to three spades, and maybe not. The trouble is that South, by bidding three spades, indicated no interest in game, no matter what North might have.

So, 100% to South.

No, a mixed raise does not mean a raise with both high card and distributional values. For example, Robson-Segal describe it as a semi-preemptive raise with some defense, and give a 4432 hand as an example. Hence, your correct deduction that a 4333 hand is not distributional is not relevant. The same hand with 3 trumps is not a mixed raise (which shows 4 card support), but would bid 2 ♥.

I also disagree that North could routinely have hands where he is planning to take the push to the 3 level. Better by far to bid your hand the first time.

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking, I suspect that when somebody asks the great amorphous body of the Internet to pass judgement on "who's to blame?" the correct answer is (to the original poster) "You are!"

[Winstonm]

It is somewhat dumb to look too closely for blame in what is clearly an ambiguos situation - The 6322 hand is flat without a good suit, and the reposding hand is flat 4333 with the death holding of xxx in opps suit.

Just because 4 happens to make does not mean it is or even should be biddable.

Without a knowledge of agreements, it's impossible to criticize a bid or a lack of double.

Not much blame for anyone here in my book.