[awm]

Here's a hand where a poor contract was reached. For once it seems pretty clear who is at fault, but not necessarily what they did wrong. Which was the worst mistake?

Scoring: IMP

---

The auction, opponents passing:

PA - 1♦
1♠ - 2♥
2N - 3♥
3N - 4♦
4♠ - 5♦
PA

The 2NT bid is a forcing "slow down" call indicating less than game-forcing values opposite a normal but perhaps somewhat light reverse (i.e. 5-8 hcp). It also denies 5+♠ (would bid 2♠). Opener's 3♥ bid was patterning out. The 3NT bid is a suggestion to play and 4♠ is a cuebid for diamonds.

[ArtK78]

What contract would you like to play? 3NT? In that case, the mistake was the 4♦ bid. Everything up to that point seems perfectly normal.

Do you want to get to 4♥? Then the mistake is not with South. He did all that he could to get to 4♥.

It seems to me that you are advocating a 3NT contract. From the point of view of South, passing 3NT is far from clear. Yes, South has described a hand which is 5-6 in the reds and North bid 3NT. Still, even when North suggests (demands?) that 3NT should be the final contract, it would be harsh to say that South made an error in not going along with that suggestion.

[Fluffy]

open 1♥ and end up in 3♦, doesn't look so bad.

Anyway the biggest mistake IMO is to bid over 3NT when already shown 6-5.

[mike777]

Agree with bidding up to 2nt now 3d over 2nt, partner is allowed to bid again.

With 3d and 8 hcp I would now rebid 3nt over 3d.

Now south makes a choice 5d or pass. I would pass but not easy hand to bid, very tough.

[kenrexford]

awm, on Jul 8 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

For once it seems pretty clear who is at fault, but not necessarily what they did wrong.

Well, the lead-off seems to have been errant.

[ArcLight]

Why is 2NT wrong?
North has stoppers, and a balanced shape, and at that point suspects South is 4=5 in the reds.

Is 2NT wrong because it can be on a weak hand, and this is a GF hand?
In that case, what about 3NT instead of 2NT?

South should bid 3D instaed of 2NT? Does that not imply 4 Diamonds? Or is not, because its just a preference.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jul 8 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 8 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

awm, on Jul 8 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

For once it seems pretty clear who is at fault, but not necessarily what they did wrong.

Well, the lead-off seems to have been errant.

He meant that it was clearly south's fault that they got too high which is right I think. North underbid, and they still got too high.

I'm not so sure this is consistent or even right.

Assuming, for a minute, that 3♥ was South's bid, North's 3NT after bidding 2NT cannot be the right spot after having first bid 2NT. So, South correcting to 4♦ (to play) was right. What now after this wild-and-crazy 4♠ cue except 5♦?

I mean, from South's perspective, if 2NT showed a weak hand when balanced, then this new 3NT call cannot be a GF. And, 3NT cannot be right. So, South, I assume, meant 4♦ as a desperate attempt to stop this nonsense now. So, how can North, after a non-forcing 4♦, bid 4♠? That's crazy.

So, what about 3♥? I understand bidding 3♦, and it might be right. But, South has a prayer opposite Kx in hearts and out. He needs either hearts 3-3 and no 4-card diamond suits out there, or hearts 4-2 and diamonds coming in. If 4♥ might have play opposite that kind of garbage, 3♥ cannot be that bad of a call.

I think that 2NT, then, was an underbid, but that 4♠ (instead of passing 4♦) was a huge overbid. (If South wants to force, he does not bid 4♦. He might try 4♣, or 4♥, but not 4♦.)

Thus, I'd place the blame 100% with North, myself.

[the hog]

Fluffy, on Jul 9 2008, 04:03 AM, said:

open 1♥ and end up in 3♦, doesn't look so bad.

Anyway the biggest mistake IMO is to bid over 3NT when already shown 6-5.

Yea verily, a Daniel come to judgement.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jul 9 2008, 04:58 AM, said:

I mean, from South's perspective, if 2NT showed a weak hand when balanced, then this new 3NT call cannot be a GF. And, 3NT cannot be right.

Are you saying that the sequence 1♦-1♠; 2♥-2NT; 3♥-3NT doesn't exist in a natural sense, or just that from opener's perspective 3NT can't be the right contract on this particular deal?

[benlessard]

3H was a gross overbid is 2Nt is slow down.



1D-----1S
2H-----2Nt (nat GF)
3H-----3Nt

all pass.

Because of the J of S im willing to try for 3Nt instead of 5D but i have no strong conviction.

I have no big problem with the light reverse but i would have open 1H. I really prefer to use the cheapest call as slow down instead of 2Nt is slow down.

[han]

4D was by far the worst bid imo. All other bids are understandable, 4D is not.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jul 9 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 9 2008, 04:58 AM, said:

I mean, from South's perspective, if 2NT showed a weak hand when balanced, then this new 3NT call cannot be a GF.  And, 3NT cannot be right.

Are you saying that the sequence 1♦-1♠; 2♥-2NT; 3♥-3NT doesn't exist in a natural sense, or just that from opener's perspective 3NT can't be the right contract on this particular deal?

According to the stated agreements, 2NT, if balanced, shows 5-8 and is a "slow down" bid. Whether that agreement makes sense or not is not debated. That is simply the agreement.

According to jlall (I agree), the actual 8-count held is too good for this slow-down bid. Hence, a worse hand than this is expected. Maybe remove one Jack.

What hand worse than this makes 3NT a better contract than 4♦?

From North's perspective, with that lesser hand, Opener might have a hand where 3NT does make. So, 3NT might "exist" for North. However, with this hand for South, if no hand exists where 3NT is superior to 4♦, then South should bid 4♦. Or, if the odds favor 4♦ being the superior contract substantially, at least.

My point is that North cannot change the meaning of his 2NT call. If it showed a weak hand, he cannot later show a stronger hand. North cannot expect the meaning of South's calls to be governed by what the bids would mean had North showed a strong hand. After a slow-down 2NT, the auction should be able to stop at 3♦, or, after a 3♥ rebid and 3NT "second negative" type of sequence, at 4♦. North seems to have viewed 4♦ as GF with slam interest, which seems dead wrong after a slow-down 2NT and sign-off 3NT.

It seems that the interpretations of the forum, here, all fall into North's logic error, as well, IMO. I firmly believe that South bid this correctly, the more I think about the sequence. I may be insane, but with conviction.

[655321]

han, on Jul 9 2008, 03:33 AM, said:

4D was by far the worst bid imo. All other bids are understandable, 4D is not.

Agree with Han.

You could argue about 2NT or 3♥, but ripping 3NT is weird.

[mcphee]

I can not agree with 2NT if it is to show a bad hand, this is worth a GF. Think I prefer 3D and then make a choice of games when partner involves us with his 3H rebid. Not clear we will scoop 9 tricks should we have a D loser, especially on a S lead if we try 3N, but we may survive a D loser playing 5D so I would opt for that game. Bad luck partner, wrong black suit arrangements for us both.