[marcD]

♠

Scoring: XIMP

1C - 1D - 1S - P
2S - x - 3S allP

---

1C = balanced 12-14 or unbalanced with C 11+
2S 4 cards consistent with weak NT type or minimum unbalanced

Who is to blame ? N ? S? system ?

thanks

[andy_h]

Did South respond their 4card diamond suit as opposed to the 5card spade suit!?

[mikeh]

I think that North's first two calls were fine, and S's first call is obvious.

I think S did very well indeed, on the actual hand, to bid 3♠ if intended and understood to be a game try as opposed to an attempt to shut LHO out of the auction.

If 3♠ was a gametry, then North is clearly 100% at fault. He has a full value 2♠ raise.. it is difficult to construct a hand that could be much better and still only worth 2♠. It may only be 12 hcp, but he has a stiff and, very importantly, all of his hcp are in his suits... this is an often overlooked aspect of hand valuation.

I confess that I wouldn't even be in 3♠

[hotShot]

North showed 3+♣, 4♠ and should not have 4♥.
South has 5♠ and 4♦ and he can conclude that his partner is short (0-1) in ♦. (His side has a 9 card ♣ fit, opps will have a 9 card ♦ fit or 2 8-card fits in ♦ and a 2nd suit.) So his shortages in ♣ and ♥ gain in value. But this also means that partner is only 11+ unbalanced and I don't think that bidding 4♠ is obvious.

North has a high minimum and not much reason to bid over 3♠.

I don't think one should assign blame to the players, if a near minimum hand and an invitational hand make game because of perfectly fitting shape and honors.

There are methods to investigate more below 3♠, but you did not mention any.

[mike777]

North 100%
wtp?

[kenrexford]

North, wake up please.

[rogerclee]

No blame.

[cherdano]

Huh? Is really anyone playing 3S as invitational? Or did those who claim it is invitational miss that RHO doubled again?

I would bid exactly the same I think

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jul 7 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

3S is not invitational but north should kick it in anyways on this auction. My dad and I used to call this "Indian bidding" but north has the hand for it imo.

Exactly.

[matmat]

what would a pass instead of 3♠ be and then a pull of wherever they land to 3♠?

[gnasher]

matmat, on Jul 7 2008, 09:35 PM, said:

what would a pass instead of 3♠ be and then a pull of wherever they land to 3♠?

It would be a bad idea. (Edit: unless you have a hand such as Justin suggests.)

If you know you're going to compete to 3♠, it's usually best to do so before they exchange any further information that might help them to judge whether to compete further, or to double 3♠. If South wants to make a game try, he has redouble, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦ and 3♥ available. Does he really need a 3♠ bid for the same purpose?

[gnasher]

hotShot, on Jul 7 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

North showed 3+♣,  4♠ and should not have 4♥.
South has 5♠ and 4♦ and he can conclude that his partner is short (0-1) in ♦.

Those are two rather surprising assertions. How would South bid with Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx ?

Edit: Sorry, that should read "How would North bid with Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx ?"

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-July-08, 03:11

[gnasher]

I blame West, for not raising to 2♦.

[hotShot]

gnasher, on Jul 7 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jul 7 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

North showed 3+♣,  4♠ and should not have 4♥.
South has 5♠ and 4♦ and he can conclude that his partner is short (0-1) in ♦.

Those are two rather surprising assertions. How would South bid with Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx ?

I argued that South can't bid 4♠ over 2♠.
I don't see how that is related to your question.
Holding Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx he can only place 7♦ cards and can no longer assume that North is short in ♦ and with only an 8 card fit on their side, it not even clear if opps have a fit at all.

To answer your question with Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx, South can bid redbl, 2NT or 3♥ depending on agreements. 3♠ should be reserved for a different type of hand e.g. with a 5th ♠.

[hotShot]

gnasher, on Jul 7 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jul 7 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

North showed 3+♣,  4♠ and should not have 4♥.

I apologize for my poor English, I meant to say:
North showed 3+♣, 4♠ and usually won't have 4♥.

[gnasher]

hotShot, on Jul 8 2008, 08:13 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 7 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jul 7 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

North showed 3+♣,  4♠ and should not have 4♥.
South has 5♠ and 4♦ and he can conclude that his partner is short (0-1) in ♦.

Those are two rather surprising assertions. How would South bid with Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx ?

I argued that South can't bid 4♠ over 2♠.
I don't see how that is related to your question.
Holding Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx he can only place 7♦ cards and can no longer assume that North is short in ♦ and with only an 8 card fit on their side, it not even clear if opps have a fit at all.

To answer your question with Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx, South can bid redbl, 2NT or 3♥ depending on agreements. 3♠ should be reserved for a different type of hand e.g. with a 5th ♠.

Sorry - my rather poor English made me write "South" when I meant "North".

So, starting again, how does South know that North has 0-1 diamonds, and why can't North have Axxx Qxxx Kx Kxx ?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-July-08, 03:19

[marcD]

Thanks for your answers; I was South and felt we got a bad result without anybody doing something terrible. Guess we were fixed because West did not raise diamonds. 3S was not a game try in our methods but clearly shows a good ODR and North might have raised (it is always aggravating for the opponents when you bid a cold game on such an auction .
The hidden agenda was actually to find out how many would suggest 3S instead of 2S with the North hand; nobody seemed ready to reevaluation that nice 12 count by that much ...

[gnasher]

Maybe one should play 2♦ by opener as a good (unbalanced) raise to 2♠, and 3♦ as asking for a diamond stop.