[gwnn]

Scoring: IMP

         p-p
2♠-x-p-2NT
p-3♠-p-3NT

-2

---

 

edit: 2NT was lebensohl.

[jdonn]

Was 2NT natural or leb?

Sorry I guess I was lazy, it looks like it was clearly natural. In that case I'm not sure why north would bid 3♠ instead of 3♣ (minor error?), nor why south would bid 3NT with Ax instead of 4♣ (major error).

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Sep 12 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

Was 2NT natural or leb?

Sorry I guess I was lazy, it looks like it was clearly natural. In that case I'm not sure why north would bid 3♠ instead of 3♣ (minor error?), nor why south would bid 3NT with Ax instead of 4♣ (major error).

I'd assumed that 2NT was a low-road Lebensohl call. Whatever 2NT meant, I have to go with 3NT as the ultimate culprit. Lots of auctions are imperfect, but when one partner's made a takeout double, and the other partner never bids his long suit (which turns out to be the suit you belong in)...the burden is on partner #2.

[ArtK78]

North refused to bid his long suit, opting for a takeout double. That is understandable with a very nice hand even with only 3 hearts, but it was a missed opportunity.

South bid 2NT. Even looking at his hand I cannot tell whether it was Lebensohl or natural. If it was natural, it was an error, as he has a long suit and his spade stop is minimal. If it was Lebensohl, it was also an error, as he has enough values to bid 3♣.

Over 2NT, North decided to employ the old nebulous cue bid. I cannot see why he did that rather than bid 3♣ natural and forcing - unless 2NT was Lebensohl and he decided his hand was too good to merely bid 3♣ which could be passed (a dubious decision). At the very least, this was another missed opportunity.

The 3NT call can only be explained by South believing that 3♠ asked him to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. That may actually be what North intended, although his hand is not good enough for that call.

Both partners made some highly questionable calls. Both partners had chances to avoid the disaster. It seems to me that they are a very well matched pair.

[gwnn]

Sorry 2NT was lebensohl, I was lazy.

[jdonn]

gwnn, on Sep 12 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

Sorry 2NT was lebensohl, I was lazy.

That changes everything. Then why did south not bid 3♣? 9 count with a five card suit, and as a passed hand is easily good enough. As north I would just bid 3♣ over lebensohl, we won't have enough for game unless partner is the very maximum of his range. Over 3♠ south was pretty much compelled to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. But the biggest blame to south for 2NT.

[gwnn]

Even though this question might divulge who I was on this deal, what would the minimum be for N not to bid 3♣?

[jdonn]

gwnn, on Sep 12 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

Even though this question might divulge who I was on this deal, what would the minimum be for N not to bid 3♣?

All things being equal, about 20+. My range to bid lebensohl or not is about 0-7 and 8+.

[bid_em_up]

gwnn, on Sep 12 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

Even though this question might divulge who I was on this deal, what would the minimum be for N not to bid 3♣?

By breaking the relay to 3C (via the 3S bid), North has to be able to provide a source of tricks for 3N.

x Kxx Ax AKQxxxx or similar would be good enough for me.

The given hand has HCP but no real source of tricks which makes it wrong to bid 3S opposite what could be a total bust (from the 2N bid).

I agree with others, South should bid a direct 3C instead of 2N.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I dont like 3S, it forces to game, opposite a hand,
which may or may not intends to sign off in what
ever contract.

No other comments.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

gwnn, on Sep 12 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

Even though this question might divulge who I was on this deal, what would the minimum be for N not to bid 3♣?

Depens on agreement, standard is something like 7-8,
we play it slightly stronger.
Depending on this, breaking the relay promises less /
more strength.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS (Added later)
The main issue is, that the 3S cue forces to game, partner
has no way to check out, if you want to break the relay 3D
maybe worth a consideration, I am not 100% convinced,
that you should by pass your 5 carder, but at least p will
have a chance to sign of in 2 suits.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Sep 12 2008, 03:45 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 12 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

gwnn, on Sep 12 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

Even though this question might divulge who I was on this deal, what would the minimum be for N not to bid 3♣?

All things being equal, about 20+. My range to bid lebensohl or not is about 0-7 and 8+.

20+ lol? I don't believe you! I bet jdonn would break leb with x AKxx AKxx Kxxx, and I think that saying that hand is worth 20+ would be a pretty big overbid.

Obv it was a rough estimate, AK AK K may be worth an upgrade! Do you have an opinion about the actual hand, or are you just on the hunt for posts to rag on

Do you think the actual hand was worth anything but 3♣? I think it was an overbid, but yeah only a mild one.

[peachy]

The 2NT Lebensohl was a mistake, South has too much and needs to bid 3C. I don't like 3S either, not strong enough = no tricks in sight opposite partner who has promised 0-7HCP (even if it is 0-8, no matter).

[Edmunte1]

2NT was a huge underbid
3♠ was wishfull thinking, hoping partner will come up with ♣K and♠stopper or something like this
Over the normal 3♣ bid, North should start with 3♠, looking for the best strain. Over 3NT he has a tough option

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Sep 12 2008, 09:59 PM, said:

gwnn, on Sep 12 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

Sorry 2NT was lebensohl, I was lazy.

That changes everything. Then why did south not bid 3♣? 9 count with a five card suit, and as a passed hand is easily good enough. As north I would just bid 3♣ over lebensohl, we won't have enough for game unless partner is the very maximum of his range. Over 3♠ south was pretty much compelled to bid 3NT with a spade stopper. But the biggest blame to south for 2NT.

Completely agree - bidding 3♣ with the south hand is compulsory, playing lebensohl.

[neilkaz]

Agreeing with the rest 3♣ when playing leb is clear with the responding hand with a decent 9 HCP. Then the pair gets to the making 5♣. I presume the K of ♣ was offside which is why 3NT failed, so slam isn't likely.

[jdonn]

neilkaz, on Sep 13 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

Agreeing with the rest 3♣ when playing leb is clear with the responding hand with a decent 9 HCP. Then the pair gets to the making 5♣. I presume the K of ♣ was offside which is why 3NT failed, so slam isn't likely.

Although even 6♣ is a much better contract than 3NT. It's more likely to make, and down less when it doesn't make.