[MFA]

I voted only north because I really hate 3NT. North is giving up the board every time he finds partner with a small singleton or void of hearts. T9xx could be a fair gamble for notrumps, but one cannot jump all the way from 1♥ to 3NT without at least one stopper.

I wouldn't have passed 3NT with south's cards either. But that is a much smaller mistake, I think.

[ggwhiz]

I agree with the general consensus but gave North 100% of the blame for starting the debacle, then beaking off about the result.

Similar to the negative double with only 3............

If I remember correctly, support doubles now used to avoid 4-3 fits were invented by Meckwell to avoid the 3-3 fits they were getting to!

[Apollo81]

I blame both players. I think North has a completely automatic 2♦ bid since he doesn't have a heart stopper. Even if North had one real heart stopper, the clubs might have to be setup in notrump, which would mean 5+ losers. Thus South should probably bid 4♣ over 3NT.

Anyway North's mistake was worse -- "don't bid notrump without a stopper when you have another good option"

[hotShot]

If you think "blame", is to strong a word to use for North,
lets just say:

North has to take full responsibility for the missing ♥ stopper.
South has 5 loser 2♠, 1♦ and 2♣.
By promising ♥ values, North created the impression that he has less values in ♠, ♦ and ♣. Since low ♦ values can easily be wasted as well opposite A2, 6♣ seems out off reach and even 5♣ might not be save.
South can expect North to have a ♠ honor, making his KJ to a save entry.
South can also expect North to have his share (2+) of the missing 6 cards in ♣ and since 3 of the missing cards are honors North is likely to have one.
This makes 3NT look about as risky as 5♣, perhaps even less risky if partner has 2♥ stopper.

[Phil]

I really hate 3N. It wrong sides the NT immediately. The lack of a 5th diamond is a much smaller sin than the lack of a stopper for 3N.

I don't like the pass much either, but 3N still could be the right spot if partner a double diamond stopper and no club card.

70 North / 30 South

[mikeh]

benlessard, on Jan 12 2009, 03:39 AM, said:

North should make a neg double. For real players it can be done with 3S.

That's silly.

This is definitely NOT a hand on which to play a moysian, with the 4 card trump suit getting tapped. Nor a micro-moysian.

Now, if the partnership agreement were that double is the systemic call, denying 4 spades, we wouldn't see this auction posted.

It is perfectly proper to point to this hand as a strong reason why double should be used in this manner.. indeed, I use it this way in a partnership with a 'real' bridge player... but that is not the point.

My answer is that North is heavily to blame.. I was close to saying 100%.

North can bid 2♦ if he wants to create a force.. yes, this should show 5+ cards in the suit, but if partner raises, the short hand gets tapped (assuming a moysian). Meanwhile, it buys time later for 2 or 3♥. It isn't perfect, but it's practical.

Alternatively, North can pass and then, over the anticipated reopening double, bid 2♥ (or take other strength showing action over other developments). This risks a silly result when partner can't reopen because (as an example) he has a flat hand with Hx(x) in hearts.

It's a tough hand...

Certainly, south could pull, but a pull of 3N should be a slam try, and it is (to me) an open question whether S is worth a slam opposite a partner who rates to hold 2 heart stoppers, and thus somewhat less elsewhere... where the cards will be pulling full weight. In fact, having seen the S hand as part of the problem, I can no longer say whether I would have bid over 3N.

I would suggest that future questions like this be addressed with 2 questions: the N had at the point of the overcall, and the S hand (maybe under a different login name so we don't all guess they are opposite hands) after 3N. Then you'd get unbiased answers.