[gwnn]

xxx
Jx
KTx
QT9xx

AQJx
ATxx
xxx
Ax

NS is vulnerable @ imps, E deals+opens 1♦

1♦-x-2♥(weak)-3♣
p-3♦-p-3♠
p-4♠-end

-4

[neilkaz]

I blame E-W for not doubling

But to give you a constructive answer. I don't like N's bidding at all on this hand.

I would just pass N's hand after the opp WJS noting my K of ♦ maybe missplaced and that S's double could be a bit shy in ♣ and that S can X again if he wants.

I take S's 3♦ bid as asking N to bid 3NT with that suit stopped (again noting that his initial X would tend to imply he's not concerned with the opps running ♥ and that he could always have Q'd 3♥ anyhow).

Thus N should bid 3NT.

S was optimistic in rasing to 4♠, but it is IMPs and he has prime cards and really should think that N has something more than a ratty 6 HCP for his 3♣ call.

Blame 90% N, 10% S in my opinion.

[JLOL]

Definitely dislike 3C, and I think south should pass it even though the right hands make game ie Txx xx Axx KQxxx.

I have the agreements with my partners that if the opps have bid 2 suits and youre trying to get to 3N you cuebid the stopper you have. However, I also have the agreement that if you double and your next bid is a suit that RHO didn't open it's natural regardless of what they have bid. This includes a weak jump since they might psyche it. I understand that north was probably thinking the first part and south was probably thinking the second part so they got confused after that.

[Winstonm]

I don't like either North or South's bidding. Hard to offer a constuctive critique to styles with which I disagree.

[gwnn]

Winstonm, on Feb 6 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

Hard to offer a constuctive critique to styles with which I disagree.

Who asked for 'constructive criticism'?

[ArtK78]

South's takeout double - flawed but understandable. With only 2 clubs, you expect partner to bid clubs, and that is a problem. The book bid is pass, but I would bet that very few would pass the South hand. Overcalling 1♠ is another flawed option.

3♣ - aggressive. Again, the book bid is pass, but I am sure many would bid their reasonable 5 card suit expecting a fit opposite partner's takeout double.

3♦ - this is where I get off. South must pass 3♣. North could have a better hand, but if 3NT were a good contact, North might have called notrump rather than clubs.

3♠ - I have no clue where this bid came from. 3NT is the obvious call over 3♦.

4♠ - The auction has gained a momentum all its own after the 3♦ call.

I think South is primarily to blame here. South could have prevented the fiasco by passing 3♣. Once South bid 3♦, everything was on his shoulders.

3♣ by North was aggressive, but not ridiculous.

70% to South, 30% to North.

[neilkaz]

JLOL, on Feb 6 2009, 01:28 PM, said:

I have the agreements with my partners that if the opps have bid 2 suits and youre trying to get to 3N you cuebid the stopper you have.

I like that agreement and have played it before and should make sure that all my semi regular pards think the same way.

[jdonn]

They both overbid, 3♣ by north and anything over 3♣ by south. I don't blame south at all for the double though.

[peachy]

Dbl by South with both majors although a flaw in a minor is acceptable, IMO. 3!C was an overbid which S should Pass. 3!D was an overbid, whatever its intended meaning.

[Fluffy]

Agree with ArtK

[Edmunte1]

-DBL - I like it
-3♣ - Dislike it, no shape, minimum values, bad ♦ points
-3♦ -Dislike it, it seems that the hand has no direction, but understandable
-3♠ - Consequence of the previous bad bid, closed now
-4♠ - Found 4 gold pieces

[Codo]

I agree with Gonzalo.

[Fluffy]

JLOL, on Feb 6 2009, 07:28 PM, said:

Definitely dislike 3C, and I think south should pass it even though the right hands make game ie Txx xx Axx KQxxx.

You are a lot more optimistic than me.

What I mean is: When thinking of possible hands for partner to make game, I would label this hand as a hand where I wouldn't wanna be in game.

Analysing it fully, game is a favourite, but I would not think that deep.

So out of curiosity, what proccess of thinking (how many steps) led you to label this hand as worth a game?