[Phil]

---

Matchpoints, from Saturdays STAC. Partner is aggressive (she bid 6♠ on Rduran's 9-4 hand).

Thanks

[matmat]

hehe
this seems a true problem hand... TWO posts about it already!

[awm]

I wouldn't pass here. Partner has shown a good hand, and I have a maximum 1NT with pretty decent values. I like 3♠ asking partner to show a fifth diamond or sixth heart, or try 3NT if he has some running tricks. At worst we will play 4♦ opposite partner's minimum-ish 5/5, and I expect to have good chances at that contract.

[rduran1216]

This was one of the boards we made. I think 3NT is the far and away winner

[Cascade]

Why does 3♦ show a good hand and not just a competitive five five hand?

[rduran1216]

I'd say in a likely misfit auction, a 3D bid red had better not be a 5-5 12 count.

[Cascade]

rduran1216, on 2010-December-13, 02:13, said:

I'd say in a likely misfit auction, a 3D bid red had better not be a 5-5 12 count.

After the opponents bid and raise spades I would call this a fit auction.

[gwnn]

the opponents have already declared they have a fit, so we're very likely to have a diamond fit.

(I'm saying this even though I know that the opponents happen to be in a 4-3 in this particular hand. it is still not very accurate to call this a "likely misfit auction")

[Siegmund]

I like 3NT here, but that's in a partnership where we've explicitly discussed that Good/Bad is still on in this sequence. If you trust your opponents to be sound bidders, you are almost forced to pass, expecting to lose 4 spades as soon as you give up a red trick... the longer I think about it the more I'm going to talk myself into passing even if I am playing good/bad.

[mfa1010]

Pass. Bidding on with 0 in his suits is punishing partner. He should be allowed to compete against their cozy 2♠ fit without a monster.

[Fluffy]

I'd also pass, we have not enough trumps to take care of the hearts in 5 diamonds and too weak stopper for 3NT

[mtvesuvius]

Obviously if we are resulting the right bid is 4♥ or some bid to get us there.

I think partner has definitely shown extras though, and couldn't bring myself to pass this. I think 3♠ covers most of the bases, although we may miss a few 3Ns when it's right. I think this is a clear good/bad situation as well.

[Cascade]

mtvesuvius, on 2010-December-13, 11:12, said:

I think partner has definitely shown extras though, and couldn't bring myself to pass this.

This seems the wrong priority in a competitive auction.

The opponents bid and raise spades after we open the bidding and we continue a constructive auction with 1NT and we are not allowed to compete for a partscore with a useful distributional hand?

Part of the point in bidding 1NT is to tell partner that we have a few useful values so that she is better placed in the rest of the auction.

[rduran1216]

Cascade, on 2010-December-13, 11:41, said:

This seems the wrong priority in a competitive auction.

The opponents bid and raise spades after we open the bidding and we continue a constructive auction with 1NT and we are not allowed to compete for a partscore with a useful distributional hand?

Part of the point in bidding 1NT is to tell partner that we have a few useful values so that she is better placed in the rest of the auction.

right but whats to stop me as responder from making some kind of takeout or value showing bid if 2S comes back to me. I think with colors switched, I'd bid 3D on a 2542 11 count, but vul you have to be showing a bit better, and just trust that if it gets back to p he will balance over 2S if its right.

[Phil]

As you can surmise in the other thread, I passed. I I didn't consider the playability of a 6-1 heart fit, but if I'm going to make a move, 3♠ seems a lot better than 3♥. 9 tricks in NT seemed like a long way away, since we need nine runners which requires all of ♦AKQxx + ♣A or maybe ♥AKQ + ♦AKQxx (too much - this is a 4♦ call).

A diamond partial plays pretty sweet especially opposite a minimum 3♦ call. AQxxx AQJxx xxx (pretty sure she could even have less since she is so aggro) seemed more likely but I concede this hand just retreats to 4♦ after 3♠. At IMPs I am definitely bidding something.

[mtvesuvius]

Cascade, on 2010-December-13, 11:41, said:

This seems the wrong priority in a competitive auction.

The opponents bid and raise spades after we open the bidding and we continue a constructive auction with 1NT and we are not allowed to compete for a partscore with a useful distributional hand?

Part of the point in bidding 1NT is to tell partner that we have a few useful values so that she is better placed in the rest of the auction.

That's why Good/Bad 2N should apply. Even without it, I'd probably bid on, since I expect partner to have her bid when Vulnerable and bidding a new suit on the three level.

[mfa1010]

rduran1216, on 2010-December-13, 11:50, said:

right but whats to stop me as responder from making some kind of takeout or value showing bid if 2S comes back to me. I think with colors switched, I'd bid 3D on a 2542 11 count, but vul you have to be showing a bit better, and just trust that if it gets back to p he will balance over 2S if its right.

I think vulnerability is only a small factor here. What matters is offensive vs. defensive potential so we make the right competitive decision.
With an 11 count, bidding 3♦ on 2542 nv is bad and so is passing with a reasonable 11 count and 0553 v.

Phil, on 2010-December-13, 12:17, said:

A diamond partial plays pretty sweet especially opposite a minimum 3♦ call. AQxxx AQJxx xxx (pretty sure she could even have less since she is so aggro) seemed more likely but I concede this hand just retreats to 4♦ after 3♠. At IMPs I am definitely bidding something.

Please don't call that style "so aggro", unless you mean a lot less...

[655321]

Pass, not interested in 3NT when partner is void in spades (OK, the other thread tells us he is not void, but...) and with no big fit, 3♦ seems as good a spot as any.

[Phil]

mfa1010, on 2010-December-13, 17:00, said:

Please don't call that style "so aggro", unless you mean a lot less...

She's aggro in general; agree this isn't an odd 3♦ call at all so sure she could have a 'lot less'. I only spewed it out to show that we can't get too high opposite even a great minumum.

[whereagles]

I guess 3♦ is forcing. I raise to 4, on grounds that pard is quite likely to be 55 (or better) and the alternatives kind of suck.