[Hanoi5]

---

Is there someone to blame?

[dicklont]

West.
3♠ is very very inviting, only to be passed by responder with a very bad hand.

[dake50]

How much worse can the 1N, then 2S be?
East goes 4S: 6-suit, primes, void!
How can West not accept? SQ +H-ruff.
How much can partner need?

Invert the 2S immediate and 1N, then 2S.
2S immediate has Qx+ and some near 2 tricks.
1NT then 2S has Qx+ and some near 3+ tricks --
hoping opener's response helps evaluate the 9-10.

[Siegmund]

There is plenty of B. All to West!

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2010-December-27, 17:17, said:

Is there someone to blame?

---

IMO East might bid 3♦ instead of 3♠.

[Ant590]

As far as I aware. most pairs play that ♠,♠,♥ is weaker than ♠,♥,♠, so blame (if there is any) goes with West here.

[Fluffy]

No blame IMO, both bid perfectly fine and didn't expect the hands to fit so well

[rhm]

nige1, on 2010-December-27, 21:17, said:

IMO East might bid 3♦ instead of 3♠.

And how would 3♦ have helped here reaching game?

Contrary to most I blame East. He just cut things too fine, when a couple of queens were enough to make game excellent.
I for my part do not want my partners to accept invitations, when they have shown some values already, if they have no ace or king. You need first round controls to make game and East had them.
East just did not appreciate what a strong hand he held. The ♠ preference is enough to bid game. It is just plain wrong to assume that partner will hold the worst possible holding for his bidding so far. 3♠ deserved what it got

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2010-December-28, 04:53, said:

Contrary to most I blame East. He just cut things too fine, when a couple of queens were enough to make game excellent.

Two fitting queens alone don't make game excellent, or even OK. Game is poor opposite any of xx Qxx Qxx Kxxxx, Qx Qxx xxx Kxxxx and Qx xxx Qxx Kxxxx.

[whereagles]

nige1, on 2010-December-27, 21:17, said:

IMO East might bid 3♦ instead of 3♠.

Come on man, that's resulting... 3♦ is more like this

x
xx
KQJTxx
xxxx

and you know it.

As to the actual hand, no blame. The key is the diamond double fit, which is simply impossible to evalute with usual methods.

[skjaeran]

whereagles, on 2010-December-28, 15:27, said:

Come on man, that's resulting... 3♦ is more like this

x
xx
KQJTxx
xxxx

and you know it.

Ehh? East has the 6430 hand. Whether 3♦ is right or not depends on what kind of diamonds you prefer it to show - and how many.

[MrAce]

I would bid it in imps by west but i wouldn't make a big deal if my pd passed with this. I dunno the scoring here. I agree with East's 3♠.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2010-December-28, 14:59, said:

Two fitting queens alone don't make game excellent, or even OK. Game is poor opposite any of xx Qxx Qxx Kxxxx, Qx Qxx xxx Kxxxx and Qx xxx Qxx Kxxxx.

I am well aware that there are layouts where game is poor. Partner's bidding is wide ranging, so it is not difficult to construct unsuitable hands.
But I doubt, as in the actual layout, partner can judge what is needed for game.
Also Bridge is not played double dummy. For example I would expect a trump lead to be forthcoming after this sequence a fair amount of the time.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2010-December-29, 05:18, said:

I am well aware that there are layouts where game is poor. Partner's bidding is wide ranging, so it is not difficult to construct unsuitable hands.

I didn't set out to construct unsuitable hands. I gave West his most likely shape, then gave him "a couple of queens" in opener's suits, then considered whether game was "excellent".

If I wanted to construct an unsuitable hand, I would give West xx xxx Jxx KQxxx.

Quote

But I doubt, as in the actual layout, partner can judge what is needed for game.
Also Bridge is not played double dummy. For example I would expect a trump lead to be forthcoming after this sequence a fair amount of the time.

Those are rather better reasons for East to bid game. However, I think you're being optimistic in hoping for West to have so many fitting honours. And I don't think West will be so badly placed if we bid 3♠ - he will know that major-suit honours are valuable. He will think ♣A is a good card, and it probably will be. The only card whose value he won't appreciate is ♦Q.

[gszeszycki]

lets try and put this in perspective

lets pretend W holds Qx Q Qxxxx xxxxx

and the bidding proceeds 1s (by east) 1n 2h 2s 3d that hugely anemic W hand suddenly takes on new life
and it would be reasonable to bid 4d (especially at imps) E would then bid 4S and that would end the bidding.
If responder had say Q Q Qxxxxx xxxxx they could pull 4s to 5d (then there would be no doubt p was void in C)


I hereby assign 100% of the blame to E for failing to pattern bid 3d. The 3s bid tells a partial story but a 3d
bid tells a much greater part of the story.

[JLOGIC]

Bidding 3D will signify to partner that we don't have a fit. It will also show a LOT more in the way of high cards, because we're bidding without a fit. A 5431 17 count or a 5440 16 count would be typical of this bidding, not a 6430 13 count. Misdescribing our hand that much to partner while also not informing him of our fit is just not good. He will pass with Qx xxx QJTx Qxxx. This is not the same as bidding our fragment when we're in a GF auction or when we have already established a fit.

[nige1]

JLOGIC, on 2010-December-29, 12:52, said:

Bidding 3D will signify to partner that we don't have a fit. It will also show a LOT more in the way of high cards, because we're bidding without a fit. A 5431 17 count or a 5440 16 count would be typical of this bidding, not a 6430 13 count. Misdescribing our hand that much to partner while also not informing him of our fit is just not good. He will pass with Qx xxx QJTx Qxxx. This is not the same as bidding our fragment when we're in a GF auction or when we have already established a fit.

RHM and JLOGIC don't like 3♦ but on the original hand, this trial-bid is likely to get us to game. IMO, 3♦ is an attempt to pattern-out and to consult partner. For us, 3♦ is technically forcing, so partner is unlikely to pass. Anyway, we can all construct hands to fit our prejudices. Thus, even a slam is reasonable opposite
♠ KQ ♥ 2 ♦ Q76432 ♣ 5432

[JLOGIC]

Why is 3D technically forcing? You didn't jumpshift, and partner never showed extras, so you denied enough to GF already. You also bid a natural suit. Why can't partner pass it? It doesn't make sense that 3D is forcing when you have already denied a GF hand.

[MrAce]

JLOGIC, on 2010-December-29, 22:19, said:

Why is 3D technically forcing? You didn't jumpshift, and partner never showed extras, so you denied enough to GF already. You also bid a natural suit. Why can't partner pass it? It doesn't make sense that 3D is forcing when you have already denied a GF hand.

Na, it is not forcing. I am not a 3♦ bidder with that hand, but if i did and pd passed, i wouldn't be unhappy.

xx
xx
Jxxxxx
KJx

or similar hands.