[cherdano]

pclayton, on Nov 21 2006, 04:33 PM, said:

Yeah I was South

OK, I'll accept that 5♦ was pretty bad, although pard shouldn't play me for a 15 count here with tolerance. Thats some sort of 2/1, or a 3N response. But note that 5♠ is still dangerously high.

I also don't agree that this hand is worth a game force. Give pard a very plain opener; AQxxx, xx, AQxx, xx and game needs an awful lot. A little more, and pard would accept a game try. The only way a 2♣ response pays off is when pard reveals a double fit; AQxxx, xx, xx, Axxx for instance (and this isn't an opener for many). I also have methods (via an ambiguous 2♣) where I can show a 3 card limit raise cheaply.

I'm surprised that you all are so tolerant of 4♠. Maybe I'm influenced by the result, but I think at these colors, I should have some realistic expectation that pard is bidding to MAKE. How can I differentiate this hand from something like: AKQxxx, x, Axx, Axx; which gives us an excellent play for a grand? There's plenty of lesser hands where 6 is excellent too. North has a nice hand, but its not that great if there isn't a fit there. To say South should pass 4♠ isn't realistic, when South hasn't hinted at any strength or fit, and he has both.

I think that pard should pass 4♥. If I come out of the woods with a double (which I will), then pulling looks right with this ODR. Thats how you get to 4♠.

In situations like these, Justin has always been arguing in favor of giving partner lots of leeway for his competitive game bids. I think it is losing bridge if you have to pass with the North hand, missing out on a possible double game swing. (If partner has ♠Kx and ♦QJx, you are making 4♠ or down 1 and have 1-3 defensive tricks against 4♥.)
Of course, this wasn't bridge but MP, so the double game swing argument isn't that big. But even at MPs, opponents may not be able to double you with 4♥ making.

In fact, I have convinced myself that South should pass. Game-before-slam. (And throw out the forcing 1N with a possible fit.)

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Nov 21 2006, 05:29 PM, said:

Of course, this wasn't bridge but MP, so the double game swing argument isn't that big. But even at MPs, opponents may not be able to double you with 4♥ making.

It was IMPs.

Oh and on a small technical point, North's x in clubs was the J.

P.S. I wasn't North (nor obviously South)

[Apollo81]

pclayton, on Nov 21 2006, 02:35 AM, said:

One of my regular partners and I perpetuated the following disaster tonight:

Scoring: IMP

---

1♠ - (pass) - 1N - (4♥)
4♠ - (p) - 4N - (p)
5♣ - (p) - 5♦ - (p)
6♦ - (p) - 7♠ - (dbl)
AP

1. 1N is forcing
2. 5♣ shows 1/4 keys, 5♦ is the Q ask; 6♦ shows ♦K + ♠Q.

-800.

Assign the blame to NS and what is the worst call?

Obviously the bids at fault here are, in order of worst to least bad:

5♦: no reason at all to bid this, 5♠ is forcing if opener has 4 keys
6♦: how can we have a grand? nonetheless an easy mistake to make
1NT: RED IMPS why not GF with this hand?

The methods also lose on this hand, as they basically force the 4♠ and 4NT calls.

[Apollo81]

inquiry, on Nov 21 2006, 08:36 AM, said:

I don't like the 1NT response with this hand, I would have bid 2♣ but that still doesn't solve the big problem when the bidding continues 4♥-4♠.....

Umm, yes it does. North bids 4♠ and South can easily pass. Not that it matters much as to South's decision, but remember North could have made a forcing pass then pull to 4♠ as a slam try in this auction. He cannot do that after a 1NT response.

I'd have bid 2♣ too...

[Echognome]

Apollo81, on Nov 21 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

inquiry, on Nov 21 2006, 08:36 AM, said:

I don't like the 1NT response with this hand, I would have bid 2♣ but that still doesn't solve the big problem when the bidding continues 4♥-4♠.....

Umm, yes it does. North bids 4♠ and South can easily pass. Not that it matters much as to South's decision, but remember North could have made a forcing pass then pull to 4♠ as a slam try in this auction. He cannot do that after a 1NT response.

I'd have bid 2♣ too...

Except for the fact that Ben's 2♣ and your 2♣ presumably have different meanings.

I believe Ben is bidding 2♣ as multi-way (either GF with clubs, GF bal, or 3 card limit raise). This will not create a forcing pass.

Your 2♣ natural GF, certainly does create a FP. Not saying it's wrong, just saying these are markedly different auctions.

[Apollo81]

Echognome, on Nov 21 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Nov 21 2006, 05:43 PM, said:

inquiry, on Nov 21 2006, 08:36 AM, said:

I don't like the 1NT response with this hand, I would have bid 2♣ but that still doesn't solve the big problem when the bidding continues 4♥-4♠.....

Umm, yes it does. North bids 4♠ and South can easily pass. Not that it matters much as to South's decision, but remember North could have made a forcing pass then pull to 4♠ as a slam try in this auction. He cannot do that after a 1NT response.

I'd have bid 2♣ too...

Except for the fact that Ben's 2♣ and your 2♣ presumably have different meanings.

I believe Ben is bidding 2♣ as multi-way (either GF with clubs, GF bal, or 3 card limit raise). This will not create a forcing pass.

Your 2♣ natural GF, certainly does create a FP. Not saying it's wrong, just saying these are markedly different auctions.

No, I disagree with this too. I play this method in my regular partnership, and it doesn't make sense to passout 4♥ if pard has a spade LR or a GF hand, balanced or otherwise. Maybe if our suit was hearts and theirs spades we could passout 4♠, but thats a different topic.....

[Apollo81]

Codo, on Nov 21 2006, 08:55 AM, said:

I would bet, that from 100 players out there 85 and more will call this a limit raise. They count 10 HCPS and MAY add something for the singleton and they surely will add nothing for their nice suits and their pure points.

If 99 out of 100 made a limit raise they are still wrong. (IMO)

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Nov 21 2006, 09:33 AM, said:

To say South should pass 4♠ isn't realistic, when South hasn't hinted at any strength or fit, and he has both.

Isn't this reallly the problem Phil. There is an old adage that has been around a while and popularized by Robson/Segal... "support with support".

Why is it that North has no clue about either of souths stregnth or fit. How come south didn't show one or the other?

As you know (but others may not), I advocate that the "forcing" 1NT never include three card or more support for openers major, and never include any strong hand varients (mine is limited to about 12 hcp with a two suiter and no fit, and to about 9 with a one suiter and no fit, and 9 with a balanced hand and no fit). Now there is no way I am going to change the world view on this, .. if you had raised spades earlier, in a non-forcing way, you would have passed 4♠, and if you had made a game-frocing 2♣ bid, your partner could have made a forcing pass. The auction started going despirately wrong with 1NT imho.

In partnership bidding at bridge, robson hints at "Possibly competitive auctions" and almost advocates fit jumps without competition. But here you might should be preparrd for a barage in diamonds (since you have one), surely the 4♥ barrage took you somewhat by surprise. But 1NT did nothing to insulate you against this bid.

To be hyper critical of your parnters 6-5 come-alive bid is, I think, unfair to him. I can imagine most people might "risk" 4♠ with that hand and the quality of the spade suit. But as I said above, the worse bid was 5♦. Here you with a limited hand (not even good enough for a 2/1 in your view) are now trying for a grand slam! I think a careful 5♠ (yes, yes, 5♠ is not safe either) is called for. If partner has the spade queen, he will take a call other than 6♠, if not he will bid 6♠.

I unfortunately had a similar hand recently, but with a pickup partner. I held
♠KQJT732 ♥KQ74 ♦A ♣Q.

I opened 1♠ and partner bid 2♦. I went the softway at first, to see what was what and bid 2♠ and partner bid 3♦. It looks like a 6♠ or 7NT hand to me, so I bid 4NT, and partner bid 5♣. Now time to think. Did partner respond 0/3 under the assumption that diamonds or spades was trumps or could partner really have zero ACES. With an unknown partner do I risk 5♠ which is surely down one if partner has no ACES anyway, or do I go on the assumption that partner must have three aces here. I decided not to risk 5♠ so I bid 7♠ promptly doubled and they took their three aces (they missed their heart ruff). Partner ended up having an extremely weak hand and only diamonds. If I had trusted partner to understand the implication of a 5♠ bid after a 0/3 ace response, I could have saved teh double and several imps (lucky 4♠ goes down on heart ruff). Note also if partner with such a weak hand had passed 2♠ or bid 3♦ immediately, all would have been averted. Still i would expect to take a lot of the blame for bidding 7♠ rather than 5♠.... but for the record, I did so because I worried partner would not understand (afterwards, partner with agreed she would always have passed 5♠ it because it would be a signoff).

[HeartA]

inquiry, on Nov 21 2006, 07:36 AM, said:

The absolute worse bids was 5♦. The 4NT bidder hearing 1 or 4 keycards should "signoff". Opener with 4 keycards will never accept the signoff, but instead will show values over that bid should he have it.

I agree with Ben completely on this. But there is one thing North ignored as well. If South has 4 key cards, he would not respond with 1NT.

[pclayton]

Lets all get past the basic question here; 5♦ is the worst bid. I made it; I admit it, I'm done with it.

Pretend as if South bid 5♠ over 5♦ and went down 1. So lets focus on the 2nd worst call. It boils down to 4♠ and 4N as far as I'm concerned. Leave 6♦ aside; its not relevant if South makes the correct call of 5♠.

1N is a distant 4th place for me. I'm simply not calling this 3=4=1=5 10 count a game force. Would I change my mind after a forcing NT? Sure I would! If pard trotted out 2♥, I'd bid 4♥. If pard tried 2♣, I'd also upgrade and not hang pard with 3♠. And I'd go even if pard rebid 2♠. Its the 2♦ rebid that causes me to cool my jets with 3 only ♠'s.

The above may seem like an argument to make a game forcing 2♣, but bridge is a partnership game. I would feel very uncomfortable if the auction started 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♠ - 3x - 3♠ - 4x. Pard has every right to play me for another King, and this dummy will be a disappointment.

Do I anticipate a barrage bid by the guy behind me. No I don't, and 1N should be eminently safe. Note that a multi-way 2♣ doesn't help that much. When I back in with spades over interference, do I have a GF with clubs, or just a limit raise without clubs?

I don't think the 4♥ blast puts us in a forcing situation. Pard has opened with a 1 bid and I have made a forcing NT. We do not even remotely have ownership of the deal.

I'll repeat what I said before: "Pard's 4♠ should be bid with some expectation to make". Remember, we are red on white. If the vulnerability was reversed I would allow great latitude in what constitutes a 4♠ call. Does a distributional minimum qualify? No way.

I don't think its much different than a 1♣ opener by pard and a 4♥ overcall on your right. Do you have different standards for a 4♠ call because of the vulnerability? I do. For instance, white on red, I'd take a stab with: QJxxxxx, x, xxxx, x. I wouldn't think about doing this red.

But I'm willing to listen (as always).

[inquiry]

Ok... having moved past 5♦ as the worse bid, we are now on the look out for the second worse bid.

Each partner made two bids.. one twice in spades, the other twice in Notrump.

Let's deal with problem numnber one. Is this a 1♠ opener? I say yes, others will say no. But why pass? Are you really going to come in later with a two suited bid given the difference in suit quality with them minor being weak and the major strong? Clearly no. So 1♠ has to be fine outstanding young bid, that I think will do.....

So that leaves three bids under scrutiny. The 1NT bid, the 4♠ bid, and the 4NT bid. Phil does not play 2♣ as multi-meaning, so we can forget about that, for him, his only bid he can make is 1NT. I happen to disagree here. We are vul, I have a fit for spades, I have a good count (10 hcp, controls in all three side suits, a fit for partner, and distrbutional values). I can not imagine NOT forcing to 4♠ VULNERABLE at imps opposite a spade opener with this hand. This hand is TOO GOOD FOR a 3=card limit raise of spades for me. Let me put it in zar persective. This hand has 10 hcp, 3 control points, 13 distributional points and 2 points for the singleton diamond. That is 27 zars.

Ok, you don't believe in zars, and you would rather take your time and re0evaluate as the auction develops. You get what you pay for, but I still say the biggest problem is your undisclosed extra values and fit after your 1NT bid.

Ok, if one accepts that phil evaluated his hand corrrectly that his hand is not game forcing over 1♠ let's continue to evaluate. Let;s start with this premise. 1) Phils hand as good as it is not GF values over 1♠, and 2) North's hand is so weak that after 1S=P=1NT=4H it has to pass.

So both hands are weak by this evaluation. But isn't something here wrong? In Phil's hand the heart JT and the club KQ are almost totally useless and yet game will probably make. How can that be if the evaluation above is correct (phils hand is too weak and responders hand is too weak)? .. (yes, yes. spade lead and spade contination when in with the diamond can cause a lot of problems). I think the fact that there are so many tricks shows that one, or both the statements about the weakness of the two hands has to be incorrect.

So was 4♠ a terrible overbid? Phil argues strongly that it was. But unless you are playing naymats, there are a lot of hands that you will want to be in 4♠ on after partner shows any sign of life that are not the rock crushers Phil suggest. And this is a 6-5 hand after all. What if north's diamonds were change to KT987 would that be strong enough? How about KJT98? There must be a threshold here where the hand as genearlly weak as it is will past the phil test (or at least the test of some of us) where 4♠ is fine. While I am defending 4♠ on this hand as not being a horrible bid, I would have probably passed 4♥, but I am not criticial of the choice.

Having heard 4♠, can you fault phil for bidding 4NT? No, I can not fault 4NT bid with this hand. This is why I found fault with 1NT. This is why I removed three card support from my 1NT response. I will never be in this situation. But when evaluating the problem I see 1NT as an clear underbid, and 4♠ as a slight overbid. But of the two, the real problem came about because after 1NT phil left two aspects of his hands on the table.. 1) the big fit, and 2) the significiant values. I can't get past that. I find 1NT the second worse bid--- because I just not ever imagine issuing onlyl a game try with this hand vulnerable at imps.

As an aside, and I really don't know, how did the bidding usually go at the other tables... I assume 1S-p-2C....

[HeartA]

I actually agree with 1NT response.

The worst bids:
1) 5D
2) 4NT (although you have controls in every suit, but they are secondary controls. After all, you responded with 1NT, opener expected come useful cards from you when bid 4S).
3) 6D (pd obviously doesn't have 4 controls. 3 aces plus SK would be toooo good for 1NT response.)

[mikestar]

On these colors, why not open 3♠? (It would be 4♠ at any other colors). It expresses your playing strength and your limited high cards and with spades both longer and subtantially stronger, it is possible but unlikely you belong in diamonds.

Were this the opening, partner cannot possibly do anything but raise to 4♠.

[inquiry]

In the what it worth department (probably not much), this hand was played 16 times and resioibders first bids were

Direct raises..
1) 2♠ twice == once in 4♠, once in 3♠ (only table not to bid 4♠ or more
2) 3♠ once, reached game
3) 4♠ twice, reached game

Two club bids.
4) eight times, reaching at least game each time
5) 1NT twice, reaching game once when 1NT rebid 4♠ at second chance, and 7Sxx

Of the eight times 2♣ was bid, of course, we can't tell if it was GF or not. However, six of these times, responder either LEAP TO GAME after north rebid 2♠ or 3♦, or opener made a slam try over a 3♠ rebid, suggesting most of the time 2♣ was meant as GF.

[microcap]

I must be getting better at this game, as I agree totally with bid_em_up, and he is always right.

Rex and I established a rule that the first wrong or misleading bid must accept the brunt of the blame in any disaster, and I think it is a good one.

And my inclination was to blame the 4♠ bid---defending or giving up could so easily be right here. 4♠ with this hand is masterminding IMO--- partner is likely in a better spot to decide what to do than you are, so don't take the chance away from him. You know the expression, 6-5--sometimes don't come alive! LOL

[pclayton]

Here's another angle to consider. Its not a pure comparison, but its worth considering. If you opened 1♠ with AQJTxx, x, Kxxxx, x and pard bid a forcing NT, what would your rebid be? 2♦? 2♠? 3♠?

Would 4♠ really ever enter your mind? If no, how can you honestly say that you are bidding to make 4♠ after a 4♥ overcall. 4♥ does nothing to enhance the chances of 4♠, as a matter of fact it diminshes it, since LHO will likely have a stack now.

Well, OK, then if 4♠ is right on "general principles" (they may take the green push to 5♥, or 4♠ may not get doubled and be a nice profit against -420 even if it is), then you and I do not agree on what a 4♠ should entail. I still believe that a 4♠ call has some expectation of taking 10 tricks opposite a typical 1N response.

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Nov 21 2006, 04:30 PM, said:

Would 4♠ really ever enter your mind? If no, how can you honestly say that you are bidding to make 4♠ after a 4♥ overcall. 4♥ does nothing to enhance the chances of 4♠, as a matter of fact it diminshes it, since LHO will likely have a stack now. 

Well, OK, then if 4♠ is right on "general principles" (they may take the green push to 5♥, or 4♠ may not get doubled and be a nice profit against -420 even if it is), then you and I do not agree on what a 4♠ should entail. I still believe that a 4♠ call has some expectation of taking 10 tricks opposite a typical 1N response.

At these colors would you ever think the 4♥ bidder had to be loaded? I maan they are not vul and we are. 4♥ sounds preemptive to me. The fact that the 4♥ bidder had no idea what he was doing is entirely beside the point.

What would I bid over 1NT? Am I stuck with a standard 2/1? Then I bid 2♦ expecting partner not to pass without a darn good reason (2♦ while not forcing, is seldom passed). I plan on rebidding 3♠ next. But then, I was not forced to make up my mind at the four level for my rebid.

I think you are stuck on this hand for a hidden reason. You know the 4♥ bidder is strong... we see 4♥ without seeing the 4♥ bidder ahnds and we take it at face value... as preemptive.

[hrothgar]

Couple points here: From my perspective, the single worst bid was 5♦. However, we've beaten that horse to death already. As for the rest of it, I'm going to chalk it up to system.

There are pluses and minus to every system. The 4♥ exposed a seem in the 2/1 variant that you're using. You're playing 2/1 GF responses while opening light distributional hands.

I see nothing wrong with using a forcing NT response, planning to show a three card limit raise. As Phil points out, there are a lot of potential 1♠ openings that won't produce game opposite responder's hand.

In a similar fashion, rebidding 4♠ after the 4♥ intervention also strikes me as reasonable. Passing with this type of weak distributional hand is very dangerous. You could be looking at a double game swing.

Finally, its hard to fault responder for looking for slam after the 4♠ rebid. 4♠ is very wide ranging and you have a super max. (I'm somewhat surprised at folks who are simultaneously suggest that that responder is too strong for 1NT, but at fault for bidding on after 4♠)

In short, if you want to open on crap and not use a strong club or soemthing similar to limit your hands, its gonna bite you every once and a while. The benefits could very well outweigh the costs, but don't try to pretend that everything is always gonna be hunky-dory.

[HeartA]

To me, 1NT response and 4NT over 4S were two contradict bids. If your hand is not strong enough for 2/1, then you should not bid 4NT over pd's 4S. It is true that your hand is better than "average" 1NT hand, but it is still a 1NT hand. Ben didn't agree with 1NT so OKed 4NT. I am OK with 1NT and so don't like 4NT.

[pclayton]

inquiry, on Nov 21 2006, 01:40 PM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 21 2006, 04:30 PM, said:

Would 4♠ really ever enter your mind? If no, how can you honestly say that you are bidding to make 4♠ after a 4♥ overcall. 4♥ does nothing to enhance the chances of 4♠, as a matter of fact it diminshes it, since LHO will likely have a stack now. 

Well, OK, then if 4♠ is right on "general principles" (they may take the green push to 5♥, or 4♠ may not get doubled and be a nice profit against -420 even if it is), then you and I do not agree on what a 4♠ should entail. I still believe that a 4♠ call has some expectation of taking 10 tricks opposite a typical 1N response.

At these colors would you ever think the 4♥ bidder had to be loaded? I maan they are not vul and we are. 4♥ sounds preemptive to me. The fact that the 4♥ bidder had no idea what he was doing is entirely beside the point.

What would I bid over 1NT? Am I stuck with a standard 2/1? Then I bid 2♦ expecting partner not to pass without a darn good reason (2♦ while not forcing, is seldom passed). I plan on rebidding 3♠ next. But then, I was not forced to make up my mind at the four level for my rebid.

I think you are stuck on this hand for a hidden reason. You know the 4♥ bidder is strong... we see 4♥ without seeing the 4♥ bidder ahnds and we take it at face value... as preemptive.

Its unusual (and unexpected) for the 4♥ to have two outside aces. But why would it be unexpected for Matt's pard to have these cards? What we think (or do not think) the defense doesn't enter into it. All we care about is what we think pard can hold.