[kfay]

You're playing with a random expert partner and have no agreements. There's probably plenty of blame to go around.

---

[Cascade]

Many of these bids seem very odd if there are no agreements.

To start with I would never bid 2♣ on a doubleton as my first response with "no agreements".

[karlson]

At least in the US, it's fine to assume drury with a random expert. I suspect Cascade even knows this and is just being difficult

It would be nice to be able to bid 3♦ over 2♣ to show a 5-5 slam try, but this sequence should also have worked. I would not have bid 2♠ as south, the fourth trump is great but it's still a pretty normal drury. But I think once south bids only 3♥ over 3♦ (assuming that was NF), north really has to give up on slam.

So I go 85% north, 15% south.

[quiddity]

The 2♠ bid is weird. The 4♠ bid is insane.
The king of spades is not a good card when partner is declaring a red 2-suiter. And with 3 bad diamonds...

edit: also, perhaps south should have jumped to 4♥ over 3♦ to show good trumps and out. I'm not sure if that's what it should show but it seems logical.

[bucky]

Well I think the problem lies with selecting a "random expert" partner, and assuming BBO-expert = expert.

[Bbradley62]

I think kfay knows the difference between random (not his usual partner) expert and BBO-expert.

[bucky]

The funny thing is, I cannot even guess which side the random expert partner sat...

[mikeh]

I don't like the 2♠ bid. Kxxx is nothing special, and regardless of what 2♦ meant (i think in many partnerships it has an artificial meaning but it was probably safe to assume it was 'natural' and, at least initially, a game try) 10xx in the suit is not what partner was looking for when he trotted it out.

So the partnership began careening off the rails at 2♠. I suspect that opener later inferred (by the time of the even less-palatable 4♠ bid) that he was facing a perfecto looking something like Axx Axxx QJx xxxx (if that's an opening, subtract the jack)or Axxx AQxx xx xxx or somesuch.

To me, the partnership was committed to game by the time North bid 3♦ (altho I concede that I might have a smidgeon of doubt as S) and thus I would interprete 3♥ as forward-going, not as an attempt to slow the auction down.

But even if it were intended by S as an attempt to slow down, and thus 4♣ became an enormous slam try....'I heard you try to play a partscore and I am still interested in slam'...the diamond holding is awful, the heart Q may not be full value....picture Jx KJxxxx AKJx A.....after the 2♠ call, this hand is worth one more try, I think....picture Axxx Axxx xx xxx to see why.

So I blame S 90%. I give N 10% for embarking on a subtle approach to an auction on which the pragmatic approach might have been to simply jump to 4♥ over drury, on the grounds that S needs a perfecto to make slam and trying to find out may result in misunderstandings, as apparently happened.

There is a reason why many first-time partneships between true experts result in great results...each strives to keep it simple and to make life easy for the other. That would have been a good approach for N on this hand.

[bucky]

mikeh, on 2010-October-25, 18:25, said:

I don't like the 2♠ bid. Kxxx is nothing special, and regardless of what 2♦ meant (i think in many partnerships it has an artificial meaning but it was probably safe to assume it was 'natural' and, at least initially, a game try) 10xx in the suit is not what partner was looking for when he trotted it out.

Assuming 2♣ is drury, then 2♦ has to be artificial. It is not playable to use 2♦ as natural in conjunction with the drury convention.

[nigel_k]

Agree with mikeh.

The main problem is just that South bid too much, starting with 2♠. Even if you routinely open with a balanced 11, that doesn't mean a balanced 9 is a maximum in support of hearts. South could have a shortage or a decent side suit for example so North was entitled to think South might have a suitable hand for slam. South should just bid 2♥ over 2♦ and could then happily and blamelessly cooperate fully if North had a better hand and still wanted to try for slam.

[Cascade]

karlson, on 2010-October-25, 17:02, said:

At least in the US, it's fine to assume drury with a random expert. I suspect Cascade even knows this and is just being difficult

1. There is nothing in the opening post that made me suspect the hand was from the US

2. It could well have been from online. My first thought was "real expert" or "BBO expert" - and I wasn't thinking Fred

3. If Drury is mutually assumed then it is an agreement. No agreements is quite different than no discussion

4. The auction did not seem to have any explicit suit agreement

5. With really "no agreements" I would have no idea what most of south's bids meant and some of north's. Seriously starting with 2♣ but also 2♠ looks strange as does going past 4♥ with a 9 count and then bidding 5♣ in response to a presumed Blackwood.

[quiddity]

I suspect South meant 2♠ as a help-suit game try and viewed the 2♦-3♦ sequence as a counter try, expecting opener to jump to 3♦ immediately with a slam try. So after he rejected and partner continued on with 4♣ he thought "wow, partner knows I have no diamond help and is off the AQ of trumps and is still trying for slam?" That might explain the 4♠ call, and it would be reasonable to charge North with some blame for muddling the auction with 2♦.

[pooltuna]

karlson, on 2010-October-25, 17:02, said:

At least in the US, it's fine to assume drury with a random expert. I suspect Cascade even knows this and is just being difficult

It would be nice to be able to bid 3♦ over 2♣ to show a 5-5 slam try, but this sequence should also have worked. I would not have bid 2♠ as south, the fourth trump is great but it's still a pretty normal drury. But I think once south bids only 3♥ over 3♦ (assuming that was NF), north really has to give up on slam.

So I go 85% north, 15% south.

I suspect you would need to run a poll before you make any blanket statement about using drury. Lite openers don't need Drury because they already opened the hand in first or second seat. Consequently 3rd and 4th seat openers need FULL normal opening values.

[655321]

Don't like 2♠ or 4♠. Agree with mikeh that simple would have been good.

pooltuna, on 2010-October-25, 21:08, said:

Lite openers don't need Drury because they already opened the hand in first or second seat. Consequently 3rd and 4th seat openers need FULL normal opening values.

Wot?

[pooltuna]

655321, on 2010-October-25, 21:28, said:

Don't like 2♠ or 4♠. Agree with mikeh that simple would have been good.




Wot?

I am objecting to the assumption that any random expert should be expected to use drury. As far as the hand goes, IMO not making a 4 card limit raise is just asking for trouble.

[Fluffy]

quiddity, on 2010-October-25, 17:15, said:

The 2♠ bid is weird. The 4♠ bid is insane.
The king of spades is not a good card when partner is declaring a red 2-suiter. And with 3 bad diamonds...

edit: also, perhaps south should have jumped to 4♥ over 3♦ to show good trumps and out. I'm not sure if that's what it should show but it seems logical.

I agree with this, I don't know it 2♠ is that wrong, other options are 2♥ and 3♥ neither of wich are very attractive althou probably better.

4♠ is totally insane, partner has diamonds you have an awful hand for slam.

North has the blame of not understanding that 3♥ was a minimum bid, and slam after that is not a good bet, but anyway 4♠ is the big bad bid on this auction.

[wyman]

No blame. D:QJ are doubleton, and the SA is onside.

+1430 wtp amirite?

[wyman]

Tough hand though. Interchange S's minor suits, and the slam's on the spade hook.

I'm not sure where this auction becomes GF with a random, but I'd really like it if opener taking 2 bids in a suit other than hearts put us in a game force. In other words, I don't want 3H NF.

If 3H is NF, more blame goes to N (than if 3H is F ), but in either case, I think S should see how bad Dxxx is going to be here and bid 4H over 4C.

[gwnn]

pooltuna, on 2010-October-25, 21:31, said:

I am objecting to the assumption that any random expert should be expected to use drury. As far as the hand goes, IMO not making a 4 card limit raise is just asking for trouble.

No you're not. You were saying that if you open light, you need FULL OPENING VALUES for 3/4 seats.

[gwnn]

gwnn playing with cloned gwnn:

1♥-2♣
2♦-2♥
4♥

regardless of what people here say, the two experts in this hand understood each other regarding 2♣. that's what matters. peace and harmony