[Wackojack]

My link

{comments}

---

First of all sorry, I do not know how to enlarge the media inserted.
Here are my thoughts on this disaster. Comments please.

1NT: 15-17

I had a similar hand in the London swiss pairs a few days earlier except that all the high cards were in the minors, so I opened 1♦ and we finished in a part score in diamonds fo a good result. This time I thought that opening 1NT was better. I didn't want to languish in 2♦ if partner had a 9 or 10 count with good cards in the majors. Obviously as the cards lie opening 1♦ would have worked better.

(2♣)- pass

We had agreed that double of an artificial bid over 1NT showed values and some strength in that suit. So it seems right to pass and await developments.

(2♥)-pass-(3♥)- double

We have 23-25 HCP between us, so what else can partner do? 3NT looks like the only poor alternative.

pass

Should I leave the double in or bid 4♦? Have I been fixed by my failure to open 1♦.

Aside comment: Reverse my clubs and diamond suits, then surely it is a no brainer to open 1NT.

[rhm]

Wackojack, on 2012-January-03, 06:02, said:

...
Should I leave the double in or bid 4♦? ...

That depends what your partner's DBL meant.
If it was takeout I would have taken out. Did you expect nonvulnerable opponents to be down 2 after this bidding?
After all East tried for game and you have next to nothing in the majors.

If it suggested penalty your partner's DBL was a poor choice.

Assuming 2♣ showed majors, your partner might have bid his better major (2♠ here) as a takeout of the other major over 2♣.
After all he can see what will likely happen next. Over 2♠ West would probably pass and you would bid 3♦ next and might be allowed to play there

Rainer Herrmann

[billw55]

While I am certainly not opposed to offshape NT openings in principle, this looks like the wrong hand for it. With longer diamonds than clubs, you have perfectly good descriptive sequences available starting with 1♦. Just rebid clubs at the level that suits your style.

Later, leaving 3♥x in is a choice which really depends on your agreements. As south, I would have doubled 2♣, which is generally stayman, or maybe showing interest in doubling one of their suits. But a penalty double of 3♥ looks poor - doubling to turn 50 into 100 is rarely a good idea. Maybe it was takeout after all?

[Fluffy]

1NT is fine, perhaps not perfect here, and perhaps marginally not best in the long run (I doubt), but talking about it here its nonsense, the blame to the disaster must lay elsewhere.

Your agreements over artifical overcalls are to blame IMO. You should use double to show general values and not anything about clubs, if double shows values and sets forcing pass it would be easy to avoid this disaster. Using double to show the suit bid and values, when you can do that just by bidding it its a very narrow target for a bid that consumes no space.

Your lack of agreements towards further doubles gets the rest of the blame.

[gnasher]

I'd have opened 1♦, though your point about what you'd do with a 2245 shape is valid. Having opened 1NT, I'd have had another go over 2♥. Presumably 2♠ and 2NT would both show the minors, distinguishing the lengths in some way that no one has discussed.

You're handicapping yourselves by playing a double of 2♣ as promising club length. Presumably that means that pass-then-double is penalties without club length, making this hand unbiddable. Life is easier if you play double as balanced values.

[mike777]

agree with 1nt strongly.

I can live with pass by south but prefer x to show this kind of hand after 2c(majors) by east.

strongly prefer 2nt by north over 2h,not pass.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on 2012-January-03, 09:52, said:

agree with 1nt strongly.

I can live with pass by south but prefer x to show this kind of hand after 2c(majors) by east.

strongly prefer 2nt by north over 2h,not pass.

May I assume 2NT by North would have been a minor suit scramble?

If we could double 2C to show balanced values creating a FP thru the 3-level (we can), then North doesn't need to act over 2H; South will. But, when hearts are raised to 3, South has an easy pass (must have about the hand he has). North can now remove in reopening seat with that hand to the longer minor.

BTW, I disagree with RHM that East's 3H raise is known to have invited game. We were not told that by the OP, and perhaps 2NT "cue" was available to East with serious game thoughts.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-03, 10:07, said:

If we could double 2C to show balanced values creating a FP thru the 3-level (we can), then North doesn't need to act over 2H; South will.

I don't think that's true. With the North hand opposite some junk like Kxxx Qxx xx xxxx we should be competing to 3♣. South isn't going to act with that hand.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-January-03, 10:21, said:

I don't think that's true. With the North hand opposite some junk like Kxxx Qxx xx xxxx we should be competing to 3♣. South isn't going to act with that hand.

I was referring to the auction after South doubles. My South wouldn't have doubled 2C with that. If that junk is within your range for the double of 2C, there cannot be any FP established thru the 3-level...even the two-level.

If South had passed, especially if double wasn't available/2C to show what it should, then of course North could (should) act to show his minors over 2H. But, if South doubles to show directionless values North should not act yet, in case there is a plus penalty number in our future.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-03, 10:24, said:

I was referring to the auction after South doubles. My South wouldn't have doubled 2C with that. If that junk is within your range for the double of 2C, there cannot be any FP established thru the 3-level...even the two-level.

If South had passed, especially if double wasn't available/2C to show what it should, then of course North could (should) act to show his minors over 2H. But, if South doubles to show directionless values North should not act yet, in case there is a plus penalty number in our future.

Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post.

[EricK]

I don't really like 1NT with so much strength in the minors. Put some honours in the majors and 1NT looks a lot better. I don't like the agreement you have for a double of 2♣ (showing the majors). I think it is best played as showing balance of strength and the ability to penalise at least one of their suits. Once North has chosen 1NT and South has been forced, systemically, to pass, then North is stuck on the second round as partner could have nothing. South has then been railroaded into doubling because he was unable to make the "balance of strength" double on the first round. And North is now on a total guess as he doesn't feel able to introduce a new suit at the 4 level with no guarantee of support opposite, but he hasn't got enough in ♥ to pass or bid 3NT.

North's opening (even if I think it is a bad bid) can't really be blamed for the disaster, though, as he would have been in exactly the same position if he'd had the ♠Q intead of the ♣Q - and then there is no real alternative to opening 1NT. But then South was stuck due to the defensive system chosen. So probably it is your competitive agreements which are to blame.

[FrancesHinden]

I also don't like 1NT, but as others have said the problem is that if double of 3H is penalties, then South has no way to bid this hand; if double was take-out then North should have taken out.

[FrancesHinden]

rhm, on 2012-January-03, 07:21, said:

Assuming 2♣ showed majors, your partner might have bid his better major (2♠ here) as a takeout of the other major over 2♣.

Maybe that's a good agreement, but without discussion I would assume 2S is natural (and with discussion I play it as natural as well: if I want to make a take-out double of hearts I either double 2C then double 2H, or pass 2C then double hearts). People often overcall 2C as 'majors' without 5 cards in each suit.

[rogerclee]

1) I think opening 1NT is extremely poor with the north hand, and I open 1N about as much as anyone. You have the textbook hand for not doing it with 5-4 in the minors heh, since your hand is so great for playing in the minors and so bad for playing in a major or NT, and you can even open 1D and bid 2C as opposed to the other way.

2) You absolutely cannot pass 2H with this, you had the easiest double ever assuming 2C was the majors. Even if you don't want to double, you have to bid 2N, even 3D is better than pass.

3) Having failed to describe your hand adequately at your first two opportunities, you had no idea what to do on your third turn of bidding. This was not shocking.

South had a tough bidding problem given his (IMO bad) methods, I don't really object to what he did.

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-03, 10:07, said:

BTW, I disagree with RHM that East's 3H raise is known to have invited game. We were not told that by the OP, and perhaps 2NT "cue" was available to East with serious game thoughts.

I do not care, but I expect if such methods are played and 3♥ is not invitational it would get alerted.
Absence of an alert I need not be told what 3 ♥ means.

Rainer Herrmann

[Wackojack]

Thanks for all you comments. I have gone to this trouble because this is a partnership we are trying to establish.

1NT: 15-17

I get at least some blame from most posters for this bid. From now on I will make it a rule that with 2254, I will not open 1NT unless I have at least a top honour in the doubletons. That looks like a reasonable dividing line between the risk of missing 3NT and not finding a minor suit fit if opponents overcall in the majors.
How about 2245 though? Unless the club suit is very good and the majors useless would I ever consider opening 1♣? Even then would I really want to rebid 2♣? And as for opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣, that is just not my style.
How about 2452 and 2425? I don’t think I would ever consider opening this with a minor in the 15-17 range unless I upgrade a good 17 to 18.

(2♣)- ?

I am persuaded by the posters that a double over an artificial overcall should just show general values and with this agreement a double would have been the best bid. And it was this agreement that was mainly to blame for the bad outcome. We do play Lebensohl over intervention so 2NT would be a request to bid 3♣. But partner obviously did not have any of the types of hand for this bid

1NT-(2♣) - pass- (2♥)-?

Quote gnasher “I'd have opened 1♦, though your point about what you'd do with a 2245 shape is valid. Having opened 1NT, I'd have had another go over 2♥. Presumably 2♠ and 2NT would both show the minors, distinguishing the lengths in some way that no one has discussed”

I think that without agreement 2♠ would have to be natural and 2NT would be asking partner to bid the best minor

Quote rogerclee “You absolutely cannot pass 2H with this, you had the easiest double ever assuming 2C was the majors. Even if you don't want to double, you have to bid 2N, even 3D is better than pass.”

Yes I think now that I should have taken some actions over 2♥ after my off shape 1NT opening although there are significant risks. The obvious bid is double but if partner bids 2♠, I suppose I have to next bid 2NT. Partner, I hope would get the message to bid his best minor.

1NT-(2♣) - pass- (2♥)
Pass-(3♥) - double

Obviously we have no agreement here. You never get agreements this deep into the auction even with an established partnership until something like this happens. Opponents were an expert but pick-up partnership so 3♥ one can assume to be invitational. I cannot blame my partner now, he is on a hiding to nothing whatever he does.

[helene_t]

I like the 1NT opening, don't feel very strongly about it and I am by no means sure that it is a long-term winner, just saying that I would do the same. I am not really comfortable about my 3rd bid after
1♦-1M
2♣-2♦
?

Anyway, you made a reasonable choice to open 1NT with a higher O-D than expected, and it backfired this time. Bad luck. After you made that choice, South is going to double 3♥ for penalties. There is nothing you can do about that. Maybe if you find a bid over 2♥ to show both minors you could tell partner that you really don't want to defend. But I am not sure if you really want to show 2254 even if you can, and even if you do I am not sure it will prevent South from doubling 3♥.

I can't understand South's pass. If X shows values and "something" in clubs then the hand fits. If X shows long clubs then South needs a different call for this hand. 2♠ or 2NT, maybe.

[benlessard]

1Nt is a 100% MP bid (at Imps its awful). I dont think its usually bad to open 1Nt with 2254 at MP (but its simply not my style) but the problem here is that its likely (maybe very likely) to wrongside 3Nt. I dont understand how south can pass 2C, no matter what was the result of this board you have to understand that passing with 8pts vs 15-17 will lead to problems later in the auction, a further balancing X will not suggest that much strenght. Over 2H i prefer X but at MP its dangerous and it would not surprised me that passing is OK since 3m can easily go -200 for a terrible MP score. The X of 3H is penalty for me, a hand that is passing 2C but is willing to play 4m doesnt exist in my book. So mistakes all around but the important one to fix is really the pass of 2C.