[Jinksy]

AKQxx K KTx KJxx

opposite

xx xxxx AQJxx xx

The bidding goes PPP to the N hand, then (unopposed) 1S 1N / 3C 3D / 3S 4D PPP

We were playing a basic Acol-based system.

North said that S had shown a hand with a weak 2 not pure enough for a second seat preempt, and wanted to get out of the auction.
South said that if his suit wasn't worth pushing for at the 2 level, it wasn't worth pushing for at the 4 level, and that 4D was therefore a cue agreeing Ss.

N said that 3S had just shown extra suit quality/no better bid.
S said that with interest in further discussion about denomination, N could have bid 3H.
N said that this would show a better H fragment than he had.

I submit our dispute to the BBO gods

[ahydra]

3S looks fine. 4D is silly (why not 3NT - despite the lack of heart stop, we could hope partner has one in his 18+ hand, or that he has something like J10 if that top spot is actually the 9 or 8). Passing 4D is silly in a GF auction, particularly with KTx support opposite what should be a 6-card suit.

As for cuebidding, trying for a slam on South's hand is surely very ambitious. A perfect minimum might be AKQJx A xxx Axxx but that's less than 30% (3-2 trump break with King onside and spades no worse than 4-2).

So I'm blaming South 95% and North 5%.

ahydra

[ArtK78]

I am curious. What hand could North hold that will produce a slam opposite the South hand and open the bidding 1♠?

I think that South is dreaming if he thinks that his hand is good enough to try for a spade slam on this auction. He should just bid 4♠. Quite frankly, 4♠ is no picnic on a heart lead. Odds are that you will go down - possibly several tricks. So 4♦ may be the winning spot. 5♦ has play, but it could easily fail.

So, why are we being asked to assign the blame here? Maybe spades were 3-3 and all is well in a spade contract (you only need 3-3 spades and a successful club guess to make 4♠). In that case, I blame the fact that the spades were 3-3 and the clubs were guessable.

There were some questionable decisions in the auction, but the final spot may be the best available contract.

[helene_t]

South should bid 4♠. North should not pass a partscore bid in a GF situation.

[Jinksy]

3N surely the best spot? Ideally by N, though given S's need for a 1N response that's surely a pipe dream. But even by S, you seem to have a 50-50 chance of making conditonal on a H lead.

[billw55]

ahydra, on 2012-April-05, 08:50, said:

3S looks fine. 4D is silly (why not 3NT - despite the lack of heart stop, we could hope partner has one in his 18+ hand, or that he has something like J10 if that top spot is actually the 9 or 8). Passing 4D is silly in a GF auction, particularly with KTx support opposite what should be a 6-card suit.

As for cuebidding, trying for a slam on South's hand is surely very ambitious. A perfect minimum might be AKQJx A xxx Axxx but that's less than 30% (3-2 trump break with King onside and spades no worse than 4-2).

So I'm blaming South 95% and North 5%.

ahydra

While I agree there is some blame for both, dropping a GF auction in 4♦ takes top billing IMO. Certainly more than 5%.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2012-April-05, 08:53, said:

Maybe spades were 3-3 and all is well in a spade contract (you only need 3-3 spades and a successful club guess to make 4♠). In that case, I blame the fact that the spades were 3-3 and the clubs were guessable.

If spades are 3-3 we have ten tricks unless they get a club ruff before we get in. Otherwise, clubs don't matter.

[mikeh]

Nobody so far seems concerned about the 3♠ call.

I think we need to know a little bit more about any agreements in place re the 3♦ call.

It might have been a noise, showing values there and no heart stopper, or it might have been natural....one can't tell just from looking at the hand, since the hand fits both meanings.

If 3♦ was intended to be natural, as N eventually took it to be, then surely N should raise diamonds rather than rebid spades. From N's p.o.v., since he chose to bid 3♠ and that, effectively, eliminates 3N and invites 4♠, he should keep diamonds in the picture.....partner won't play him for more diamonds than this if he raises to 4♦.

Picture S with x xxxx QJxxxx Ax: unless this systemically is a 2♦ opener.....and many would say it isn't because of some combination of the suit strength and the heart length, then 3♠ invites disaster, since it invites a raise on a stiff. How else would we bid a monster 6=3=1=3 just under a 2♣ opening, or a good 6=4 blacks with good spades?

Even if 3♦ were a noise or ambiguous, 4♦ remains clear if N is unwilling to bid 3N. S isn't bidding 3N over 3♠, and N has committed to game, so it's not as if 3♠ is passable. I should clarify: if S has hearts stopped, such that he will bid 3N over 3♠, then his 3♦ bid must show real, long diamonds, and interest in playing in that suit, else he should bid 3N. And if S has that hand (and didn't open), then 5♦ rates to be a fair contract.

As for the 4♦ call, it was a gross error...this S hand isn't good enough to try for slam.

As for the pass, regardless of what 4♦ was taken to mean, passing was a violation of partnership discipline......you cannot force to game and then pass below game.

So I think N made two blunders to S's one, and that makes N mostly at fault.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-05, 09:18, said:

If spades are 3-3 we have ten tricks unless they get a club ruff before we get in. Otherwise, clubs don't matter.

And if spades are not 3-3 you have virtually no play for 10 tricks.

As for those advocating a 3NT contract, good luck with that. You are off a minimum of 5 tricks off the top. If you avoid a heart lead, you need 3-3 spades (in which case you have 10 tricks). The most promising route to success is if you can score the ♥K. I have seen worse.

I find this whole thread to be amusing. We are asked to assign the blame in reaching a contract which may be a double-dummy perfect contract. Sure, there are some highly questionable calls, as others have pointed out. But if we are resuling, I think the final contract is fine.

[Jinksy]

mikeh, on 2012-April-05, 09:39, said:

Nobody so far seems concerned about the 3♠ call.

I think we need to know a little bit more about any agreements in place re the 3♦ call.

Well yes, that was part of the dispute. The two of us rarely play together, so we don't have any agreements.

[mikeh]

Jinksy, on 2012-April-05, 09:51, said:

Well yes, that was part of the dispute. The two of us rarely play together, so we don't have any agreements.

Bear in mind that I also suggested that N should raise 3♦ to 4♦ regardless of what it meant, and I gave my reasoning. So while I sympathize with anyone involved in auctions where the partners are in murky waters, I still maintain that 3♠ was an error, and (imo) a serious one.

[lalldonn]

Most people would not agree, but I strongly feel 3♣ is wrong and 2♣ is enough.

[mike777]

sidenote as a passed hand I would think about bidding 2d at least pard will know where my values are.


He sees I did not open 1 or 2d I passed.

[mikeh]

lalldonn, on 2012-April-05, 10:32, said:

Most people would not agree, but I strongly feel 3♣ is wrong and 2♣ is enough.

I didn't post on that question, but certainly had reservations about 3♣. I think it is very much a point-counter's bid, but, at the same time, very few players could bring themselves to bid 2♣. Actually, my view is that this is closer to a 2N rebid than 2♣, and I think that's the call I would have made at the table.

Having said that, I don't think that many forum posters, or real life players, would see 3♣ as such a mistake that it becomes part of the ATB process.

[P_Marlowe]

Simple rule - we dont play 4m, unless we are 100% sure, that 3NT and 5m
does not make, even with a miracle ... and since we never can be sure,
we wont play 4m.

In the end, 4m needs to play 2 tricks better than 3S, and whoever said,
that 4D showed a weak hand with long diamonds, should ask himself, how
such a suit would look like.

We can discuss, if 4D is a cue or a choice of game bid, given the limited
nature of both hands choice of games makes more sense, but 4m is still
forcing.

And as a final comment 3C did set up a GF sequence, I just ovrlooked this,
I took it, that opener did bid 3S direct.

With kind regards
Marlowe