[lbellicaud]

I agree with every bid, except the last double. When the partner says 2 heart, he has at least 6 cards and a pretty good hand. Moreover you know that he his single in diamond. At this point you have 9 tricks in your hand, so you need almost nothing to do 4 !h .
Instead of doubling, i would have bid 4 heart, or at least 3...

[kenberg]

jdonn, on 2015-August-12, 11:24, said:

1NT is wrong without a diamond stopper. A 2♦ cuebid looks best. Given the auction through 2♥, I would bid 3♥ as north. Partner is sure to be short in diamonds which means I have an incredible hand for him. Then south could have accepted based on the distribution.

I do not at all believe south should do more than 1♥ or 2♥ that he bid. He doesn't expect there to be game if partner can't raise 2♥, and the 3 level is far from safe. It seems like resulting to me quite frankly.

Since I am pretty sure my action at the table would have been an immediate 3H over the double, I hope I can hear a little more about this.

If my partner doubles an opening minor and I have a six card major with very little in highs, I generally bid 3M. My worry here was hiding the four spades. Indeed, with the actual strong N hand there are 9 obvious tricks and then a tenth from a 3-3 spade split (not happening) or a spade ruff (which can't be stopped because of the 2-2 trump split.. So my fourth spade is a big deal.

After seeing the full hand I was worried that after I bid a direct 3H then North might count 9 tricks but see no obvious 10th and pass. You are saying, as I understand it, that 3H is unsafe. Since I have a lot of shape here, that was not a worry (for me).

Of course partner does not always have a monster when he doubles. But if partner doubles and I have ten cards in the majors I don't expect the auction to be at the 2 level when it comes back to me, so it seems that I should make the most descriptive bid available, and a bid showing length but weakness seemed right. Now or never, I thought.

Moving on to the layout, with a variation or two. There are 17 total trump in hearts and diamonds, and 18 total tricks, 10 in hearts and 8 in diamonds. Rearrange a bit so that E has three hearts, Maybe trade the heart 4 for the club 5.W one, and now there are 9 tricks in diamonds (reason enough not to play 3DX ) and I think only 9 in hearts, assuming that W starts with a trump and E continues trump at every opportunity. For example, trump to A, AK of spades and a spade, N is in and leads another trump. Declarer cannot afford to win with the Q on the board and ruff the last spade with the K, but if he wins in hand he cannot get to the board without giving E a chance to lead a third trump. Ok, if he plays club and a club, W is in and has to underlead in diamonds, but he is brilliant. Of course if the defense to 4H begins with a diamond, I think the contract comes in even when hearts are 3-1 and spades are 4-2.

LOTT is off here in its totals, but we can be forgive. With Ace third of clubs opposite two clubs, N is losing one club. And W is losing only one club playing in diamonds as the cards lie, but trade the J or the T for the 3 or the 2 and then W has more of a challenge. I am not at all an advocate of LOTT, but it may when we note that 4H makes and 3D is off only one, it is perhaps worth mentioning that LOTT predicts 17 total tricks, not 18.

But mostly I post this because I am interested inn why folks think that a direct 3H over the double is wrong.On a (very) different layout W may come in with 2C or 3C, over 1H, and it seems worthwhile to prevent this.

[PhilKing]

kenberg, on 2015-August-13, 12:43, said:

Since I am pretty sure my action at the table would have been an immediate 3H over the double, I hope I can hear a little more about this.

This is the standard meaning for 3♥, but quite a few of the English contingent on BBO forum play it as showing five hearts and a hand a bit too good for 2♥.

I can't see anything strong with your approach, and I think partner would raise on the chance that there is a tenth trick somewhere.

[kenberg]

PhilKing, on 2015-August-14, 04:05, said:

This is the standard meaning for 3♥, but quite a few of the English contingent on BBO forum play it as showing five hearts and a hand a bit too good for 2♥.

I can't see anything strong with your approach, and I think partner would raise on the chance that there is a tenth trick somewhere.

Thanks. I seemed to be way outside the general thinking so I was wondering,. I can see the value of playing that an immediate 3H is five cards and stronger than 2H, but I have always played it as long and weak.


There are peculiar features to the hand, for example the doubler is the one with four diamonds, fourth hand is the one with the stiff. I suppose that after (1D)-X-(Pass) I should look at my stiff diamond and wonder a bit where they all are. But still I just bid 3H and let the future take care of itself.

[BillPatch]

Other than the initial subminimum opener I agree with the first 5 calls made by our four contestants. If the defenders are unfamiliar with Lawrence's new treatment of the cue bid rebid by the TO doubler primarily to cover this intermediate three card raise predominantly in addition to the real strong hands I prefer either a 3 heart raise or a 2 heart raise. (The lack of the forth trump makes the underbid more palatable.) The explanation that makes the most sense for responder's rebids in partner's suit is that in their system opens 1 club on all balanced hands without five of a suit. Otherwise, responder needs bridge lessons. I think advancer should probably rebid 4♥ rather than 2. My second choice here is 3♥ (limit). (I think a 3♦ cue unambiguously shows the 5 card heart choice of games(except of course a 2♠ reverse would offer the choice of spades, which I am not offering.) (Perhaps I am overcomplicating this.) Opener's subsequent passes are sound. The initial TO Doubler probably should have raised next to support with support even with his minimum NT rebid. After responder's 3♦ advancer surely should have rebid 4♥. 3♥ is a distant second choice. The actual pass causes me to shudder. The final penalty double could only have been caused because the doubler was attempting to double the man and the doubler knows how poorly the opponents bid. A good bridge maxim, but if he looked at his cards he should have realized that if he had reevaluted his hand according to the bidding, another bridge maxim, he had a minimum hand for defending, poor trump, and a good fit for partner he had not shown. 3♥ is the indicated rebid here. Finally advancer should the opportunity to remove the penalty double.

From the joy of the poster at achieving a 30 points better result from the penalty double, I deduce the game was matchpoints, in the novice room, and it was Miss Scarlet with the candlestick. In the future please indicate the scoring conditions. Some of us like to know what sort of game we're kibitzing.

[phil_20686]

Copied from the other thread, since the hand diagram here is better laid out.....
I would have bid 3H initially with the south hand. Opposite a t/o double a jump here does not show a good hand, since all inv+ hands would go through 2D. It shows a pre-emptive hand. Something that looks a bit like a weak two only weaker. 6+h 3-6 points, usually not 6322. This is a reasonably bad hand even for that, but two things might be going on here:

(1) Partner has a classic t/o double and opponents have the balance of the points and a huge diamond fit. We should be preempting with an eye to making the right 5/5 decision against 5d.
(2) Partner has a strong balanced hand. In this case, its important to tell him that I have a weak hand whose only strength is hearts. He will then know that I have a hand that is mostly about hearts, and will make a good decision about a raise. Also this might give the opener a problem, as it is dangerous for him to bid over 3H.

EDIT: Unlike some others I have no problem with the 1N bid - it gets your hand off your chest and stops aren't that important after a 1m opener, rho most likely just a wk NT with 4 diamonds - but after the opponents bid 2d and partner bids 2H your hand has now got a lot better. Your partner is expecting to see diamond values, and you now know with almost compete certainty that he has a diamond shortage opposite your xxxx, I would have bid game now with the north hand over 3D. I think double is really bad, and shows a failure to re-evaluate your hand in the context of what you have learned when the auction comes back around. Definitely north is to blame for missing game. South was in a tough spot and 1h and 2h cannot really be blamed I think. He thought this was a part-score hand and that you had wasted diamond values. When you axed 3D he thought you had scored a goal on a part-score hand.

[phil_20686]

helene_t, on 2015-August-12, 01:04, said:

quikwal, next time you want to reopen a discussion which we have already had (http://www.bridgebas...622#entry857622), just make a new comment in the old thread. That way, people can still quote the comments in the old thread.

In fairness, I think he was right to create a new thread with the hands laid out properly. You get a lot more interest when you can use the hand diagrams correctly. Maybe a moderator can transfer the old comments across and delete the other thread? There were not many.....

[1eyedjack]

Had North held some Diamond values to go with his 1N rebid, then on the same total values 4H may be something of a stretch, and it is the absence of such wastage that is what makes the game contract so good. Whether he ought to have Diamond values is possibly contentious, but the expectation that he has some, even if not a requirement for the bid, is not unreasonable, although the repeated Diamond raises by East may provide a clue.

Would 3H instead of X by North clarify that ambiguity? I would not have thought so, in which case South is not much better placed to bid 4.

I am not sure what North meant by his final double. The main options are (1) a suggestion of penalties on the one hand, or (2) a full-blooded game try in Hearts on the other (where 3H would be more competitive). Option 2 would be more useful on this occasion, but it would seem that South read the bid as the former, and if that is the agreement then I am not keen on North's hand for the call (which is not to say that it will never work).

I think that there is something to be said for North bidding 4H instead of the final double. North knows that South has Diamond shortage by now, and North knows that he has no wastage in that suit. South has volunteered a second bid when not forced to do so. That would be enough for me.

[BillPatch]

1eyedjack, on 2015-August-17, 06:47, said:

....
I am not sure what North meant by his final double. The main options are (1) a suggestion of penalties on the one hand, or (2) a full-blooded game try in Hearts on the other (where 3H would be more competitive). Option 2 would be more useful on this occasion, but it would seem that South read the bid as the former, and if that is the agreement then I am not keen on North's hand for the call (which is not to say that it will never work)....

I don't see the ambiguity. responder's 3♦ was unlikely to improve TO doubler's hand into a game try. If he wanted to make a game try he had a clear 3♥ bid for that purpose. I see no reason to override the presumption that any double by a natural NT bidder is penalty.

[1eyedjack]

BillPatch, on 2015-August-17, 22:12, said:

I don't see the ambiguity. responder's 3♦ was unlikely to improve TO doubler's hand into a game try. If he wanted to make a game try he had a clear 3♥ bid for that purpose. I see no reason to override the presumption that any double by a natural NT bidder is penalty.

Yes, I think that North's pass of South's 2H on the previous round is wrong.

BTW I don't generally play doubles for penalties just because I bid NT earlier. I know that that is a valid style. I think it is a bit old hat, but maybe it is a geographical thing.