[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

1♦ - 1♥;
1♠ - 2♣;
2♥ - 3♦;
3NT - 4♦;
4♠ - 5♦;
All Pass

---

Part 1) Assign the blame for reaching the wrong contract. Lots of blame to go around I'm sure.

Part 2) Now play 5♦ on the lead of the ♠K.

[whereagles]

3♦ is muddy. 4♥ would be better. 3♥ even better, but only if you think pard won't pass that.

4♦ is just asking for trouble. That was the last chance to bid 4♥.

Prefer 1NT to 1♠, but 1♠ is certainly ok.

Play: ruff, play a club to the queen to muddy the waters. I can always play the hearts later.

[JLOL]

South is clearly to blame for the bidding. He should bid 3H and failing that should OBVIOUSLY bid 4H!!!

North's bidding was great.

As far as the play I don't see anything better than relying on a double heart finesse. I don't see a good way to combine KQx of spades ruffing out as I don't really have the entries, so I would pitch at trick 1 and then play 2 trumps ending in hand and play a heart to the ten.

[whereagles]

yo, lol-man: would 3♦ (instead of 2♣) be forcing to you?

[JLOL]

whereagles, on Jan 28 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

yo, lol-man: would 3♦ (instead of 2♣) be forcing to you?

Nope

[whereagles]

Then why must responder have 5 hearts? In other words, how does he force to game with diamond support if not by using 2♣?

[JLOL]

whereagles, on Jan 28 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

Then why must responder have 5 hearts? In other words, how does he force to game with diamond support if not by using 2♣?

He doesn't have to have 5 hearts... why must south have 3 hearts? In my world south showed 2 or 3 hearts and then never bid hearts again.

[Echognome]

JLOL, on Jan 28 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

He doesn't have to have 5 hearts... why must south have 3 hearts? In my world south showed 2 or 3 hearts and then never bid hearts again.

I do not disagree, but if south holds 2 hearts, would you expect them to be Jx or xx? I.e. I argue they are either Qx or there are 3 of them.

[EricK]

While these "modern" methods might work in theory, we see time after time on this forum how they don't work in practice for the average bridge player.

North makes a space saving response of 1♥ instead of a "wasteful" SJS, and as a result he is forced to make one vague force after another and finds out no information of any use.

Meanwhile, South has a balanced minimum but manages to bid three suits on the first three rounds of the auction.

By the time the bidding gets to the 4 level, neither partner really has much idea of what the trump suit is going to be, nor whether the hands fit together for slam.

It's always easy after the event to show how the bidding should have gone using these sort of methods, but for most people, at the table, it constantly proves too hard.

[mikeh]

I don't like a method that forces S to bid 1♠.. note that he had zero chance to limit his hand thereafter until the 3♦ call, at which point he was, understandably, under the misapprehension that partner held only 4♥s.

So systemic choices gave rise to an opportunity for poor choices to result in a terrible auction.. consider how easy this would have been had S limited both shape and strength via 1N over 1♥.. and then N had bid, say, 2♦ artificial gf, or jumped to 3♦, slam try 5-5 (assuming system allowed) and then S could backpedal and N would get the hint.

Having said that, I really don't like 3♦ over 2♥, precisely because N had not yet limited his strength and suggested only 4 hearts... 2♣ was unlimited gf... he could bid 3♥ as a slam try over 2♥, so when he introduced his diamonds, he was suggesting that diamonds should be trump INSTEAD of hearts.

Then S bid 3N which truly makes no sense.. responder goes out of his way to suggest a minor contract, and we run to notrump with no club stopper? I prefer almost anything.. the problem is that if 3♦ set trump, 3♥ or 3♠ could be interpreted as a cue bid. I think that it should be that these are value showing bids, allowing still for 3N, and that opener can bid 4♦ with strong slam cooperative values, but I wouldn't be surprised if confusion were to set in no matter what I do, and in that context, 3N becomes more palatable.. at least it sends a slow-down message... which is way, way overdue.

4♦ is close to being insane.. it forces a cue-bid.. it absolutely denies interest in hearts.. it is a monstrous overbid and misbid all rolled into one.

4♠ is a bit much... this hand has plummeted in value... but the alternative is 5♦ and why can't partner hold his values.... say Kxx AKQx AQxxxx void looking for grand on an auction in which he couldn't keycard... indeed, maybe keycard was never available to him and he has a flatter 4=5 monster.

So the blame... 35% to the methods, 15% to opener (for choosing 1♠ when a non-systemic 1N was probably always better, having opened this piece of cheese, and for the dubious choices of 3N then 4♠... none of them individually as bad as responder's errors) and 50% to responder for two egregious bids... 3♦ and 4♦

[jdonn]

How can 3♦ be criticized?? It is just about the most normal bid I have seen in my entire life. 100% blame for south not bidding 3♥ instead of 3NT.

I don't even think the auction is very hard, at least prior to that point.

1♦, I have a 1♦ opener. 1♥, I have 4+ hearts.
1♠, I have 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds. 2♣, I have a game forcing hand.
2♥, I have 2 or 3 hearts. 3♦, I have diamond support.
3♥, I have 3 hearts.

Why south instead decided to bid
3NT, I have a club stopper
I have no idea.

[whereagles]

Hum.. was 2♣ GAME forcing?

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Jan 28 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

Hum.. was 2♣ GAME forcing?

Yes!

[Fluffy]

The way I play South could had bid 2♠ if he had only 2 hearts. 2♥ shows 100% 3 cards, that would transfer blame to north.

[JLOL]

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 04:56 PM, said:

How can 3♦ be criticized?? It is just about the most normal bid I have seen in my entire life. 100% blame for south not bidding 3♥ instead of 3NT.

I don't even think the auction is very hard, at least prior to that point.

1♦, I have a 1♦ opener. 1♥, I have 4+ hearts.
1♠, I have 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds. 2♣, I have a game forcing hand.
2♥, I have 2 or 3 hearts. 3♦, I have diamond support.
3♥, I have 3 hearts.

Why south instead decided to bid
3NT, I have a club stopper
I have no idea.

First time I've ever said this, but I really could not agree more with jdonn/this post.

[jdonn]

Fluffy, on Jan 28 2009, 05:07 PM, said:

The way I play South could had bid 2♠ if he had only 2 hearts. 2♥ shows 100% 3 cards, that would transfer blame to north.

Even if that's true then 3♦ is completely normal. It's a possible slam hand, and I like playing slams in 5-4 and 5-5 fits better than in 5-3 fits. And south should still not show a club stopper that he doesn't have.

But that's irrelevant, I think we would be told about completely artificial conventions if they are relevant in the problem.

[helene_t]

If 2♥ shows three (which would be reasonable IMHO, with nothing to say he can bid 2♦ or 2♠), I think 3NT is ok. He hasn't yet shown that his hand is balanced, he does have half a club stopper, it's not like he would suggest 4♥ opposite something like Q AKxx Axxx Txxx.

As North I would have bid 4♥ over 3NT I think. I may be resulting, though. I suppose 4♦ is fine but then I can't blame South for bidding 4♠ over 4♦. Sounds like diamonds it trumph and 4♥ would be a control bid.

[Fluffy]

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 10:09 PM, said:

But that's irrelevant, I think we would be told about completely artificial conventions if they are relevant in the problem.

You assume 2♣ is GF but you think that rebidding 2♠ with 4243 without club stopper is not normal, sounds like you thinnk your methods are more standard than they are (this happens to me all the time)

I don't think 3NT bid is great actually, if the situation wasn't talked about obviously 3♥ stands a mile.

But otherwise putting a brake with such a minimum trash even when the stopper is not good sounds like a good idea.

[JLOL]

Even if you want to show a club stopper and partner has 4 hearts over 3H he can easily bid 3S to get you to bid 3N with your club stopper.

Also I don't see how trying for slam with the north hand is an overbid, he has a great hand and his partner has shown a CLUB stopper, Hx of hearts (else 2N over 2C) and opened 1D. Slam is easily in play, and 3N is clearly out of play. 4D allows partner to try to go back to 4H or cuebid with a slam suitable hand. The 4S bid turns north off, but imagine if partner bids five clubs! Partner must have something like Qxxx Qx KJxx Axx and slam is great (and the bidding so far normal).

North doesn't have a hand that wants to play 4H in a 52 rather than 5D (with a club lead coming through the king potentially, or potentially a tap) unless south suggests playing in hearts.

Also as JDONN has said, even if partner's 2H guaranteed 3 hearts (which seems terrible) north still has an easy 3D bid.

[JLOL]

Fluffy, on Jan 28 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 28 2009, 10:09 PM, said:

But that's irrelevant, I think we would be told about completely artificial conventions if they are relevant in the problem.

You assume 2♣ is GF but you think that rebidding 2♠ with 4243 without club stopper is not normal, sounds like you thinnk your methods are more standard than they are (this happens to me all the time)

LOL

You seriously think because he assumes FOURTH SUIT FORCING and does not assume rebidding your second suit as an artificial bid showing a specific hand he is assuming something that is not normal?

Obviously echognome assumed (knows?) that fourth suit forcing is so standard that he didn't even have to mention it, but I guess he was wrong! But if you were unsure whether fourth suit forcing was in use you might tell from the north hand that it was FOURTH SUIT FORCING!