[H_KARLUK]

Scoring: IMP

---

        2♥    P    4♥
 4♠    P     P     D
AP

1.♥K
2.♥ruff
3.♠finesse-♣3 discard
4.2nd ♥ ruff
5.low♦ to K
6.♣A
Claims 10 tricks.

[mtvesuvius]

Nothing. It was played well.

Well... For the bidding: Tough... I don't know, but I think maybe North should bid 5♣ over 4♠?

[JLOL]

mtvesuvius, on Mar 27 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

I don't know, but I think maybe North should bid 5♣ over 4♠?

Nooooooooo.

This was fine to me.

[H_KARLUK]

At first sight seems 6♥ makeable vs all defenses by NS.

[JLOL]

H_KARLUK, on Mar 28 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

At first sight seems 6♥ makeable vs all defenses by NS.

Only if you have the hand records. For instance, there is only one winning play after you ruff the spade lead, and that is to advance the DT and pinning the stiff 9. Good luck finding that one!

Anyways, just because the final result is terrible does not make the bidding bad.

[bill1157]

mtvesuvius, on Mar 27 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

Nothing. It was played well.

Well... For the bidding: Tough... I don't know, but I think maybe North should bid 5♣ over 4♠?

I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not?

[mtvesuvius]

bill1157, on Mar 28 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not?

because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you...

[gwnn]

What was 2♥?

[bill1157]

mtvesuvius, on Mar 28 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

bill1157, on Mar 28 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not?

because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you...

that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.)

Bill

[wclass___]

bill1157, on Mar 28 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Mar 28 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

bill1157, on Mar 28 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not?

because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you...

that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.)

Bill

Absolutely agree

I would double as north (with regular pard) showing similar hand and pard will bid 5

[the hog]

5C is a nutter's bid. Your partner has bid 4H and knows about the hand. You have no idea on what the 4H bid was based.

[jdonn]

bill1157, on Mar 28 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Mar 28 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

bill1157, on Mar 28 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not?

because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you...

that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.)

Bill

Funny that the one who is bidding uninvited after preempting is saying that to not do so would be fundamentally unsound.

South can have 4♠ CRUSHED in his own hand, west has had to guess over 4♥ and might have to bid 4♠ on some pretty light hands. South didn't even have an amazing hand (not that he shouldn't double) and as little as west trading a small heart with his partner for a small diamond makes 4♠ go for 800 on best defense. North bidding in front of his partner over 4♠ is worse than bad, it is unforgivable.

[bill1157]

jdonn, on Mar 28 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

bill1157, on Mar 28 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Mar 28 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

bill1157, on Mar 28 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

I agree, North should definitely bid 5♣. With void, a known fit, nv: why not?

because you might be going for -300 when you have +200 or more coming to you...

that thinking is fundamentally unsound (you always run some risk, but bridge is a bidders game: when in doubt bid 1 more etc.)

Bill

Funny that the one who is bidding uninvited after preempting is saying that to not do so would be fundamentally unsound.

South can have 4♠ CRUSHED in his own hand, west has had to guess over 4♥ and might have to bid 4♠ on some pretty light hands. South didn't even have an amazing hand (not that he shouldn't double) and as little as west trading a small heart with his partner for a small diamond makes 4♠ go for 800 on best defense. North bidding in front of his partner over 4♠ is worse than bad, it is unforgivable.

If you are playing the traditional weak 2 (6-3-3-2 or 6-3-3-1 shape only) agreed, you should not bid again. Here you have a 2nd 5 card suit and a void. If you are going to bid weak 2's with this type of hand, then no you don't have to (and shouldn't) drop out of the auction after the first bid.

Bill

[helene_t]

If North can't resist the temptation to bid, the only thing he can do is to double 4♠, asking South to bid if possible. 5♣ (or 5♥ or whatever) are non-existent bids in this auction.

[bill1157]

helene_t, on Mar 29 2009, 06:44 AM, said:

If North can't resist the temptation to bid, the only thing he can do is to double 4♠, asking South to bid if possible. 5♣ (or 5♥ or whatever) are non-existent bids in this auction.

Yes, but at this level X isn't really for takeout...

Bill

[helene_t]

Yes it is, double by preemptor is "I really want to bid but I express this by doubling just in case you can crunch 4♠ on your own". This is the standard treatment and IMHO the only one that makes sense, since preemptor can't have a penalty double when his partner hasn't promised any defense either.

[bill1157]

helene_t, on Mar 29 2009, 06:55 AM, said:

Yes it is, double by preemptor is "I really want to bid but I express this by doubling just in case you can crunch 4♠ on your own". This is the standard treatment and IMHO the only one that makes sense, since preemptor can't have a penalty double when his partner hasn't promised any defense either.

I don't know. That strikes me as a bad treatment. One of many in modern American bidding...
If pd can crunch 4♠ in his own, then he can do so without my expressing doubts.

Bill

[andy_h]

bill1157, on Mar 29 2009, 11:02 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 29 2009, 06:55 AM, said:

Yes it is, double by preemptor is "I really want to bid but I express this by doubling just in case you can crunch 4♠ on your own". This is the standard treatment and IMHO the only one that makes sense, since preemptor can't have a penalty double when his partner hasn't promised any defense either.

I don't know. That strikes me as a bad treatment. One of many in modern American bidding...
If pd can crunch 4♠ in his own, then he can do so without my expressing doubts.

Bill

Bad treatment? Think again
If partner can crunch 4S on his own, then good luck to him crunching once we bid 5C.

[EricK]

bill1157, on Mar 29 2009, 12:02 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 29 2009, 06:55 AM, said:

Yes it is, double by preemptor is "I really want to bid but I express this by doubling just in case you can crunch 4♠ on your own". This is the standard treatment and IMHO the only one that makes sense, since preemptor can't have a penalty double when his partner hasn't promised any defense either.

I don't know. That strikes me as a bad treatment. One of many in modern American bidding...
If pd can crunch 4♠ in his own, then he can do so without my expressing doubts.

But if he hasn't he is not likely to bid on either.

The double gives partner some new information - "I really want to bid on" - but does so in a way which doesn't get in the way in case he has a penalty double.

I don't believe he should do it on this hand though. I'm assuming 2♥ is being played as some sort of two suiter (otherwise at best N has made rather a silly bid, at worst, NS have some serious disclosure issues). Based on that, I don't really want to bid on as North - I've said my piece on this hand.

[bill1157]

The_Hog, on Mar 28 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

5C is a nutter's bid. Your partner has bid 4H and knows about the hand. You have no idea on what the 4H bid was based.

pd knows you have 5♣'s and a ♠ void?