[Tramticket]

---

IMPs (Teams of 8)

We finished in a silly contract on Sunday on a horrible misfitting hand.

Explanation of the auction:
1♦ - For us this is a minimum (not sub-minimum) opening. Basic system is four-card majors and weak NT.
1NT - 15-18
Double of 1NT - Shows ownership of the hand (we have the balance of the points). (Bidding 2♥/2♠ at this point would be constructive, non-forcing)
Double of 2♣ - Penalties (Yes, I know that for some this would be take-out).
3♣ - With a void in clubs, it seemed likely that any penalty from 2♣* would be small - hoping for a major fit.
3♦ - no major and no stops.
3♥ - still trying for a fit in a major
3NT - Eek

This isn't an "assign the blame" - I don't believe in blame - but would welcome views about what we should do next time!

Which bids could be "improved"?!

[Cyberyeti]

Prefer 2♠ to 3♣

[sfi]

The double of 2C should be a big danger sign for South. I get not wanting to sit the double, but it's probably right. If you pull, insisting on game with the South hand suggests South maybe should have listened a bit more to the bidding. 2H looks like a more reasonable attempt than 3C.

Finally, over 3H, I would have preferred 3S from North. Maybe there really is a 5-2 spade fit and, if so, it is likely to be better than 3NT. Partner can still bid 3NT over that if the hand should play there.

As a general rule, misfits should be played in a suit contract rather than NT unless you have enough values to make it on power. And if you're unsure whether you can, you probably can't.

[Tramticket]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-October-29, 04:29, said:

Prefer 2♠ to 3♣

Why choose the five-card spade suit? Is it because you expect to pull 2NT to 3♥?

[FelicityR]

3♣ was total nonsense. (I'm sorry to say it like this but it's better being honest here.)

I personally see 3♣ as something that might be bid in an auction where not only you hold the balance of the points, but have enough points to contemplate slam.

Here the opponents have already shown that they have a strong hand with their 1NT overcall, and your partner has shown he/she has ♣s/♦s. That's a very good reason to persevere bidding space and don't overestimate the potential of your hand. You know already that it is looking like a misfit, and we all know that with a misfit you need to stop bidding as soon as you can.

I'll just bid 2♥ and hope for the best thereafter (but whether you can stop in a half-sensible contract is another matter.)

[Cyberyeti]

 Tramticket, on 2019-October-29, 06:22, said:

Why choose the five-card spade suit? Is it because you expect to pull 2NT to 3♥?

To me this is a weak 6-5, this can end the auction we certainly won't get past 2N/3suit, I would pull 2N to 3♦ which ought to be specifically 5620

[wank]

no blame. this is just unlucky. south found north with the 1 and only shape where there was no fit. double of 2C doesn't require aqjxx. you would clearly double with ktxx too. how would you feel defending a 9 card fit at the 2 level at adverse?

any finesses are going to be onside (well, ok, not the kd). if you find a fit you're going to have tricks coming out of your arse.

the only poor bid is the original double which didn't affect anything. if you double 1nt on hands like this you will end up scoring -380 when you've got a slam on.

[mikeh]

What to do over 1N depends on agreements. If I had a way to show both majors, I would do so. As it happens, in my partnerships, we do have such a method. It is usually employed on weaker hands, say a modest 5-5, but there is no reason that one cannot show this hand by making the call to show both majors and, if one has the opportunity, to raise. If partner refuses to name a major, he denies as many as 3 in either, and now I am far from sure that I want to be in game anyway.

If one has no methods, then double with the south hand is probably a reasonable, though risky, action. The risk is that the opps may well be running the club suit, and we may not be able to establish our winners in time. But the gamble seems the least of evils if one cannot show both majors.

Partner's double of 2C is an enormous red flag. Partner has AT LEAST 4 decent clubs: he won't or ought not do this on, say, Jxxx. A 5 card holding, although not 'expected', is not exactly a surprise given our void. So partner rates to be short in the majors...again, he may hold a 3 card major and he may have useful, if short, honours, but bridge is a game of percentages, and his opening 1D and doubling 2C USUALLY shows at least 9 and often 10 cards in the minors.

3C forces to game: one could, of course, pass 3M by partner, which may work out ok, while damaging partnership confidence next time, but over the unsurprising 3D, 3H is unconditionally forcing.

This is a massive overbid. It reflects, imo, a failure to appreciate that one has to adjust one's view of one's hand according to what the auction has told us.

After partner opens 1D, our first thought is that we are going to drive to game: while game may not make, and the auction may time out such that we can stop, our first thought has to be 'game and maybe slam'. Note that before the 1N bid, our minor holding is promising.

After 1N, we are in a tough position, as noted above, if we lack methods, but double is reasonable. The alternative is a non-forcing 2H, and we may play there opposite say AQx x Axxxx Qxxx when 4S has play (not that we are necessarily getting there, but a spade partial outscores a heart partial)

Then the 2C double action should get us bidding 2H, basically giving up on game, based on percentages. Partner will sigh and pass.

[Tramticket]

Thanks all for the response. Some things to think about.

Yes, I agree with Mike that the 3♣ bid was an overbid, but I can also understand partner's (I was North) thinking that there was still potential for the vulnerable game and as Wank says:

 wank, on 2019-October-29, 06:38, said:

south found north with the 1 and only shape where there was no fit.

Mike identifies that 3♣ is game forcing:

 mikeh, on 2019-October-29, 13:54, said:

3C forces to game: one could, of course, pass 3M by partner, which may work out ok, while damaging partnership confidence next time, but over the unsurprising 3D, 3H is unconditionally forcing.

I'm wondering whether it should be considered forcing to game in a sequence where the opponents have shown strength and we have a misfit. Maybe South should pass the 3♦ bid?

The follow-up question: It is IMPs, but what is your objective and plan in the play of 3NT on the lead of ♦4 (4th highest, 2nd highest from a poor suit) - west plays the ♦8 (standard count I think).

Spoiler

If you play diamonds at any stage, west will show out.