[mr1303]

---

1C was 2+ cards.

4C was suggesting a club slam.

The result was 4 off. Who needs to take responsibility for this one?

[ArtK78]

First, it appears that you are playing some non-standard agreement with respect to the double of 1♦, as the standard agreement is that it promises both majors. And, while I see that North's diamond holding is, let us say, above average, he didn't bid his 4 card spade suit in response to the negative double.

Having said that, South should pass 3NT. The South hand is not so strong as to insure that a slam is likely, and there is no reason to believe that 5♣ is making while 3NT is going down. Even if partner's diamond holding were not so robust, South has the ♦J as his singleton - surely helpful if partner's diamond stop is AT9.

[Phil]

1. What does the double mean in your system?

2. Why isn't 2N an option? What does a 3N call systemically show?

[mr1303]

Double was a bog-standard negative double.

2NT would show a strong NT sort of hand with a flaw.

[Phil]

In my bog, double shows 4-4 in the majors. Maybe a better agreement is to play transfers so dbl = hearts, 1♥ = spades, etc..

Anyway, assuming that 1M would show 5 and you have to double with an unknown 4cM, and 2N is a flawed 1N opening - (2-2-3 + 6♣?) then 3N looks like the call.

4♣ is pushy but reasonable. North with AKQ of diamonds and terrible clubs needs to pull back with 4N. Cue bidding is very bad.

Was 4N an option to play?

[gszes]

how about 1c 1d 2d (limit + in clubs) that would keep the bidding
low you wouldnt have to lie about having both majors with neg x
(why your p didnt bid spades i dont know) and your side would
have plenty of room to explore majors nt etc etc. with your side
maxxed out at around 29 hcp (and a lot of jacks) slam really
should not be a strong consideration pass 3n.

[ahydra]

I play 1C-1D-X as showing at least one major. North should of course bid his spades, but I don't hate 3NT - it's a practical bid (one possible reason is, 1S isn't forcing, and would a jump to 2S promise more clubs than North has?).

South should pass 3NT since it surely shows exactly what North has (some 4333 with a stop in diamonds and 19 HCPs).

ahydra

[Statto]

ahydra, on 2012-June-01, 08:42, said:

I play 1C-1D-X as showing at least one major.

With only one major, why not just bid it? Unless you want it to promise 5 now... (not saying that isn't workable ).

[Fluffy]

Jump to 3NT is not good, you say this is systemic so agreements at fault. The decision to bypass a possible 4-4 spade fit is right IMO.

4♣ is pushing too much, partner has promised diamond stopper, and a good one, this means the hand doesn't fit very well and we are close to the 28 balanced-balanced camp wich very hardly makes slam.

4♦ is wrong again, minimum values, bad shape and awful clubs, 1♣ promising only 2 doesn't mean ♣Jxx are a lot. North has to slow down with whatever method. 4NT is the standard on this situation.

[jdeegan]

South 100%. North's 3NT was imo not a bad bid - he could have bid 2♠ just as well. If you play the negative double does not show 4-4 in the majors (I generally do, but I respect the other, earlier, method), then 3NT makes very good sense. South, then, overvalued his stiff ♦ and basically just bid 6♣ after a virtually forced cue bid from partner, and a screaming message to stop at 4NT. Can't South count HCP's? He has ten. His partner has 19 or 20. Partner has wasted values in ♦. Oy veh.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

If playing a non-standard Neg-DBL = 4 cards ♠ and says "nada about ♥ , then

1C - ( 1D ) - 1H [4+ cards ♥ ] - ( p )
2NT - ( p ) - 3NT - all pass

[Codo]

I disagree with all the double bashers. You have 4-3 in the majors, don't you? And you can always correct spade bids to club.
If 3 NT shows around 19 HCPS with a good diamond stop, where do you want to get the tricks in 6 Clubs from? You have 29 HCPS, no known great fit, so slam is hardly good.
So I blame 4 Club.

[rmnka447]

I'm passing 3 NT. Your hands rate to hold 28-29 points between them and that's counting your jacks at full stroke. The stiff ♦ J probably isn't worth anything more than distributional value in a ♣ slam.

So, I rate the 4 ♣ bid the culprit on this hand.

[Statto]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-02, 05:52, said:

4♣ is pushing too much, partner has promised diamond stopper, and a good one, this means the hand doesn't fit very well and we are close to the 28 balanced-balanced camp wich very hardly makes slam.

Agree. Partner has strongly suggested 3NT as the final contract. We have very little extra, and no reason to disagree with partner's assertion.

[lycier]

mr1303, on 2012-May-31, 13:21, said:

---

1C was 2+ cards.

4C was suggesting a club slam.

The result was 4 off. Who needs to take responsibility for this one?

I think both take respondsibility for this hand and maybe need necessary tools for help this hand.
1.bid 3nt directly is not a better way,so 2nt could be a reasonable bidding to show 18-19 hcp with belanced hand.
2.after non-seriouse 3nt, responder rebid 4♣ to suggest a club minor ,I have some questions to ask：
1)4♣ is minorwood? or employ redwood?
2)Meckwell said that Judgement is allowed in any situations.if 4♣ is to suggest slam and merely comfirm trump ,or as minorwood ,what is last chance to remedy? Not rebid 4♦ but 4NT to terminate ♣slam try.

[han]

To me the negative double with only one 4-card major and the jump to 3NT on a balanced hand (with 4 spades!) are very non-standard. It seems to me that the jump to 3NT made the auction much more complicated, but it is hard to critique an auction in a system that I don't know. I can only say that (1) your system didn't seem to work here very well, and (2) the final contract was so poor that probably somebody misbid.

I'm guessing that one of the issues was that responder assumed that opener had to have a 4-card club suit for his jump to 3NT, because apparantly he didn't have a 4-card major. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

[cherdano]

I would expect 3NT to be a trick-based bid, with a running 6 or 7 card club suit. Since responder can see that the clubs aren't running, I would expect a double-stopper instead. Maybe Kx Ax AQ KQJxxxx - I wasn't able to construct a hand with 6 clubs that I wouldn't be opening 2NT.

Of course, like the double these are apparently agreements that I am very unfamiliar with, and so I probably should not be criticizing the auction at all. However, it is very hard for me to imagine any set of agreements where the 4♦ cuebid is at all reasonable. North has the WORST POSSIBLE HAND for club slam! His club suit couldn't be worse, and he couldn't have more wastage in diamonds, the one suit where he knows partner isn't hoping to set up tricks.
I agree that assuming the agreements vaguely resemble the hands, 4♣ is probably a misevaluation. But cooperating with 4♦ is completely inexplicable to me.

I really don't understand the posters who mention 4♣ and 4♦ in the same sentence. And then some thought 4♣ is the worst bid - really??

[han]

I think that you are completely correct Arend.

[Trinidad]

Maybe you could explain the system somehow?

South doubled where 1♥ is standard.
North denied a four card major when he had one. As a result, South must have concluded that North was 3334 or (332)5, with (32)44 possible if you would open 1♣ with 44m (not me).

Opposite an 18-19 3334, it is certainly worth investigating slam and with a (233)5 opposite even more.

The point seems to be that neither North nor South knew what the bids in the first two rounds meant. Then it is not really strange that the hands are evaluated entirely wrong in the final rounds of the auction.

If NS did know what the bids in the first two rounds meant, you will have to explain the system to me, since I don't have a clue what the first rounds meant in NS's system. How can you then expect me to assign the blame properly?

If you claim that NS play "bog standard", I blame their teacher. (Didn't work in high school, but maybe it works here.)

Rik

[mr1303]

I must admit we were both guessing a little on this hand. The system we were playing was not one with which I am massively familiar, and I assumed that a jump to 2NT would show something like 18-19 ish, so I thought there was a reasonable chance partner might have fair clubs for his bid. After that, I thought that a try with 4C was reasonable. If partner had bid 4NT directly after that, I'd be putting down dummy, but 4D sounded more like Axx rather than AKQ.

Partner's argument was that with something like Axx in diamonds, he'd bid 2D.

My thinking with the double was that if partner bids spades, I could correct happily to clubs and show something like this hand: a 3 suited take-out of diamonds. And if partner really insists on spades, then my hand is hardly dreadful for it.

After 4C, 4D, I really wasn't sure what 4NT was. Might even have been intended as Blackwood.