[jillybean]

---

2♦ gf♦
all the rest was natural

[BunnyGo]

It seems like North knows there's a big diamond fit and shouldn't rush to 3NT (unlike the later hand when S blasted 5C instead of 3NT with 8 top tricks and stoppers).

[Bbradley62]

If 2♦ was gf, did South have a way to show game invite strength with diamonds instead?

[jillybean]

BunnyGo, on 2012-December-08, 18:59, said:

(unlike the later hand when S blasted 5C instead of 3NT with 8 top tricks and stoppers).

This is where I didnt think that my 93♠ were good stoppers.

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-08, 19:13, said:

If 2♦ was gf, did South have a way to show game invite strength with diamonds instead?

Yes, I could have bid 3♣ invitational

[CSGibson]

I don't like game forcing the South hand. yes, the diamonds are great, but why upgrade doubleton jacks and the Q of clubs so heavily? as it is, 3N is reasonable - its not as though 5D is cold, and on a spade lead you just have to get the hearts right.

[BunnyGo]

jillybean, on 2012-December-08, 19:15, said:

This is where I didnt think that my 93♠ were good stoppers.

no hand is perfect

[SteveMoe]

South should invite not force in ♦ - not enough opposite 12 HCP balanced opening.

[lipeng2076]

what if N bid 3d after 3c willing to play d？

[rmnka447]

South doesn't really have a GFing hand.

If 2 ♣ would also be a game force, then South has a real problem with what to bid. South's choices are a NT bid (1 NT, 2 NT) or a GF bid with no inbetween. Of those, I think 2 ♦ is the least offensive.

In any case, North should have the option of bidding 3 ♦ to show a terrible 1 ♦ opener with ♦. That's what I'd do. If South can still find a 3 NT bid then it's probably right.

With the actual auction, after North's 2 ♥ bid, South now has 3 ♦ as a possible rebid and I think that's what should have been bid. Same general message as opener's 3 ♦ rebid -- I have a minimum/bad hand for the GF bid. If opener finds a 3 ♠ rebid after South's 3 ♦ rebid, then South can bid 3 NT and it will probably be right.

If 2 ♣ just shows ♣s and forces for 1 round, then South can try 2 ♣ and raise ♦ over opener's rebid.

[Bbradley62]

rmnka447, on 2012-December-09, 05:00, said:

South doesn't really have a GFing hand. If 2 ♣ would also be a game force, then South has a real problem with what to bid. South's choices are a NT bid (1 NT, 2 NT) or a GF bid with no inbetween. Of those, I think 2 ♦ is the least offensive.

Hasn't OP already told us that she did have another option: 3♣ to show an invitational diamond raise?

jillybean, on 2012-December-08, 19:15, said:

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-08, 19:13, said:

If 2♦ was gf, did South have a way to show game invite strength with diamonds instead?

Yes, I could have bid 3♣ invitational

[PhilKing]

Been in worse. South overbid slightly and got to a thin game, but by no means terrible, game.

Let's hope the defence errs.

[ggwhiz]

South: The nice diamond spots are window dressing opposite length and the lack of any outside makes the gf an overbid. I have sympathy if the clubs were QT9x.

North: After 3♣ should pattern out with 3♠ and at least you would (should) land in diamonds. In my partnership patterning out like this does not promise extras because the 2♦ bidder is still unlimited and with a different south hand this could just as easily be a missed slam thread. Just change South's majors to x, Qxx and slam is better than 3nt.

Both erred but I really dislike 3nt, blowing off the best offensive feature of your hand (stiff ♣A) in a min opener.

[Codo]

South may invite or not. Everything else looks reasonable. My good, you have 3 honours in each major, two in clubs- I had been in much worse games and 5 ♦ had never ever crossed my mind- at least not before I saw both hands...

[billw55]

Nobody erred. South took an aggressive view, but hey this is JEC, not the kiddie pool

Nothing wrong with the 3NT contract, and 5♦ is no better, either is in danger on the likely spade lead.

Are you resulting yourself a little Jilly?

[rmnka447]

Bbradley62, on 2012-December-09, 08:44, said:

Hasn't OP already told us that she did have another option: 3♣ to show an invitational diamond raise?

Sorry, missed that in the subsequent discussion the first time through.

I would bid 3 ♣ then and hope pard with a good opener could take further action.

Responder's hand has 11 HCP and 2 QTs, but 7 1/2 losers (2 losers each in the majors, 1 in ♦, 2 1/2 losers in ♣ [Qxx has an extra 1/2 loser vs. QJx/Q10x which would be 2 losers]). Even then, it's hard to value the Js at full value because their doubletons. So IMHO, it's pretty aggressive to consider the responding hand as a game forcing hand.

That's OK if you can provide some mechanism to warn partner that is the case. That was my whole point in identifying a 3 ♦ rebid for each player as a bid that identifies a hand that they are pushing on. It's just good bidding practice at some point in the auction to limit your hand if you are bidding on dead minimum values or less.

It's even OK to not provide such a mechanism, but just be prepared to accept the results on hand's like this as part of the price to be paid occasionally for being aggressive.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

If the North is worth an opening bid, the South is not worth a gameforce response.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Zelandakh]

The South hand is really an invite, as bid at the other table. That said, this is not the worst game in the world and is the sort of contract that might tip the scales when you are going into a match as a heavy underdog should you be able to bring it home. Can I blame West for holding ♣KJ?

[gszes]

an excellent bidding sequence. A very reasonable 3n contract with no
reasonable alternative game and right sided to guard against the seemingly
most dangerous spade lead. Keep up the good work. The responder hand
(after a 1d opener 3+) is worth at least 4 tricks and has a 25% chance of
5 tricks opposite 3 small and a spare Q and 2J on top of that. Thats game forcing.

You will not make every hand you bid this is a game of % dont look upon
failure to make as a "mistake" per se. Look at the 2 hands objectively and
see if you bidding got you to a spot you are happy with under normal
circumstances. I would normally be pleased to be in 3n with this combination
of hands. Keep up the good work.

[neilkaz]

I agree with gszes' fine post. No error here. South took an optimistic view, but a reasonable one. On a different day, game is cold, or makes on the lead or a defensive error, perhaps aided by the fact that the opps will have to find lots of discards.

[CSGibson]

gszes, on 2012-December-11, 09:02, said:

an excellent bidding sequence. A very reasonable 3n contract with no
reasonable alternative game and right sided to guard against the seemingly
most dangerous spade lead. Keep up the good work. The responder hand
(after a 1d opener 3+) is worth at least 4 tricks and has a 25% chance of
5 tricks opposite 3 small and a spare Q and 2J on top of that. Thats game forcing.

You will not make every hand you bid this is a game of % dont look upon
failure to make as a "mistake" per se. Look at the 2 hands objectively and
see if you bidding got you to a spot you are happy with under normal
circumstances. I would normally be pleased to be in 3n with this combination
of hands. Keep up the good work.

It's posts like these that overvalue counting tricks. Yes, tricks are great, you need tricks. But your evaluation has to be less simple than that. A classic tricks argument hand:

---

North has 6 tricks, south has 6 tricks, together they have 7 tricks after the defense takes the first 6. I guess what I am saying is that a strict trick evaluation is incredibly stupid without also evaluating tempo/controls/losers also. Here you have no controls outside of diamonds, they start with a tempo, and your "tricks" are in partner's bid suit, so he's probably counting some of his length there as potential tricks also.