[ahydra]

Quite a disappointing evening. It's not often one scores up two slams each requiring an endplay, AND 690 the hard way (4SX+1), in a club teams game and have them all come back flat! -.- And if we can't win on those boards, we can't afford to lose on these...

Board 1. Opps are cold for 110, we conceded 140 but can make a good number of diamonds ourselves. Who should do more?

---

Board 2. Stayman or a direct 3NT, and how close is it?

---

Board 3. Pick an opening lead...

---

Bonus question: double, 3C or neither?

---

I might post some other hands later - ones from the Easter Swiss Teams on Sunday, where we had the pleasure (?) of being crushed by Andrew Robson/Zia and then later by Colin Simpson/Graham Osborne. It was quite a surprise to be matched up with them, given we were only halfway up the field!

Thanks,

ahydra

[cherdano]

1) South has to compete to the 3-level, partner showed at least 5-4 in the minors, so there is a good chance we have a double-fit or a 9-card fit while the opponents certainly have an 8-card fit. And partner can't judge correctly since we have J876 in the only suit we showed. We have the values to make 3♦. Intermediate values in partner's suits. And it's all white. Passing out 2S is really really bad.

2) Stayman, but it of course it may often be wrong.

3) Systemic diamond. ♣A is the only alternative.

Bonus question: 3C, you have to compete, passing this out is out of the question. 3C doesn't show a lot of shape since partner showed at least 7 cards in the minors.

[Cyberyeti]

1. What would X be over 1♦-P-1♥-1♠ ? for us is t/o showing 4 clubs so 2♣ showed 5 and now S knows about 2 8 card minor fits so will bid 3 of one of the minors but you'd better beat 3♠ if this is going to help. If you don't play this then N should X 2♠.

2. Stayman, not close, where do you want to be opposite Qxxx, KQxx, KQx, xx for example.

3. Torn between 10♦ and a trump.

Bonus. For me X is takeout and that's what I have, I would expect partner to bid 3♣ or 3♦(if you play inverted minors and have to bid 1N with 4 occasionally) 99% of the time.

[ahydra]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-03, 17:18, said:

1. What would X be over 1♦-P-1♥-1♠ ? for us is t/o showing 4 clubs so 2♣ showed 5 and now S knows about 2 8 card minor fits so will bid 3 of one of the minors but you'd better beat 3♠ if this is going to help. If you don't play this then N should X 2♠.

X would be takeout - I guess it would have exactly 4 clubs most of the time, but we haven't agreed as such. To be honest we really need to sort out this X - the bonus hand is a good example of why.

ahydra

[Codo]

1. I understand south wish to pass 2 ♠, to me it is close between raising and passing. But it is not close for north in the pass out seat to bid 3 ♣.
2. Not close, stayman
3. spade, I want to go passive.
Bonus, double "of course"- classical take out double. If you play this as penalty, go for 3 ♣, if you have no idea, what double shows, choose a meaning.

[the_clown]

1. As others pointed out, S should compete, 2C shows either 5-5 or a reasonable hand, with 5-4 and minimum there is no need to bid right away.
2. Stayman at MP's, at IMPS its closer
3.I would lead a ♥

[Zelandakh]

On 1, system matters. If X of 1♠ is takeout then 2♣ shows more distribution and South can support easily. If the X would be something else, such as 3 hearts, then North should back back in over 2♠ and one of the available calls (X, 2NT, 3♣) should pretty much show precisely this hand.

On 2, Stayman looks pretty normal. I guess the hand would not have been posted if it was right though.

My initial reaction to 3 was to lead a trump but the more I look at it the more appealing a diamond becomes. Hopefully I would have given it enough thought at the table too.

On the bonus hand, I do not understand anything other than double unless this has been given some special meaning.

[ahydra]

Codo, on 2013-April-04, 06:22, said:

1. I understand south wish to pass 2 ♠, to me it is close between raising and passing. But it is not close for north in the pass out seat to bid 3 ♣.

Do you mean N has a clear 3♣ bid, or a clear pass?

The scoop:

1) well I already told you what happened Team-mates came back with 5D-2 and if I (South) had defended 2S properly we would have had a flat board, but better, if I'd been brave and bid 3D (or partner had been brave and reopened with 3C) we would have gained a swing. This is far from the first time I've been a wimp when competing for the partscore at IMPs - one day I'll come out of the shell...

2) I thought Stayman was very much clearcut on this and it looks like that's what others think too. Unfortunately that allowed RHO to make a lead-directing X and sink 3NT, while 4S is cold (the other table play a strong NT, after 1D-1S South supported on a 3343 (?!)). Partner apologised, thinking he should go straight to 3NT, but I wrote this off as unlucky. One would much rather be in 4S if South was, say, 4423 without the ♣K.

3) A lot of support for partner's diamond lead! Dummy had AJxx, declarer Qx and this gave away the setting trick. Bird/Anthias prefer a passive side-suit lead in "Winning Suit-contract Leads", and I think I agree with them on this auction, because declarer rates to have a good amount of strength outside spades.

Bonus question: partner doubled, I bid 3NT (since I had no invitational bid available) on my 3334 9-count. It went three off . I think partner is right though, this hand is a textbook takeout X and so I should just bid 3C, waiting for partner to invite if he has extras.

ahydra

[Codo]

I really do not get it. North should double 1 ♠ with 4 clubs? Am I the last one here who plays support doubles? So double is out.
So, I need to pass with 2254 because bidding shows extras? Yes sure, it shows extras- extra shape with 54.

So, maybe alone again, but I would 100 % bid 3 ♣ with the north hand in the pass out seat.

[MickyB]

I'll start with the bonus question. 3C is clear. 4144 isn't a "textbook double" once partner has denied four spades. You know you have an 8-card minor fit, 3C is the way to get there. Double shows a good hand, so your 3NT bid was probably correct.

1) I bid on both hands. Good things happen when you compete at love all. If both contracts are one off that's 3 imps out, much more likely is that one makes and the other is one off in which case it's 2 imps in, that's before we even get to the times when both contracts make or they take the push to 3S-1.

2) Prefer Stayman but it's close, admittedly I skip Stayman more than most.

3) I agree that, as RHO rates to have some soft cards on the side, a passive trump is best. If you pick up partner's trump honour declarer was almost certainly going to find it anyway.

[Cyberyeti]

ahydra, on 2013-April-04, 09:20, said:

Bonus question: partner doubled, I bid 3NT (since I had no invitational bid available) on my 3334 9-count. It went three off . I think partner is right though, this hand is a textbook takeout X and so I should just bid 3C, waiting for partner to invite if he has extras.

ahydra

Play 2N lebensohl here and you can have your cake and eat it.

[helene_t]

playing acol , partner is sufficiently limited that i can live without lebensohl. i'd rather play 2nt as scrambling

[Zelandakh]

Codo, on 2013-April-04, 09:41, said:

I really do not get it. North should double 1 ♠ with 4 clubs? Am I the last one here who plays support doubles? So double is out.
So, I need to pass with 2254 because bidding shows extras? Yes sure, it shows extras- extra shape with 54.

So, maybe alone again, but I would 100 % bid 3 ♣ with the north hand in the pass out seat.

I mentioned the possibility of doubling showing 3 hearts in my post. I also mentioned that when you do play that you now have 3 ways of re-opening - X, 2NT and 3♣. I am somewhat interested in how you play them here. Perhaps X should be 2254; 2NT a minimum with extra shape; and 3♣ 1255 with extras. But I am guessing you simply play X as extras without denying extra shape(?)

It is different if the 2♣ bid shows extra shape and does not deny support. Now one of the re-opening calls (2NT?) should probably show some 0355 hand, maybe in combination with X showing extras and 3♣ extreme shape. Having never played this way I could not really say but this seems to make sense (to me at least).

MickyB, on 2013-April-04, 09:49, said:

I'll start with the bonus question. 3C is clear. 4144 isn't a "textbook double" once partner has denied four spades. You know you have an 8-card minor fit, 3C is the way to get there. Double shows a good hand, so your 3NT bid was probably correct.

This is surely a matter of methods, no? If you play the double as competitive then this is a textbook example. In that case, 3♣ can show extras. If you play X as extras then you surely need 3♣ to be competitive. Which is better? Well, probably not much in it but perhaps there are some (other) hands where we would want to play 2♠ in a 4-3 fit so I prefer it this way round. Plus, it is actually easier for intermediates to grasp this since it means their rebid structure has changed less than the alternative. Indeed, I thought competitive doubles were basically "intermediate standard" in these kinds of auction.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2013-April-04, 13:20, said:

playing acol , partner is sufficiently limited that i can live without lebensohl. i'd rather play 2nt as scrambling

Doubler is unlimited.

Partner is 5-10 ish.

1♦-(P)-1N-2♥-X-P- seems like a good place for responder to distinguish between a 3334 10 count and a 3325 5 count with a choice of 3♣ bids.

[MickyB]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-05, 03:22, said:

[1D-P-1N shows] 5-10 ish.

Not playing Acol weak NT, it doesn't. 1NT is to play opposite a 15-16 NT.

[Cyberyeti]

MickyB, on 2013-April-05, 04:22, said:

Not playing Acol weak NT, it doesn't. 1NT is to play opposite a 15-16 NT.

Are you really bidding 2♣ on AJx, KQx, xxx, xxxx ? If it's 10 it will be a 10 you would choose to bid as 9, but the possibility of 10 exists.

[MickyB]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-05, 04:31, said:

Are you really bidding 2♣ on AJx, KQx, xxx, xxxx ? If it's 10 it will be a 10 you would choose to bid as 9, but the possibility of 10 exists.

Aha, now I understand why you claim to play a 12-16 no-trump

If I occasionally treat 10 as 9, that doesn't mean I need to explain my range as 5-10. This is just misleading, anyone capable of counting points on defence knows that upgrades and downgrades happen.

To answer your question, yes I would respond 2C on that hand, indeed I wouldn't bid 1NT on any 10-count. It's not pretty, but if partner opened a 15-16 NT I would raise to game, so I can't afford to respond 1NT here. The range of 1NT is more like 5-8, at IMPs at least.

[Cyberyeti]

MickyB, on 2013-April-05, 04:42, said:

Aha, now I understand why you claim to play a 12-16 no-trump

If I occasionally treat 10 as 9, that doesn't mean I need to explain my range as 5-10. This is just misleading, anyone capable of counting points on defence knows that upgrades and downgrades happen.

To answer your question, yes I would respond 2C on that hand, indeed I wouldn't bid 1NT on any 10-count. It's not pretty, but if partner opened a 15-16 NT I would raise to game, so I can't afford to respond 1NT here. The range of 1NT is more like 5-8, at IMPs at least.

Actually I used to play a genuine 11-16 no trump at one point which was great fun. For us 1N is 5-9 and the occasional really bad 10, we play inverted minors with 2N as a raise, and any 33(43) 9 would be a 1N response to 1♦.

The hand I gave will not make game opposite most flat 15s and I really don't want to GF opposite one (which I'm effectively doing). If I had a natural 2N opposite a 15-16 1N I'd use it at teams, but possibly pass at pairs.

[MickyB]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-05, 02:49, said:

This is surely a matter of methods, no? If you play the double as competitive then this is a textbook example. In that case, 3♣ can show extras. If you play X as extras then you surely need 3♣ to be competitive. Which is better? Well, probably not much in it but perhaps there are some (other) hands where we would want to play 2♠ in a 4-3 fit so I prefer it this way round. Plus, it is actually easier for intermediates to grasp this since it means their rebid structure has changed less than the alternative. Indeed, I thought competitive doubles were basically "intermediate standard" in these kinds of auction.

How do you suggest diagnosing when to play in a 4-3 fit taking the ruff in the long trump hand rather than playing in your known 8+card fit?

3C as natural, weak and dbl showing extras is very intuitive once you think of the 1NT bid as showing clubs. Having said that, it occurs to me that you'd want to bid 3C on 4153 in these methods as well, which is rather less intuitive and would miss your 8-card fit opposite 3334.

X showing extras gives you more flexibility to stop low on those hands - including in 2S when you don't have an 8-card fit elsewhere - unless you are suggesting that X be weak-or-strong and 2S/3C be NF showing extras, which sounds reasonable. Once again, this would leave us wanting to bid 3C on 4153.

[han]

Codo posts that he understands the pass by south on hand 1. Can somebody explain it to me?