[ArtK78]

IMPs. 12 board match.

---

1NT was a good 14-17.

2♣ showed either clubs, diamonds or a major/minor two suiter.

Double was Stayman.

[Cyberyeti]

What would X of 2♠ be ? I'd be very inclined to do it if it's pens as N.

[ArtK78]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-25, 05:16, said:

What would X of 2♠ be ? I'd be very inclined to do it if it's pens as N.

X of 2♠ would be penalty.

[rhm]

If North has 4 hearts he must be weak, but would likely have raised.
Accordingly North is likely to hold at least as many spades as hearts.
Technically its all South fault.
Law of total tricks tells you not to bid on.
Apart responder must be in a better position to judge than 1NT opener.
3♦ is a shot in the dark, neither was the vulnerability right for such an action.
One problem of opening such hands with 1NT is that 1NT is not so well defined any more and that is often judged a license for further competitive bidding.

Here you payed out.

Yes I can see that 2♠ could have been beaten 2, but I would probably have passed as well with the North hand.
Maybe that is a mistake with an undisciplined South.
What would a reopening DBL have meant by South? It can hardly be pure penalty.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

Let's start at the beginning:

1NT - Not my choice, but it's fine, so no blame.

Dble - Entirely clueless with such a poor hand. What was he intending to if pard bid 2♦?

2♥ - Immaculate.

Pass - Clueless and lily-livered, but more analysis below.

3♦ - From South's point of view, North had to be able to stand any response at the Two level, so at worst he should be 4342 with weak spades. A double by North would be penalties, so I think it is right to bid 3♦. North can't hold this hand, or any other where 3♦ works badly. Double by South should be for penalties imo, and I would be happy to do that with secondary length and strength in clubs or with a third spade. In my view, North's pass is forcing, and is consistent with a 3442 seven or eight count.

How the auction should have gone after 1NT:

1NT 2♣ Pass 2♦
Pass 2♠ Pass Pass
Dbl All Pass

Or:

1NT 2♣ All Pass

With South working out that West likely has spades and diamonds.

[Fluffy]

north 100%

[ggwhiz]

Fluffy, on 2013-April-25, 06:25, said:

north 100%

Yup, gotta hammer 2♠. That bid gets 100% for an ATB from the other side.

Doubling 2♣ is risky but only for a 2♦ response. Perhaps near zero risk if you know West is nuts enough to bid again but only if you follow through.

[gszes]

you have to have some sympathy for N bidding stayman with this
undervalue hand. N strongly suspects W has diamonds and they
will be handcuffed if the bidding proceeds 1n 2c p 2d p p---so they
took a small gamble and hoped to find a 2h/2s contract they could
pass and it worked (sort of).

They would have been more than happy to play 2h but W suddenly bid 2s
which N KNOWS is at best a 7 card suit. If the opps were going to run to 3d
they will do so wether N x or not so

X

The x is important information for p since you would not be making a low
level x for penalty with a hand that had strong hope for a vul game (unless
N expected a huge penalty). That will end the bidding or E will bid 3c and get
hammered in 3c. Do not x when you know the opps have a safer place to
play but here you have no idea if they have anywhere to run so x is fine.

Be prepared to apologize to partner when gambles like these dont work like
PhilKing says where the heck are you going to go if p bids 2d:)))))))))))))))))))

[neilkaz]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-25, 05:25, said:

X of 2♠ would be penalty.

I'd X 2♠ then.

[PhilKing]

gszes, on 2013-April-25, 11:15, said:

you have to have some sympathy for N bidding stayman with this
undervalue hand. N strongly suspects W has diamonds and they
will be handcuffed if the bidding proceeds 1n 2c p 2d p p---so they
took a small gamble and hoped to find a 2h/2s contract they could
pass and it worked (sort of).

Standard modern practice is to pass 2♣ and double 2♦, which describes the hand rather nicely. There's just no need to gamble an under-strength off-shape double of 2♣.

[FrancesHinden]

I also hate the double of 2C. Particularly vul at imps. What was it trying to gain?

[the hog]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-25, 05:11, said:

IMPs. 12 board match.

---

1NT was a good 14-17.

2♣ showed either clubs, diamonds or a major/minor two suiter.

Double was Stayman.

C, D or a Major 2 suiter. So whch of the three hand types was it, Art, because I can't see any of those in the hand that overcalled.
In answer to your question, Nth bid badly.

[MrAce]

I am convinced to blame x by N after reading the replies by Phil and Frances.

Phil made a good point about 3♦ by south. If N hand was indeed suitable for stayman double, not competing with 3♦ would be a big mistake by south.

And seriously, what was N planning to do, had south responded 2♦ ?

[PhilKing]

the hog, on 2013-April-25, 18:00, said:

C, D or a Major 2 suiter. So whch of the three hand types was it, Art, because I can't see any of those in the hand that overcalled.

A major plus a minor, as described in OP.

It's yet another crackpot home brew, but as I understand it, West was showing clubs, diamonds, or one major with one minor.

[Hanoi5]

South opened a 5-4 and apparently wasn't 'used' to it. He didn't want to let them play if he couldn't show his two suits. Why would North use Stayman without a Major? And since North didn't support hearts s/he should have spades... So maybe South should double 2♠ as his hand looks like it will fare well against 2♠ defensively when partner holds 4 spades.

But why did North use Stayman? With such a weak hand (not even good enough for an invitation) North should have waited to enter the bidding. And why didn't North double 2♠ when s/he knows there's no fit in that suit for the opponents.

So I blame both players and probably it's 60-40 or 70-30 but to know exactly the methods should be explained, what would further doubles mean, etc

[Lord Molyb]

hanoi, north has a major. but he's too weak to bid so I blame him. south's 1NT opening was not perfect but what are you going to do over 1♦ - p - 1♠?

[CamHenry]

Lord Molyb, on 2013-April-25, 20:39, said:

hanoi, north has a major. but he's too weak to bid so I blame him. south's 1NT opening was not perfect but what are you going to do over 1♦ - p - 1♠?

Either a slight overbid of 2♥ (16 HCP, all of which are working; a good first suit, and Ax in partner's suit) or a slight underbid of 2♦ (partner will bid majors up-the-line with 4-4 and a weak hand, so we're unlikely to miss a heart fit). Neither of these has a flaw as big as an off-shape, honours-in-long-suits, aces-and-spaces, non-lead-directing 1NT with a gaping hole in the form of a small doubleton.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2013-April-25, 18:01, said:

And seriously, what was N planning to do, had south responded 2♦ ?

I guess he would have bid 2NT, slightly understrength, but to some extent compensated by the good intermediates.
The hand is worth more than 6 HCP and eminently suitable for notrump. Such hands often make game with less than 25 HCP.
Haven't I read other threads where the same people stress the importance of reaching game in red even if that game is an underdog?
Note, that 2NT is cold and 3NT makes on a low diamond lead. The outcome of 3NT is not that easy to predict single dummy.

I do not claim North DBL was a thing of beauty though, nor that 3♥ was clear-cut.
3NT over 3♦ would have been no more risky than 3♥, but the upside of 3NT certainly would be.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

rhm, on 2013-April-26, 02:18, said:

I guess he would have bid 2NT, slightly understrength, but to some extent compensated by the good intermediates.
The hand is worth more than 6 HCP and eminently suitable for notrump. Such hands often make game with less than 25 HCP.

slightly? do you really mean that 6 quaky balanced HCP with intermediates can compare to 9 balanced?

[rhm]

Fluffy, on 2013-April-26, 02:29, said:

slightly? do you really mean that 6 quaky balanced HCP with intermediates can compare to 9 balanced?

You are certainly not in the modern Mekwell tradition if you think you need 9 balanced in red to invite at IMPs.
Quacks are overrated for suit play, but not necessarily for notrumps, and can be worth their value in combination or when supported by intermediates like here.

Rainer Herrmann