[the_dude]

---

Our agreements:
- 2D promised 10+ and was not GF, but promised another bid
- Pretty much anything by opener over 2S is forcing
- 3C by responder at his second turn would have been forcing, 3D or 3H not forcing

Who went wrong here?

[eagles123]

I'm no expert but I don't like South's bidding at all. I think the X is asking for trouble really, would prefer 3H to X

Eagles

[billw55]

I think south's first call should be double. Then in the passout seat after 2♠, he can consider pass, double, or possibly 3♥.

North's decision after a double is not easy, but defending 2Mx is a risky proposition and I would want more confidence. So I think I would pull to 3♥.

All in all both players had alternatives, so blame is shared, focus instead on learning something from the deal.

[WellSpyder]

billw55, on 2014-April-24, 10:18, said:

I think south's first call should be double. Then in the passout seat after 2♠, he can consider pass, double, or possibly 3♥.

I agree, with double looking a reasonably clear choice to me on the second round as well as the first.

[kenberg]

I am sure that I would have started with a negative double the first round. Why not? It shows both minors, I have both minors. My second call is harder but I think X is right. North will think as follows: "Both on general principles and on the fact that I have four spades, partner is short in spades. If he wanted to force me to choose a minor he could have bid 3♣ or maybe 2NT. So he must have some tolerance for hearts, I choose 3♥." It of course can be risky to think that I know how partner will think, maybe I am making it up, but this sounds right to me. I think the South hand is too strong to sell to 2♠. Even if his partner is 4=5=2=2 this might end well, and sometimes, as here, we have a fit. If partner, after I tell him I have both minors but invite him to choose from any of the three suits, elects to play 2♠X, he can try it. But I have done my job.

[ggwhiz]

WellSpyder, on 2014-April-24, 10:22, said:

I agree, with double looking a reasonably clear choice to me on the second round as well as the first.

I agree with this but the auction in either case pretty much cinches a stiff spade with south. I don't think the double of 2♠ has a stiff heart as well so I'm always pulling to 3♥ with the north hand.

[steve2005]

Both double (better) and 2♦ can work out fine.

The real question is what do you do when you balance?

I think 3♥ is better than double, yes it may be a bit of an overbid, but partner may be shy about rebidding ♥ lacking the K & Q. and KQ♥ suggest playing not defending.

[the_clown]

I would have doubled as South in the first round but would still be -470.

Edit: Just reailized N is in front of the 1S bidder. I am still passing but its closer.

[aguahombre]

After making the (IMO) obvious neg double the first time (other two suits and responding values)..if we then balance with 2NT when Spades have been bid and raised, it is takeout with more distribution; and a second double would have been more in defensive strength.

This probably isn't standard, but bidding NT in a natural sense after OBAR just isn't a long-run good idea. Here, after that North can bid 3H.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 if you never deliver -470 you double not enough.
#2 you need a bid by opener, that say, he is min, ususually 2NT is used Lebensohl Style,
same for responder, the 2/1 may be streched, you need a way to say, that you are min
#3 Given your agreements, starting with 2D, prominsing a 2nd is basically saying South
forces to game, which is a very agressive call, it did not work out

With kind regards
Marlowe

[neilkaz]

To the OP and to 90% of the others here. Is they're any chance to list the form of scoring in your initial post? Sometimes, it actually matters and changes one's decision.

[aguahombre]

neilkaz, on 2014-April-24, 17:06, said:

To the OP and to 90% of the others here. Is they're any chance to list the form of scoring in your initial post? Sometimes, it actually matters and changes one's decision.

At what form of scoring is -470 good? Seriously, though, I wouldn't do anything differently at any form of scoring with this South hand than what has already been suggested.

I want to show the minors first, then show offensive potential to compete at the 3-level with no desire to penalize.

[wank]

bidding 3h now is obviously absurd so you can ignore that suggestion. the real problem is the original 2d call instead of double.

[Hanoi5]

Even though a negative double by South on the first round seems to be the best approach I wonder what hand was North expecting his partner to hold for 2♠ to go down. South rates to have a singleton spade and not 3 hearts but two is very likely.

[equate]

This kind of hands create problems in openings and if you open them from 1st at equal vul. you randomise the results.Hand has 8 or 8.5 countable hcp and 2 qt and no tens or 9's.Some may open weak 2 or Flannery if they stretch and would be better for hand definition.At last wont leave partner with a wild guess in between 8 to 21 hcp if you are not agreed in how light would be the opener from first seat and vulnerability.

If you count this hand Qx as 2hcp and 2 distribution points from hearts you have 13 and an opener.Or 21 for rule of 20.A clear opener is it?

If you change J and Q places i might open this hand but i am not sure with the actual one.

After 1S overcal 2D is a free bid and unlimited by South and need more hcp than it has then dbl has some penalty tendency from my view.

After all why not a simple 2H bid? KQ will compensate the needs even opener has 5H and limit the hand.This is what the hand has in my opinion.

[ArtK78]

P_Marlowe, on 2014-April-24, 14:04, said:

#1 if you never deliver -470 you double not enough.

I would agree with you if the score were -670 and it were matchpoints, in which case a one trick set would be +200 and would be a good score.

But if you got -470, then a difference of one trick giving you +100 might still be a bad score.

So trying to beat them here at the 2 level is too much. Your chances of getting a 2 trick set cannot be too good. And if you can get a 2 trick set you may be able to make 3NT.

[ahydra]

I don't understand why people are advocating X by South rather than 2D.
- X shows both minors 4-4, or maybe not even that if you just need to make noise e.g. xxxx Ax KQxx Jxx. 2D shows a definite suit, and you have a good suit.
- Not playing 2/1, it also shows your values better. This is a nice 10-count on the auction, whereas a negX is about 8+-ish.
- Partner with xxx AJxxx Axx KQ will faff around in the bidding box after both X and 2D then (2S), but at least he can eventually bid diamonds with more confidence.
- No issues with rebids. If 2H comes back, South can pass without worrying too much. 3H can be raised to 4H, 2S we just bid 3C, 2NT (if 15-19) we bid 3NT.

My bidding is mainly homegrown through experience and experimentation rather than ever having been taught "standard", so I may be missing something.

You need some agreement as to whether 3C at South's second turn is GF or not. I guess unfortunately it is. So X is about the only sensible choice by South - and North leaves it in. I think the form of scoring does matter - passing the X is perhaps an acceptable decision at MPs, but at IMPs I would definitely take it out (to 3H). Our trump holding isn't that great, we are the wrong side of the spade bidder and we have no defensive strength elsewhere.

edit: Art correctly points out that even at MPs +100 isn't great, and 300 hardly looks likely, so perhaps pulling is correct there also if you think you might make 3H.

ahydra

[the_dude]

neilkaz, on 2014-April-24, 17:06, said:

To the OP and to 90% of the others here. Is they're any chance to list the form of scoring in your initial post? Sometimes, it actually matters and changes one's decision.

Sorry - I'm usually good about this - the scoring was matchpoints, love all, club game.

I held the south hand and spent some time deciding between X and 2D. Ultimately, I felt it was our hand and wanted to convey that to my partner in case LHO bid 3S or 4S. I wasn't prepared for where a simple 2S bid would take us...

Fwiw, North is a student (strong student) who (a) does not often open 11-counts, and (b) does not often leave in 2-level doubles. That being said, we have agreed that I bid/play like he is an expert so that shouldn't have mattered, and I'm glad to see him progress on (a) and (b). This hand however was not positive reinforcement, especially if the mistake was mine for starting with the wrong bid.

Thanks all for the feedback.

[sner66]

I think neg X is best first but the second X should suggest a more balanced hands with max values or the original X. Instead, S could bid 2NT at second turn as a "scramble"(if the opponents have agreed on a suit then 2NT is never to play in this agreement). It is for takeout suggesting a doubleton in pard's suit and length in both minors.

[aguahombre]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-24, 11:48, said:

After making the (IMO) obvious neg double the first time (other two suits and responding values)..if we then balance with 2NT when Spades have been bid and raised, it is takeout with more distribution; and a second double would have been more in defensive strength.

This probably isn't standard, but bidding NT in a natural sense after OBAR just isn't a long-run good idea. Here, after that North can bid 3H.

sner66, on 2014-April-25, 08:32, said:

I think neg X is best first but the second X should suggest a more balanced hands with max values for the original X. Instead, S could bid 2NT at second turn as a "scramble"(if the opponents have agreed on a suit then 2NT is never to play in this agreement). It is for takeout suggesting a doubleton in pard's suit and length in both minors.

Welcome aboard, sner66. I guess that means we agree on what we would do. I am not as convinced as you are that the sequence shows doubleton heart support, however...just hoping. I could be X X KQXXX KJXXXX and not quite overjoyed if Pard bids 3H.