[SimonFa]

MPs, R v W, Opps are county level and my partner has played county level.


Me ♠3 ♥AKJ94 ♦KQ6 ♣AQ98
Partner ♠JT98 ♥QT7 ♦T42 ♣JT7

[2S*] X [P] [2NT]
[P] 3NT [X] All pass

*Described as could be very weak and 5 cards (looking at the traveller I suspect nobody else bid it)

My original thoughts we X and then 3H but partner's 2NT was unexpected and as it was MP maybe 3NT would be a good result. I did wonder about 4H after the their double but then we could be getting out of control and make a bad situation worse. As RHO said at the end of the bidding, it was going to be a top for one of us. In the end -2 for a bottom. Most tables played in 1H with one table making 4H and another 3H. Double dummy has us as 3H max.

So, any thoughts? Given the strength of my Hearts would 3H have been a better start? Should I have stuck to my original plan and bid 3H over partners 2NT?

Or should I just shrug and accept sometime preempts work as partner would not have bid over 1H from me?

[Cyberyeti]

Most people I suspect don't play 2N as natural here (either Lebensohl as I play or scramble), and partner probably didn't as he has way too few points for a natural 2N.

X is fine to start, you bid 3♥ over 2N to show a big hand with a heart suit and partner either raises or doesn't.

[paulg]

Double is a good start - you have a strong hand and are playable in three suits. If you overcall 3♥ immediately, then you could have a weaker hand than this and will probably end the auction, you remove two potential suits from play, and partner will probably not have enough in the minors to bid three no trump when it is right.

Your plan should be to bid three hearts over most of partner's bids. Although many will think that this implies six, the general expert method is that this is a 'strong and flexible' bid - implying a hand too strong to overcall, perhaps still interested in partner's suit (when he has bid one), showing 5+ hearts. The corollary from playing 'strong and flexible' is that single-suited hands try to find an overcall at an appropriate level rather than double, or make it very clear what they have after the double.

For three no trump to be right, partner probably needs a double spade stop or nine running tricks. With finesses likely to fail, and limited points opposite meaning nine running tricks are highly unlikely, it is worth investigating other contracts.

Cyberyeti said the same in shorthand

[SimonFa]

Thanks. We do't play Lebensohl as we're just an occasional partnership and try to keep things simple. In the absence of a firm agreement all bids are natural.

[Cyberyeti]

SimonFa, on 2018-March-27, 03:32, said:

Thanks. We do't play Lebensohl as we're just an occasional partnership and try to keep things simple. In the absence of a firm agreement all bids are natural.

In that case 2N is a bad bid, it shows more than this, you would be bidding 3N on a 16-17 count and dialling a number.

[Tramticket]

SimonFa, on 2018-March-27, 02:53, said:

MPs, R v W, Opps are county level and my partner has played county level.

I think that 2NT intended as a natural bid was a poor choice.

[ggwhiz]

I agree with all of the above but in the absence of any useful agreement I think you should still bid 3♥ over 2nt.

With your shape and quality spot cards, if 3nt makes 9 tricks, 4♥ could easily make 10 or more. Being passed out in 3♥ would be a lucky surprise as I expect partner to choose the best game.

[SimonFa]

Tramticket, on 2018-March-27, 05:55, said:

I think that 2NT intended as a natural bid was a poor choice.

What would you have bid?

[ggwhiz]

SimonFa, on 2018-March-27, 10:30, said:

What would you have bid?

3♣, holding my nose. In competitive auctions like this I think it's common that notrump bids (even 1nt) are constructive in the 8ish range, not this dreck.

[TylerE]

SimonFa, on 2018-March-27, 03:32, said:

Thanks. We do't play Lebensohl as we're just an occasional partnership and try to keep things simple. In the absence of a firm agreement all bids are natural.

Suggestion, and I'm not kidding: 2NT is never, ever natural. If you want to show a simple invite over 1N go through Stayman.

[MrAce]

SimonFa, on 2018-March-27, 03:32, said:

Thanks. We do't play Lebensohl as we're just an occasional partnership and try to keep things simple. In the absence of a firm agreement all bids are natural.

If 2 NT is not leben then you have even more reasons to bid 3♥ instead of 3 NT imo.

[neilkaz]

MrAce, on 2018-March-27, 11:55, said:

If 2 NT is not leben then you have even more reasons to bid 3♥ instead of 3 NT imo.

Yes just bid 3♥.

[rmnka447]

Your sort of stuck by your agreements. Whatever partner bids you have no idea what's in his/her hand. Because of this, I think you just have to make the rebid you were planning to make in the first place, namely 3 ♥. If partner has positive values for the 2 NT call, then partner can carry on to 3 NT. 3 ♥ also implies some concern about ♠ else you pass or make a 3 NT call.

It would probably be good to discuss with partner what a "natural" 2 NT call should be over a weak 2 bid. Since NT contracts depend more on total high card strength, bidding 2 NT on 4 HCP even with all the 10s just can't be right, especially so when Red. Your hand could be a lot less, maybe like ♠ x ♥ A732 ♦ KQ63 ♣ A642 and 2 NT is a horrendous contract.

I'm with ggwhiz on this one and bidding 3 ♣ with partner's hand and your agreements.

[BillPatch]

Over partner's 3♣ you then may rebid 3♥ as originally planned after your TO double.

[msjennifer]

SimonFa, on 2018-March-27, 03:32, said:

Thanks. We do't play Lebensohl as we're just an occasional partnership and try to keep things simple. In the absence of a firm agreement all bids are natural.

It is indeed unfortunate that you did not play lebensohl.You had to double and then face the fifficult decision of rebid..Under these circumstances you had to bid 3H to show a 5plus good suit and reluctance to play in NT contract.3NT is ,in my personal opinion,not the right bid on your part.

[0deary]

Are there enough normal and variant weak 2s around to be worth discarding the routine “double for take out” (which just offer free insurance) in favour of eg Hackett, where tiered bids describe hands (for 4H here) but leaving the double for the axe?

[WellSpyder]

0deary, on 2018-March-28, 03:36, said:

Are there enough normal and variant weak 2s around to be worth discarding the routine “double for take out” (which just offer free insurance) in favour of eg Hackett, where tiered bids describe hands (for 4H here) but leaving the double for the axe?

You will probably defend 2SX more often if you play take-out doubles than if you play penalty doubles (because a hand with values but without spades can double, and partner with spades but not enough values to make a penalty double on his own can leave it in).

[nige1]

IMO
- North's double seems reasonable. 3♥ might end the auction, when game is on.
- South's 2N response deserves sympathy, although Pass or 3♣ might be better.
- Playing transfers, 3♦ by North would be good. A natural 3♥ is probably better than 3N. But 3N is reasonable.
- SimonFA was unlucky that defenders' ♠s wreck dummy.

---