[quikwal]

---

E-W were only down one while N-S can make (4H).
North thought that South had underbid the hand and with
no defence at all against (3D), South should have pulled
the double. However if they ended up in (3H) it would
have been worse than (3D*) down one (200).

Some folks thought that North should bid (2D) instead of (1NT) and I thought about that
because North does not have a stopper in diamonds.

Some thought that North should raise to (3H) instead of doubling.

Any comments are welcome.

[quikwal]

Question:
If I want others to read the comments on this topic on BBO Forums, what link do I send them?
Thanks,
Quikwal

[diana_eva]

quikwal, on 2015-August-11, 11:39, said:

Question:
If I want others to read the comments on this topic on BBO Forums, what link do I send them?
Thanks,
Quikwal

http://bridgebase.co...s-the-argument/

[kuhchung]

diana_eva, on 2015-August-11, 12:16, said:

http://bridgebase.co...s-the-argument/

now I'm stuck in an infinite loop

[PhilKing]

Je suis Charlie.

[frisbee]

My guess is that South did not understand that his partner was showing a balanced 18-19 HCP. Since his hand is already limited by his 1♥ bid, he is strong enough to bid 2♠ over 2♦ (showing more ♥s than ♠s) or to simply drive to a 4♥ contract. North had his bids.

If North were to cuebid 2♦ instead of bidding 1NT, he would be showing a very different hand ... game forcing opposite a zero-count. Same problem with a 3♥ bid, North does not have the ♥ support that he would be promising. 1NT is the correct rebid.

[rmnka447]

The keys to this hand are South's 2 ♥ bid and East's ♦ raises.

Looking at North's hand, South can hold Qxxxx(...) in ♥s at best. South's 2 ♥ free bid shows something positive. If South holds only ♥ Qxxxx, South almost certainly holds some outside honor card. South might have less, but then it will be based on long ♥ and distribution. South won't bid 2 ♥ freely on only
baby ♥ and a stiff ♦ unless holding something outside, too.

East's ♦ raise and re-raise without any proof from West of a real ♦ suit is almost certainly made on 5 ♦. Give West 3 ♦s minimum. With North holding 4 ♦s, that leaves how many for South? South has to have either a stiff or a void.

Finally, all North's cards are working and are primes. The 1 NT rebid shows about 19 HCP but South can't know what they are. They could be a doubleton ♥ and a ♦ stack. So, at some point, North owes South a raise. With prospects apparent for a dummy reversal, I think North ought to bid 4 ♥ in response to the 2 ♥ free bid.

I disagree that South must pull the Double of 3 ♦ to 3 ♥. After all, North has bid NT and presumably has ♦ honors. Does South want to play 3 ♥ opposite a small doubleton and ♦ stack where 3 ♦ is going down 2 or 3 doubled? South's shown his hand and North has made a decision to defend 3 ♦. South should honor that decision.

[mike777]

prefer 3h rather than 2h.


shows more than 2h but less than 4h. we are limited by 1h.

[BillPatch]

frisbee, on 2015-August-11, 12:34, said:

My guess is that South did not understand that his partner was showing a balanced 18-19 HCP. Since his hand is already limited by his 1♥ bid, he is strong enough to bid 2♠ over 2♦ (showing more ♥s than ♠s) or to simply drive to a 4♥ contract. North had his bids.

If North were to cuebid 2♦ instead of bidding 1NT, he would be showing a very different hand ... game forcing opposite a zero-count. Same problem with a 3♥ bid, North does not have the ♥ support that he would be promising. 1NT is the correct rebid.

1 NT may be the best rebid in standard as based on Goren. Mike Lawrence, in The Complete Book on Takeout Doubles, 2nd ed., 2014, introduces the treatment of using the doubler's two diamond cuebid predominantly to show this type hand (18+ support points with three card support. I love this treatment, which is a much better way to bid this hand.
1♦(dbl)p( 1♥)
p (2♦)3♦(4♥)
ppp

See chapter 12.

[quikwal]

diana_eva, on 2015-August-11, 12:16, said:

http://bridgebase.co...s-the-argument/

How would I figure out this link on my own?
I don't see any url at the top of the page or anywhere else.
thanks

[kenberg]

I am pretty sure that as South I would have bid 3H on the first round. 2H is strong, 3H is weak and long. I'm weak and long. It's true that I have four spades, but with six hearts I don't care. Well, ruffing that last spade on the board is my tenth trick so I do care, but I don't know that I care.

If I do that, does my clone sitting North bid 4H? Probably. He would be pretty confident of six hearts, two spades and a club. As the cards lie they can't stop you from getting a fourth trick by ruffing a spade. but it seems chances are pretty good that there should be a tenth trick available one way or another.

I'm not sure what it would mean if, as suggested, I bid 1H on the first round and then 3H on the second. I prefer the immediate 3H.

[sfi]

Others seem to be focusing on South's bidding, but North is just as culpable IMO. I can live with the 1NT rebid, but failing to raise 2H immediately with a perfect hand for hearts is poor. Doubling 3D rather than competing to 3H is even worse, and shows a misevaluation of the offensive power of the hearts and the defensive power of the diamonds.

[helene_t]

quikwal, next time you want to reopen a discussion which we have already had (http://www.bridgebas...622#entry857622), just make a new comment in the old thread. That way, people can still quote the comments in the old thread.

[Trump Echo]

I don't like anybody's bidding here.

I don't like West's opening.

I like North's double but not his second call of 1 NT.

I like East's raise of the Diamonds but not his second raise to level 3.

I like South's first bid but his second bid should have been game in Hearts, not 2 Hearts.

I think North should have raised the Hearts to level 3 on his second call, given the likely solidity of the Hearts and the ability to play with seven trumps. South would then raise, of course.

[GrahamJson]

Both N and S underbid. S was worth 3H on the first round. N was worth 4H, not double. He can tell S has at most one diamond so N's hand could harldly be better.

[jdonn]

1NT is wrong without a diamond stopper. A 2♦ cuebid looks best. Given the auction through 2♥, I would bid 3♥ as north. Partner is sure to be short in diamonds which means I have an incredible hand for him. Then south could have accepted based on the distribution.

I do not at all believe south should do more than 1♥ or 2♥ that he bid. He doesn't expect there to be game if partner can't raise 2♥, and the 3 level is far from safe. It seems like resulting to me quite frankly.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on 2015-August-12, 11:24, said:

1NT is wrong without a diamond stopper. A 2♦ cuebid looks best. Given the auction through 2♥, I would bid 3♥ as north. Partner is sure to be short in diamonds which means I have an incredible hand for him. Then south could have accepted based on the distribution.

I do not at all believe south should do more than 1♥ or 2♥ that he bid. He doesn't expect there to be game if partner can't raise 2♥, and the 3 level is far from safe. It seems like resulting to me quite frankly.

If partner had opened 2N, showing 20-21, you would have forced to game, wouldn't you? Admittedly that would be partly because there is no invitational sequence, but it is mostly because the odds favour bidding game rather than signing off. On the given auction partner has shown 19-20, positioned behind the opening bidder, with the likelihood of a good lead for our side, and you think that inviting game is 'resulting'?

I'm not saying that 3♥ is free of risk, but 2♥ is the call we make when, having heard partner describe a very good hand with at least tolerance for hearts, we don't want to sell out to 2♦. In my world, 2♥ has no invitational connotations at all, and seems to me to be more of an underbid than 3♥ is an overbid (and I do think that 3♥ is mildly aggressive).

[PhilKing]

Sorry MikeH, but I think North HAS to be worth a raise to 3♥ - you can basically count 9 tricks on a dummy reversal (possibly even opposite a 3514 zero count), and partner can go on to game with an extra trick. And I think there is a considerable chance that a jump to 3♥ by south will lead to a minus.

Sure, 2♥ is not invitational, but that can't mean don't raise with five primes and a fit.

Anyway, the people who raise all the way to FOUR hearts as North are getting too excited. Raising to three is almost certain to get the job done when game is on, and you are just punishing partner when nine tricks are the limit. Sure, you might fluke 10 tricks opposite Qxx xxxxx x xxxx, but if partner passes 3♥ game is not likely to be cold.

[johnu]

I liked the final 3 passes. Who's this GOREN and how did he settle the argument?

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2015-August-12, 14:49, said:

Sorry MikeH, but I think North HAS to be worth a raise to 3♥ - you can basically count 9 tricks on a dummy reversal (possibly even opposite a 3514 zero count), and partner can go on to game with an extra trick. And I think there is a considerable chance that a jump to 3♥ by south will lead to a minus.

Sure, 2♥ is not invitational, but that can't mean don't raise with five primes and a fit.

Anyway, the people who raise all the way to FOUR hearts as North are getting too excited. Raising to three is almost certain to get the job done when game is on, and you are just punishing partner when nine tricks are the limit. Sure, you might fluke 10 tricks opposite Qxx xxxxx x xxxx, but if partner passes 3♥ game is not likely to be cold.

Hi Phil. No need to apologize. It's been a while since the hand was originally posted, but I think that while I blamed S for what I see as an underbid of 2♥, I also said that on this hand N was worth a raise. I see nothing inconsistent with that. 2♥ is not the least bit invitational, but N is still allowed to think! S has a hand willing to compete in hearts opposite at most a tripleton, and opposite values in diamonds, some of which may be pulling less than full weight. N can look at AKJ in hearts and xxxx in diamonds, with S often stiff, given the auction, and should bid anyway. The point is that S's action is based on expecting a somewhat different, less heart-suitable, hand than N had.