[Jinksy]

---

MPs with two BBFers, but very few agreements.

N thought that S was derelict in failing to show a C stop or a balanced hand. S thought that N had only shown about an 8 count, so didn't want to admit to what he thought a poor stop unless N showed some extras. What should have happened?

[rmnka447]

South gets the big share of the blame. I marked other because I think South missed the boat twice in the auction.

First, South has 15 HCP, a balanced hand, and a ♣ stopper. What's wrong with a simple 1 NT overcall unless you're playing that as something unusual?

Second, a cue of opener's suit by North shows at least 11+ value minimum and is unlimited. It's the normal way to show a game invitational or better hand opposite a TO double. Without that much, advancer simply makes a suit bid in 4+ card suit -- 1 of a suit 0-7, 2 of a suit 8-10 value.

After 3 ♣, North bids 3 ♦ simply showing something in ♦ to go along at least invitational values. With stoppers in the other suits and a big ♦ fit, South has an easy 3 NT bid at MPs.

[kenrexford]

At least 33 beats 5D.

[mgoetze]

Eh, how is "North should have advanced 1♥" an option? With 12 points?

2♣ may or may not be the right bid but with "few agreements" you've got to shoulder at least some of the blame when you choose it and it doesn't work out.

Meanwhile, were the opps playing Acol or something? If opps are playing some sort of strong NT, 5-card major system there is really no reason at all to be fussy about your club stopper, Ax is more than sufficient.

It seems both partners set out to make the auction as difficult as possible, and both succeeded. No blame, only praise for achieving your goals.

[billw55]

While 2♣ may be murky, in context of south's hand it definitely creates a game force. 100% south.

[mike777]

Mostly south, partly north.

2c=lmt+ not 8, not gf
3c=extras, gf

clearly the big problem here is north thought after 3c they were in a gf situation and they were. South thought north had only 8 for some reason.

[Jinksy]

mgoetze, on 2015-August-14, 14:22, said:

Eh, how is "North should have advanced 1♥" an option? With 12 points?

It would only make sense if you think 1♥ is forcing, obv. I don't know what, if anything, is standard here.

[mgoetze]

Jinksy, on 2015-August-14, 14:34, said:

It would only make sense if you think 1♥ is forcing, obv. I don't know what, if anything, is standard here.

Wait, for some reason I saw South having doubled rather than bid 1♦. I guess it seemed too absurd.

OK this is easy then, South chose the 3rd-best option and it clearly wasn't good enough.

[Jinksy]

Quote

Wait, for some reason I saw South having doubled rather than bid 1♦. I guess it seemed too absurd.

That was an error when I first posted, but I fixed it before anyone replied :\

[BillPatch]

I ATB 95% to S, thus most of the blame. I agree with N's bidding, but anytime bidding blows up with no agreements I see some shared blame. Both double and 1NT would have been better, South's hand would have been ideal for a major suit game if partner had 8+ HCP and a five card major. the 3 club counter cue only makes sense if it offers a choice of 3NT, which South could have offered by bidding 3NT next. Without agreements partner might not misinterpret that sequence as a partial stopper rather than Ax, or whether counter cue allowed N to stop at 4 of minor after S bid 3NT. South's final pass deserves the majority of the blame, surely the 3♣ recue set up a force to 3NT if not to game. By the way, I attribute a bonus 50% of the blame to the problem setter; 10% for originally misquoting the auction, and 40% for not specifying whether they were playing MPs or "real bridge."

[wank]

i don't like 3d but the pass is worse.

south should bid 3nt over 3d which describes his hand perfectly - balanced hand, weak club stop, values for game.

north has modest extras and a 4th trump, so i don't think there was much danger if he did something more productive, like 3s.

8 counts are not UCBs.

as for the orignal 1D, i don't hate it. i would hate 1nt.

[Jinksy]

BillPatch, on 2015-August-14, 20:56, said:

By the way, I attribute a bonus 50% of the blame to the problem setter; 10% for originally misquoting the auction, and 40% for not specifying whether they were playing MPs or "real bridge."

Then I hope you will accept a further 40% for failing to observe the word 'MPs'.

[Jinksy]

wank, on 2015-August-15, 01:29, said:

i don't like 3d but the pass is worse.

south should bid 3nt over 3d which describes his hand perfectly - balanced hand, weak club stop, values for game.

north has modest extras and a 4th trump, so i don't think there was much danger if he did something more productive, like 3s.

8 counts are not UCBs.

as for the orignal 1D, i don't hate it. i would hate 1nt.

How would you rate an initial X?

[eagles123]

i would just always x with the south hand, i pretty much think equal blame maybe a bit more to south but north hardly covers himself in glory either.

[MrAce]

100 % South

[kenberg]

Starting with 1NT seems best. I have a 15 count, a five card suit that can reasonable be expected to proved some tricks, and stops in every suit. It's true I like to have more nines and tens when I choose NT over a suit, but I go with 1NT. Having three cards in each major is an asset, since I will be delighted to accept a transfer whether it is on a weak hand or a strong hand. The fact that I only stop clubs once bothers me not at all.

Now suppose I start with 1D and partner bids 2C. I checked both that S should bid 2NT and 3NT. Myself, I think the 2C shows more than an 8 count. With an 8 count I raise diamonds if I have diamonds and either pass or bid something, maybe 1Nt, with a decent 8 count and scattered values. At any rate, I don't bid 2C.

So if 2C couold be on an 8 count then 2NT is a sensible response to 2C. If, as I think, 2C shows either a diamond fot and 10+ or else quite a big hand, then 3NT seems right.


There are choices, and there are agreements. We choose as best we can, but an agreement to bid 2C on an 8 count seems weird to me.

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2015-August-14, 14:22, said:

Eh, how is "North should have advanced 1♥" an option? With 12 points?

Jinksy is British and the most common agreement there is for a new suit to be forcing. You can also see this bias in 2♣ being assumed to be a UCB.

I think it is clear that South here takes the blame. There are lots of possibilities depending on what sort of agreements are in place but in my book North showed ~10-12 with a diamond fit and for South to pass that in 3♦ is difficult to support. At the end of the day though this comes down to expectation and the lack of agreements. South clearly thought North was showing ~8-9 with a diamond fit. If that is standard for the country/area where this pair come from then I will revise my opinion.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2015-August-15, 06:21, said:

Jinksy is British and the most common agreement there is for a new suit to be forcing. You can also see this bias in 2♣ being assumed to be a UCB.

No, I'm sure even in Britain (1♣)-X-1♥ (the originally posted auction I was commenting on) is not forcing.

I do play (1♣)-1♦-1♥ as forcing myself... come to think of it most of the proponents of it being non-forcing that I've met have been British.

[ggwhiz]

Not starting with 1nt is glass half empty bidding especially at mp's. 100% south for starting the rot and then hammering it home after a cue bid by north.

[BillPatch]

wank, on 2015-August-15, 01:29, said:

i don't like 3d but the pass is worse.

south should bid 3nt over 3d which describes his hand perfectly - balanced hand, weak club stop, values for game.

north has modest extras and a 4th trump, so i don't think there was much danger if he did something more productive, like 3s.

8 counts are not UCBs.

as for the orignal 1D, i don't hate it. i would hate 1nt.

Assuming that you have another way to express a strong ♠ hand, most traditional systems don't, at least among English speaking
world.