[paulg]

Love All, IMPs, 48-board knockout match

---

In the first part there was a very small majority for opening 1♣ instead of 1NT and, in the second part, pass was the clear choice. A few have already expressed their preference over partner's double but I thought I'd just see this miniseries through.

What is your choice now?

[rhm]

I refuse to play 3NT from the wrong side.
I bid 3♥ but 3♦ could work out better.
I just think 3♦ is not likely to induce partner to bid 3NT when that is right.

Rainer Herrmann

[kenrexford]

Pass. I have 4 fairly easy defensive tricks, an obvious option for a 5th by myself, an obvious lead, a probable misfit.

[whereagles]

Pard rates to have 5332 or thereabouts and he's got extras.

It's a misfit and we seem to have the balance of strength. Pass and lead the spade ace.

[cherdano]

I am sure by now partner has read wank's suggestion? I bid 3♠, transfer to 3NT.
Other than that, I bid 3♥ for the reason Rainer states - this leaves less room for partner to stall below 3N, thus improving the chances, he will bid it himself.

[nige1]

 paulg, on 2014-August-27, 01:11, said:

Love All, IMPs, 48-board knockout match
In the first part there was a very small majority for opening 1♣ instead of 1NT and,
in the second part, pass was the clear choice.
A few have already expressed their preference over partner's double but I thought I'd just see this miniseries through.
What is your choice now?

---

IMO 3♥ = 10, Pass = 9, 3♦ = 8, 3N = 7. 3♠ might be obvious to Wank but wouldn't occur to us.

[PhantomSac]

lol 3S as a transfer to 3N is one of the most awesome things I've ever heard. So good.

In real life I think 3H is pretty normal. I mean really it has the same effect, partner will bid 3N with a little something in hearts and 3S otherwise over which we will bid 3N so the only difference is giving LHO a shot to X 3H (or not X).

[benlessard]

Playing a transfer lebenshol scheme where 3S is transfer to 3NT as been very imps rewarding for me the last 2-3 years.

After a 2/1 auction bidding 2NT with positionnal stopper/half a stopper is also awesome. If I have to bet on what the top level system would look like in 15-30 years I would say a lot of rightsiding gadget.

[paulg]

The conclusion of the story is that I bid 3♥. Unfortunately partner bid 5♣ rather than 3♠ holding ♠KQ10x ♥xxx ♦Kx ♣QJxx and this went down on the heart ruff.

Clearly 3♠ is the bid on my hand.

Thanks for all the comments on these threads. More illuminating than I expected for a standard 'problem' hand.

[whereagles]

Well, you can always count on near-reverse hands generating a lot of discussion here. Especially if stuff gets competitive

[paulg]

 whereagles, on 2014-August-28, 02:05, said:

Well, you can always count on near-reverse hands generating a lot of discussion here. Especially if stuff gets competitive

Lots of discussion does not guarantee enlightenment.

[whereagles]

yeah plenty examples from nowadays politics

[PhantomSac]

 paulg, on 2014-August-28, 01:02, said:

Clearly 3♠ is the bid on my hand.

lol that was quite funny but not bidding 3S is a pretty serious mistake. Bidding 5C instead of 3S is effectively saying "partner if you are going to bid 3N over 3S, I still don't want to play 3N." With 3 small hearts and no aces that makes no sense to me.

[jallerton]

 paulg, on 2014-August-28, 01:02, said:

The conclusion of the story is that I bid 3♥. Unfortunately partner bid 5♣ rather than 3♠ holding ♠KQ10x ♥xxx ♦Kx ♣QJxx and this went down on the heart ruff.

Clearly 3♠ is the bid on my hand.

Thanks for all the comments on these threads. More illuminating than I expected for a standard 'problem' hand.

I don't understand partner's double or what it was trying to achieve. Support with support. Partner should have bid 3♣ on the 2nd round. Then you bid 3♦, he bids 3♥, you bid 3NT. No clever 3♠ bids required from either player!

[PhilKing]

 jallerton, on 2014-August-28, 16:49, said:

I don't understand partner's double or what it was trying to achieve. Support with support. Partner should have bid 3♣ on the 2nd round. Then you bid 3♦, he bids 3♥, you bid 3NT. No clever 3♠ bids required from either player!

Exactly. That's also why some of us made the hungry pass - sometimes 300 or 500 on a partscore.

[rhm]

 jallerton, on 2014-August-28, 16:49, said:

I don't understand partner's double or what it was trying to achieve. Support with support. Partner should have bid 3♣ on the 2nd round. Then you bid 3♦, he bids 3♥, you bid 3NT. No clever 3♠ bids required from either player!

I agree that 3♣ is better than double.
3NT happens to be a good contract because you have 8 tricks on top and so need only a single stopper in hearts.
In my experience this is rare with this type of hand.
I still prefer 3♥ over 3♣ hoping that 3NT would play better from partners side.
Change the spade queen to the heart queen or jack in partners hand (same distribution) and you can see what I aiming at.

Rainer Herrmann

[paulg]

 jallerton, on 2014-August-28, 16:49, said:

I don't understand partner's double or what it was trying to achieve. Support with support. Partner should have bid 3♣ on the 2nd round. Then you bid 3♦, he bids 3♥, you bid 3NT. No clever 3♠ bids required from either player!

I totally agree that 3♣ is right. I was trying to keep our methods out of this, but we actually play 3♣ as forcing given I might hold a weak no-trump with five diamonds and two clubs. There are other systemic considerations that make this reasonable, so competitive hands have to double here.

As PhantomSac showed, none of this should make a difference.

[jallerton]

 paulg, on 2014-August-29, 02:41, said:

I totally agree that 3♣ is right. I was trying to keep our methods out of this, but we actually play 3♣ as forcing given I might hold a weak no-trump with five diamonds and two clubs. There are other systemic considerations that make this reasonable, so competitive hands have to double here.

As PhantomSac showed, none of this should make a difference.

Yes, I did wonder if your methods might have been use at the table, but that does make a significant difference to the bids I might choose. What would double of 2♥ mean in your methods?

The biggest weakness of short club systems is in competition, because Opener often cannot clarify his hand type.

Whilst I would open 1♣ playing standard methods, if my methods included opening 1♣ on a 3=3=5=2 12-count, then I would be a lot more tempted to open 1NT.

[paulg]

 jallerton, on 2014-August-29, 08:36, said:

Yes, I did wonder if your methods might have been use at the table, but that does make a significant difference to the bids I might choose. What would double of 2♥ mean in your methods?

It's a support double.

 jallerton, on 2014-August-29, 08:36, said:

The biggest weakness of short club systems is in competition, because Opener often cannot clarify his hand type.

Whilst I would open 1♣ playing standard methods, if my methods included opening 1♣ on a 3=3=5=2 12-count, then I would be a lot more tempted to open 1NT.

Although it is clearly a weakness, we should have overcome it here.

[gszes]

Now my 1d opener (followed by 3c) does not look quite as good as before since
there is a strong chance of generating +300 here vs a possible game for our side.
We have no idea what p would have bid over our 3c rebid but we definitely will
not get the chance to set 2h. Some misgivings about never having shown the more
distributional nature and power of this hand but this looks like a gift.

Pass

With my probable 5 tricks and hope p can take a couple (and also hope there is no
huge club fit that may render my top clubs useless). If I intend to bypass the
opportunity to go for the penalty here I think it is best to proceed with 3h in
an attempt to right side 3n and if p cannot bid 3n there is a good chance we do
not belong there (can I undo my 3h bid now please?)