[awm]

---

The event is Swiss teams in Switzerland. IMP scoring, 7-board matches converted to VPs. There's a range of teams in the field but the opposing team on this hand is world class. You and partner play 2/1 with multi 2♦; no particular discussion about this auction.

[gwnn]

Aren't all team tournaments in Zurich Swiss by definition? Sorry, I'll see myself out.

I'd have opened 1♥ - not proud of it but partner will be tough to convince just how strong we are (but it's very close - with a 4612 I'd pass). And I'd have bid 4♥ over 2♥; would bid 4♥ now. There's no guarantee that we make, but there's also no guarantee our partner can evaluate properly.

[Cyberyeti]

What's the general style of your overcalls ? does 1♦ (non exclusive) over 1♣ show a decent hand ?

I would have opened 1♥ playing what I play, not sure whether I would have playing 2/1.

For us 3♦ here would be not broke, but not enough to bid 4♥ unilaterally, long suit retry.

[apollo1201]

All those decisions are tricky and there is hardly a good answer as we’ll be forced to lye at some stage now or later on. Switch the M honors and I’m opening 1H. Put the void in S and I’m opening multi. Maybe pass is the good choice after all.

At the stage of the sequence I’d have bid 4 over partner’s 2, but now that I’ve asked...

We know our invitation is not declined, but is not necessarily accepted yet.

Partner seems not disgusted by S but we can’t be sure he’s over enthusiastic. Bidding D implies they are somehow better than what the overcall promised (a good 6-cd suit I guess). Partner probably has little cooperation in C as the bid was skipped. And only 3-cd H support too.

xx KQx AKxxxx xx it will be hard to reach dummy and if they manage to communicate in C to shoot S through the KJ.

Anyway partner still has the right to bid 4H with extras (C shortage, Hx in S, a 4th trump...) if he was just showing his hand en route to 4H. At least if I bid 3H now, I'll convey the message that those D goodies will not necessarily be my girl’s best friends.

Last, aren’t top players getting bad boards when their opponents stop below game at their table, while the rest of the field goes down?🤣

In al cases, very interested to see the hands. And card play as some good guesses will be required.

[FelicityR]

I'm not convinced by the 2♠ bid (as some sort of trial bid presumably). The opponents have had plenty of opportunity to make another bid over our low level bidding. That 5th and 6th ♥ are enormous. Over 2♥ by partner I'm raising direct to 4♥.

(Yes, 6♥ will be on if partner turns up with something like ♠Qx ♥AKxx ♦Jxxxx ♣Kx but bidding 22 high card combined points slams are a once-in-a-blue-moon event. I'll content myself with 4♥)

p.s. Opening 2♥ or 2♦(multi) looks terrible with the North hand, though opening 1♥ I do find acceptable though I also agree that other players may prefer pass.

[pescetom]

I agree with the opening pass, given the agreements. But I would probably splinter 4D over partner's 2H: this is IMPs and I want to be in the vulnerable game here, partner should be able to figure out my spades and reevaluate his diamonds and decide whether slam seeking has any sense.

[nige1]

awm' The event is Swiss teams in Switzerland. IMP scoring, 7-board matches converted to VPs. There's a range of teams in the field but the opposing team on this hand is world class. You and partner play 2/1 with multi 2♦; no particular discussion about this auction.'
++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you, AWM, but please use open polls so that we can see who votes for what.

In 1st seat, I rank ...
1. Pass = NAT. To keep ♠s in the frame.
2. 2♦ = ART. Multi. Close decision.
3. 1♥ = NAT. Might excite partner too much.

Partner's 2♥ raise is wide-ranging. WTC says this is worth game. So safe to express slam interest, in view of your initial pass..Hence I rank ...
1. 4♦ = SPL (Pescatom's idea) AWM's partner is likely to understand it.
2. 2♠ = TRY. (for game then slam).
3. 4♥ = NAT. Slight underbid.

After partner's ambiguous 3♦ bid, I rank ...
1. 4♣ = CUE. A bit pushy in view of likely misfit.
2. 4♥ = NAT.

---

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2020-January-26, 17:27, said:

1. 4♦ = SPL (Pescatom's idea) AWM's partner is likely to understand it.

Is he? I would need more than “likely” before attempting a splinter in partner’s longest suit (a good enough suit, as well, for a vulnerable overcall).

[Tramticket]

nige1, on 2020-January-26, 17:27, said:

1. 4♦ = SPL (Pescatom's idea) AWM's partner is likely to understand it.

I wouldn't expect my partner to "understand it" as a splinter. We never splinter in partner's suit. My partner would "understand it" to mean that we have a double fit in the red suits.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would have bid 4H over 2H, now I am bidding 3H.

I decided, for whatever reason to ask Partner, if game is good, he said 'No.',
now I am respecting this. I did not learn anything pos. new, so why should I Change
my mind now?

With Kind regards
Marlowe

[gwnn]

P_Marlowe, on 2020-January-27, 04:43, said:

I decided, for whatever reason to ask Partner, if game is good, he said 'No.',
now I am respecting this. I did not learn anything pos. new, so why should I Change
my mind now?

It's just like in chess. Sometimes you make a bad move, such as Nf3-e5, and if you notice that it was a bad move (and it was not a pawn move), often it's a good idea to undo it immediately. Except in bridge this does not come at the cost of two "tempi" (although it did leak some information). This is the sentiment posters here are expressing.

[cherdano]

I am fine with the auction so far - partner's 2H raise will very often be based on 3-card support, in which case we will may struggle to get plus in 2H (and yes, 3♥ down one is much much better than 4♥X down two).
If partner has just 3 hearts and strength concentrated in diamonds, I prefer 3♥ over 4♥. So 3♥ it is.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2020-January-26, 17:27, said:

1. 4♦ = SPL (Pescatom's idea) AWM's partner is likely to understand it.

Vampyr, on 2020-January-26, 22:38, said:

Is he? I would need more than "likely" before attempting a splinter in partner's longest suit (a good enough suit, as well, for a vulnerable overcall).

Vampyr makes a good point

Tramticket, on 2020-January-27, 04:17, said:

I wouldn't expect my partner to "understand it" as a splinter. We never splinter in partner's suit. My partner would "understand it" to mean that we have a double fit in the red suits.

I assume AWM's passed-hand 1♥ to be non-forcing. With a ♦ fit and a good hand.. I would expect AWM to fit-jump, splinter, or cue-bid, immediately.

P_Marlowe, on 2020-January-27, 04:43, said:

Hi,I would have bid 4H over 2H, now I am bidding 3H.I decided, for whatever reason to ask Partner, if game is good, he said 'No.',now I am respecting this. I did not learn anything pos. new, so why should I Change my mind now?

Depends on your understanding of 3♦. CyberYeti would open 1♥ on this hand.

gwnn, on 2020-January-27, 04:49, said:

It's just like in chess. Sometimes you make a bad move, such as Nf3-e5, and if you notice that it was a bad move (and it was not a pawn move), often it's a good idea to undo it immediately. Except in bridge this does not come at the cost of two "tempi" (although it did leak some information). This is the sentiment posters here are expressing.

IMO a non-forcing 1♥ is a good move, especially when partner raises. I also think 2♠ is reasonable, Although I understand the argument for a conservative 3♥ over 3♦.

cherdano, on 2020-January-27, 05:01, said:

I am fine with the auction so far - partner's 2H raise will very often be based on 3-card support, in which case we will may struggle to get plus in 2H (and yes, 3♥ down one is much much better than 4♥X down two).If partner has just 3 hearts and strength concentrated in diamonds, I prefer 3♥ over 4♥. So 3♥ it is.

I respect the opinions of Cherdano and Co. Hence, I'd apologize if 4♥X went down.

[Cyberyeti]

What do you expect partner to have ? I suspect the sample hand I will have for partner's auction so far is better than the hands most other people would have.

I'd be interested to see hands in the ballpark of what they'd expect partner to have from the people who've commented so far.

For me it's something like x(x), Kxx, AQ10xxx, KQ(x)

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-27, 07:02, said:

What do you expect partner to have ? I suspect the sample hand I will have for partner's auction so far is better than the hands most other people would have.
I'd be interested to see hands in the ballpark of what they'd expect partner to have from the people who've commented so far. For me it's something like x, Kxx, AQ10xxx, KQxb

IMO if partner thinks the 1♥ reply, by a passed hand, might be 4 cards, then he won't raise on 3 cards, at adverse vulnerability, without a good hand.
Nevertheless, a 2♥ raise is wide-ranging. Over 2♠, IMO, Partner's 3♦ rebid should be constructive, at least.
So typical hands for partner are ...

• From: ♠ x ♥ K x x ♦ A Q x x x x ♣ K Q x (CyberYeti's construction).
• Through ♠ x ♥ A Q x ♦ A K Q x x x ♣ x x x
• Upto: ♠ Q x ♥ A K x x ♦ A x x x x x ♣ x, or, perhaps, even better.

[gwnn]

nige1, on 2020-January-27, 06:04, said:

IMO a non-forcing 1♥ is a good move, especially when partner raises. I also think 2♠ is reasonable, Although I understand the argument for a conservative 3♥ over 3♦.

Definitely 1♥ was a good move. I am just commenting on the sentiment "why bid game now that I got a bad reply from partner?" expressed by P_Marlowe.

In practice, I'd be wary of "undoing" such a move, as I cannot be sure I am not using some UI, consciously or unconsciously. So I guess at the table, having bid this way, I'd probably have to bid 3♥.

(I am not saying that anyone who bids 4♥ here is abusing UI or anything approaching that. Just my personal preference as to what I would probably do. In fact, I have seen many people "abusing" UI but drawing the wrong inference and getting to the the wrong contract.)

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2020-January-26, 22:38, said:

Is he? I would need more than “likely” before attempting a splinter in partner’s longest suit (a good enough suit, as well, for a vulnerable overcall).

None of my partners would have any doubt, they know I would never make a natural bid in a minor after fit has been shown in a major. But it's a question of partnership style and system, I agree.

[nige1]

gwnn, on 2020-January-27, 08:10, said:

Definitely 1♥ was a good move. I am just commenting on the sentiment "why bid game now that I got a bad reply from partner?" expressed by P_Marlowe.In practice, I'd be wary of "undoing" such a move, as I cannot be sure I am not using some UI, consciously or unconsciously. So I guess at the table, having bid this way, I'd probably have to bid 3♥.(I am not saying that anyone who bids 4♥ here is abusing UI or anything approaching that. Just my personal preference as to what I would probably do. In fact, I have seen many people "abusing" UI but drawing the wrong inference and getting to the the wrong contract.)

There might well be BITs at the table, although it would be hard to determine what they suggested. In an on-line quiz, however, shouldn't we ignore UI considerations?

[mythdoc]

I also would stop at 3 ♥ after this auction. My long suits are full of holes, and partner has not indicated help in spades. If his diamonds are don’t provide direct relief, we won’t make 4♥

[gwnn]

nige1, on 2020-January-27, 08:20, said:

There might well be BITs at the table, although it would be hard to determine what they suggested. In an on-line quiz, however, shouldn't we to ignore UI considerations?

Of course. But I just said what I would do in practice at the table. This is why I wrote my post this way (bold face added by me for your convenience):

Quote

So I guess at the table, having bid this way, I'd probably have to bid 3♥