[jocdelevat]

Scoring: total points

---

West North East South

 -     Pass  1♣    1♦
 1NT   2♦    Dbl   Pass
 2NT   Pass  3♣    3♦
 3♠    3NT   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

I was south. Contract failed by 5

best regards
jocdelevat

[Walddk]

1♣ (1♦) and 1NT are excellent bids. Then I took a couple of Rich Reisig's "nice pills" before I wrote this:

1. North should perhaps bid 3♦ instead of 2.
2. East's double shows extras. He has a minimum.
3. 3♣ is better than 2NT with a single diamond stopper he already showed.
4. 3♦ is wrong. South already showed his hand when he overcalled and is definitely not worth a second free bid.

Then 2 more pills before:

5. 3♠ is horrible. West showed his hand when he bid 1NT.
6. 3NT is out of this world.
7. How West could not double 3NT defies belief.

They all bid too much with too few values.

Roland

[the hog]

Rather than a raise to 2D, I would prefer a cue raise of 2C with the north hand. Apart from this, I agree with Roland's comments. (I guess I also took some "nice" pills).

[uday]

Gib thinks

3D = 17- HCP; twice rebiddable D; 17-18 points

[jtfanclub]

jocdelevat, on Aug 16 2006, 09:48 PM, said:

West North East South

 -     Pass  1♣    1♦
 1NT   2♦    Dbl   Pass
 2NT   Pass  3♣    3♦
 3♠    3NT   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

Curious to see if Walddk and The Hog agree with me.

To me, if you make a bid in a competitive auction, you either intend to make something or you're trying to pre-empt the opponents. Since it's virtually impossible that you'll get to play in 2♦ X'd, if you were planning to pre-empt you'd bid 3♦ there. Because you've lost the pre-emptive effect by passing after the X, the logic must be that you bid 3♦ becuase you expect to make 3♦, in spite of the fact that your partner's sole bid was to raise you one level in a competitive auction. Therefore, you must have a very strong hand.


I think that's the logic behind GIB's 17 count- you have a hand that's strong enough to make 9 tricks across a mere raise, but not quite enough for an X and new suit.

North now knows that you have game-going values, but no clear game. 3NT was...interesting. It's a heck of a gamble to bid 3NT there, as with three clubs you're more likely to have a club void than a NT stopper. But hey, the count was there.

[P_Marlowe]

All was already said.

Just one comment, I think 2D
is enough, but I think also, that
3NT implicates that North took
some pills while he was passing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[badderzboy]

I think the key lesson is to Listen to the bidding

Pass North is now limited to less than an opening hand
1♣ An opening hand with 3+Clubs at a guess (SAYC?)
1♦ I have an overcall with 5+Diamonds 8-15pts
1NT I have a balanced hand with Diamonds stopped and 6-9 pts

At this point E knows points are evenly split as West is limited - West does not
South should also know that NS have at most 20pts too especially since East has shown 13+ and West 6-9...

2♦ Fair bid I have Diamond support and some values lets compete
Dbl Yuck - East should pass it would limit the hand and also West know East is short!!! He can count 3+5+3/4 means 1/2 in West unfortunately it pays off ...
Pass Good Bid I have nothing more partner to say
2NT Yuck - No 4 card major and denies a Club fit!!! - should bid 3♣s
Pass Good pass
3♣ Another iffy bid I'm short in Diamonds hate NT (Partner knows)
3♦ No need to bid here leave it to partner to compete but u are now showing extra strength
3♠ ???????????
3NT There may be trouble ahead ( Stick your neck on the block time) Axe didn't fall!!!


Don't mean to be critical here but worth always listening and building pictures. EW bidding should have warned North off his 3NT bid and maybe workout the 3D bid too but if this was GIB then who knows it sometimes takes flights of fancy lol. It can be dangerous in competitive auctions when 1 opponent knows the combined assets of his side....

Cheers

Steve

[starfruit]

Just curious, but what are those "pills" you guys are refering to?

[barmar]

See the first line of Roland's first response, they're "nice pills". They prevent you from saying things like "Whoever made that bid should switch from bridge to old maid."

Some of the problems I've seen with GIB's bidding are that it often overvalues shape, hence the double of 2♦ because of the singleton ♦. Also, it sometimes seems to forget that an early round pass limits your hand (or maybe it doesn't agree with this -- I once saw it pass rather than make a 1-level overcall with something like 15 HCP and a good 5-card suit, and later it went to gave after its partner balanced). So when you balance, it thinks you have full values, and overbids like the 3NT here.

[jtfanclub]

badderzboy, on Aug 17 2006, 03:35 AM, said:

Dbl Yuck - East should pass it would limit the hand 3♠ ???????????

If East has his bids, West feels confident that they can make 3NT as long as the opening lead isn't a spade, followed by a diamond switch, with the ♠A and ♦A both poorly placed. So his 3♠ bid is either 'I have the spades well stopped', hoping to psych the opponents out of a spade lead, or 'Bid 3NT if you have the spades well stopped', which accurately describes his hand.

At least, that's my interpretation.

[keylime]

I think North was thinking West had potentially psyched.

Your bidding was spot-on, well done.

[awm]

Walddk, on Aug 16 2006, 10:25 PM, said:

1♣ (1♦) and 1NT are excellent bids. Then I took a couple of Rich Reisig's "nice pills" before I wrote this:

1. North should perhaps bid 3♦ instead of 2.
2. East's double shows extras. He has a minimum.
3. 3♣ is better than 2NT with a single diamond stopper he already showed.
4. 3♦ is wrong. South already showed his hand when he overcalled and is definitely not worth a second free bid.

Then 2 more pills before:

5. 3♠ is horrible. West showed his hand when he bid 1NT.
6. 3NT is out of this world.
7. How West could not double 3NT defies belief.

They all bid too much with too few values.

Roland

I actually disagree with Roland on many of these:

1. I like 2♦. Jumping to the three-level with a flat (4333) shape and potential defensive values in the majors, including a weak trump holding behind a notrump bidder is a good way to go for a number at vulnerable. A 4333 nine-count is also not worth a limit raise in my book (in response to The_Hog's suggestion of a limit raise).

2. Whether East's double shows extras or just diamond shortness with desire to compete is a matter of partnership agreement. Certainly if east passes here I would expect the final contract to be 2♦ making by south, whereas east's double should get his side to 3♣ (also making) for a substantial swing in E-W favor.

3. I agree that 3♣ is a better call than 2NT.

4. 3♦ with the short clubs is not unreasonable. I do not think it shows extras -- south had the opportunity to either redouble 2♦ or bid a major suit as a game try, and instead passed.

5. The double followed by 3♣ bid probably should show extras. Even if the initial double was just "shortness in diamonds and desire to compete," double followed by pulling partner's response has to show a good hand (never mind that partner's response should've been 3♣, he did bid 2NT). In this case west is entitled to think that with his maximum 1NT call there is a game on. His bid should be 3♥ (showing a heart control, concern about spades) but maybe he thinks they play a "help suit" style here (not standard, but not ridiculous) or he's trying to psych a spade control for some reason. In any case passing 3♦ for west seems illogical, and double with only one diamond card and so many (unshown) clubs is also a position.

6. I also have nothing nice to say about north's 3NT call. Partner is not trying for game. North does not have a club stopper. E-W are the ones about to bid notrump. Just because north has a penalty double of 3NT doesn't mean he should bid it himself.

7. Perhaps west is not doubling out of fear that opponents will run from the doomed 3NT to 4♦. While this turns out not to make on the actual cards, doubling it is somewhat less obvious.

[Walddk]

awm, on Aug 18 2006, 02:35 AM, said:

2. Whether East's double shows extras or just diamond shortness with desire to compete is a matter of partnership agreement. Certainly if east passes here I would expect the final contract to be 2♦ making by south, whereas east's double should get his side to 3♣ (also making) for a substantial swing in E-W favor.

4. 3♦ with the short clubs is not unreasonable. I do not think it shows extras -- south had the opportunity to either redouble 2♦ or bid a major suit as a game try, and instead passed.

7. Perhaps west is not doubling out of fear that opponents will run from the doomed 3NT to 4♦. While this turns out not to make on the actual cards, doubling it is somewhat less obvious.

Adam makes a few valid points, but we are far away from each other regarding 2., 4. and 7.

2. It makes no sense to double if it doesn't show extras. East is facing a limited partner (max. 10 hcp) with no major suit. I also disagree that the auction will stop in 2♦ if East passes. West will surely compete with 3♣.

4. It's unreasonable to bid 3♦ with a hand that was absolutely minimum for the initial overcall, and with no 6th diamond. It must be partner's job to compete. There is no reason to tell the same story twice.

7. If you don't double 3NT with West's cards, you have lost confidence in your side's ability to defend. And you shouldn't fear a pull to 4♦ either. Partner has shown length in all side suits. I would be happy to double 4♦ too and lead a trump.

Roland

[HeartA]

Walddk, on Aug 18 2006, 12:03 AM, said:

2. It makes no sense to double if it doesn't show extras. East is facing a limited partner (max. 10 hcp) with no major suit. I also disagree that the auction will stop in 2♦ if East passes. West will surely compete with 3♣.

4. It's unreasonable to bid 3♦ with a hand that was absolutely minimum for the initial overcall, and with no 6th diamond. It must be partner's job to compete. There is no reason to tell the same story twice.

7. If you don't double 3NT with West's cards, you have lost confidence in your side's ability to defend. And you shouldn't fear a pull to 4♦ either. Partner has shown length in all side suits. I would be happy to double 4♦ too and lead a trump.

Roland

I agree with Roland on these points completely

[awm]

I think Roland and I just come from different schools of competitive bidding. He seems much more eager to bid to the 3-level on a 4333 hand than I would be, both raising to 3♦ on the north cards (slow values, 4333, and weak trumps behind the NT bidder) and competing to 3♣ on the west cards without prompting from partner (partner could have four or even three clubs and is probably balanced, opponents have not indicated more than an 8-card fit). I wouldn't make either of these three-level calls.

On the other hand, I believe that it's sometimes the responsibility of the hand with shortness to take a push in a competitive auction. If the opponents have nine trumps and their suit is 3-1 in my hand and partner's, then it's fairly often right to bid three over three even if we have only eight trumps. This is an easy application of LOTT and more complicated methods also support it unless the three card holding is unusually strong. But if the singleton hand passes, how does partner know the enemy trumps are 3-1 and not 3-2?

[cherdano]

awm, on Aug 18 2006, 06:29 PM, said:

I think Roland and I just come from different schools of competitive bidding. He seems much more eager to bid to the 3-level on a 4333 hand than I would be, both raising to 3♦ on the north cards (slow values, 4333, and weak trumps behind the NT bidder) and competing to 3♣ on the west cards without prompting from partner (partner could have four or even three clubs and is probably balanced, opponents have not indicated more than an 8-card fit). I wouldn't make either of these three-level calls.

On the other hand, I believe that it's sometimes the responsibility of the hand with shortness to take a push in a competitive auction. If the opponents have nine trumps and their suit is 3-1 in my hand and partner's, then it's fairly often right to bid three over three even if we have only eight trumps. This is an easy application of LOTT and more complicated methods also support it unless the three card holding is unusually strong. But if the singleton hand passes, how does partner know the enemy trumps are 3-1 and not 3-2?

I might agree with you on the competitive 3♦ bid non-vulnerable at IMPs or MP, but you have picked the worst occasion for your argument: vulnerable at total points, I think 3♦ is criminal. The chance of both contracts making isn't that high, and the chance of going for -1100 exists (especially as LHO should have a strong trump holding if his bidding were making sense).

I agree with almost all your other points, here and above.

Arend