BBO Discussion Forums: What should NS have done? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What should NS have done?

#1 User is offline   AL78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,024
  • Joined: 2019-October-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE England
  • Interests:Bridge, hiking, cycling, gardening, weight training

Posted 2019-December-07, 16:31

Matchpoints:



2 is multi, 2: I'm willing to play in 3 if that is your suit, otherwise pass.

Clearly NS hadn't discussed how to bid over the multi, but North has a bit of a tricky decision over 2. Bidding 3 doesn't look right, and double looks reasonable, they have to do something as it will get passed out otherwise, but South evidently thought the double was penalty. I managed to escape for one down with NS having 4 on. Is this a simple case of a bad result because of a lack of discussion, or would you have done something different in the North seat in the absence of an agreement?
0

#2 User is offline   TylerE 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,760
  • Joined: 2006-January-30

Posted 2019-December-07, 19:25

Whatever agreements you have, S's pass is just from Neptune.
0

#3 User is offline   apollo1201 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,131
  • Joined: 2014-June-01

Posted 2019-December-08, 01:58

Clearly a bad result because of lack of discussion. Anyway, even I discussed, X is clearly a TOX.

Normal continuation will have S show a slightly positive hand with H and lead to 4H.

N could have tried a heavyish 2NT overcall, which after a Stayman would also lead to 4H.
0

#4 User is offline   FelicityR 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 980
  • Joined: 2012-October-26
  • Gender:Female

Posted 2019-December-08, 04:39

NS should have called the TD in my view. As I said previously, I played the Multi for many years and the East hand hardly qualifies for a 2 opening in first position even at equal non-vulnerability.

That said, what were the East/West agreements about the point range and quality of suit of using a 2 opening in this position? Did North/South consult East/West's convention card?

If East/West's convention card was up-to-date and allowed the opening bidder to bid 2 with such a hand, South is truly at fault here by not making any noise after partner's double. Passing is. as others have said, not an option.
0

#5 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,214
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2019-December-08, 05:09

View PostFelicityR, on 2019-December-08, 04:39, said:

NS should have called the TD in my view. As I said previously, I played the Multi for many years and the East hand hardly qualifies for a 2 opening in first position even at equal non-vulnerability.

That said, what were the East/West agreements about the point range and quality of suit of using a 2 opening in this position? Did North/South consult East/West's convention card?

If East/West's convention card was up-to-date and allowed the opening bidder to bid 2 with such a hand, South is truly at fault here by not making any noise after partner's double. Passing is. as others have said, not an option.


When I played a multi, that would have been a suitable candidate with a spade less, the point of a multi is to be destructive, some play constructive weak 2s as well as the bad ones in the multi rather than strong 2s.

The double should be takeout of spades. Passing it is bad, but not as bad as you might think, swap a small heart from partner with a small diamond from declarer and this is 500 (it should be 300 as is if you keep playing hearts).

I think bidding 3N with the N hand is far from barking, and may well net 10 tricks, but double is probably better and should lead to 4=.
0

#6 User is offline   AL78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,024
  • Joined: 2019-October-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE England
  • Interests:Bridge, hiking, cycling, gardening, weight training

Posted 2019-December-08, 08:25

View PostFelicityR, on 2019-December-08, 04:39, said:

NS should have called the TD in my view. As I said previously, I played the Multi for many years and the East hand hardly qualifies for a 2 opening in first position even at equal non-vulnerability.

That said, what were the East/West agreements about the point range and quality of suit of using a 2 opening in this position? Did North/South consult East/West's convention card?

If East/West's convention card was up-to-date and allowed the opening bidder to bid 2 with such a hand, South is truly at fault here by not making any noise after partner's double. Passing is. as others have said, not an option.


Our agreement is around 5-9 if weak, but some liberties can be taken when non-vulnerable and certainly in 3rd seat. No NS did not consult our convention card, they (North) asked about the 2D and I gave them our full agreement.
0

#7 User is offline   msjennifer 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,366
  • Joined: 2013-August-03
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Variable private
  • Interests:Cricket,Photography,Paediatrics and Community Medicine.

Posted 2019-December-08, 09:58

Sir,the double made before giving an opportunity to E to bid is a strongish TOD .It was absolutely wrong on the part of S to pass.And most certainly the 2D bid in the FIRST SEAT is an objectionable bid.It smells something.
0

#8 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,693
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-December-08, 10:54

East is allowed to misbid. He may even be allowed to psych, at least in some jurisdictions. Even so, there may be a disclosure issue, or an "illegal method" issue. The director needs to investigate, if NS call him and object to the bid.

The OP question is about what NS should have done in the bidding. As others have said, S should not have passed the double.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#9 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2019-December-08, 13:21


AL78 'Matchpoints: Clearly NS hadn't discussed how to bid over the multi, but North has a bit of a tricky decision over 2. Bidding 3 doesn't look right, and double looks reasonable, they have to do something as it will get passed out otherwise, but South evidently thought the double was penalty. I managed to escape for one down with NS having 4 on. Is this a simple case of a bad result because of a lack of discussion, or would you have done something different in the North seat in the absence of an agreement?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MsJennifer and FelicityR criticise East's Multi 2. I confess that I would hazard the opener. Multi is fun to play. There is a small risk of a big penalty but this board illustrates the problems that undisciplined pre-empts create for opponents. if North's double is undiscussed, then South has a hard decision. When in doubt, however, it's safer to treat it as "T/O" or "Cards". Should this be a Lebensohl context? IMO, Yes. But even then, South seems to have a difficult bid. Luckily, here, provided South bids something, North has enough to invite game. Declarer, in 4, can end-play defenders, in the black-suits, for an overtrick.

0

#10 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,907
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-December-08, 14:19

View Postnige1, on 2019-December-08, 13:21, said:

MsJennifer and FelicityR criticise East's Multi 2. I confess that I would hazard the opener.

What do EBU's numerous and precise regulations have to say about the minimum strength of a weak major in Multi?
Could a pair agree a minimum of 0, or say 3, and if so would that change alerting/announcing requirements?
If the agreement was a minimum of 5, would this hand be considered a psyche?
0

#11 User is online   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,214
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2019-December-08, 15:10

View Postpescetom, on 2019-December-08, 14:19, said:

What do EBU's numerous and precise regulations have to say about the minimum strength of a weak major in Multi?
Could a pair agree a minimum of 0, or say 3, and if so would that change alerting/announcing requirements?
If the agreement was a minimum of 5, would this hand be considered a psyche?


We used to play 0-9 minimum length 5, not sure what is currently allowed.
0

#12 User is offline   Tramticket 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,103
  • Joined: 2009-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent (Near London)

Posted 2019-December-08, 15:51

Double by North is ok. We would have a Lebensohl response structure and a direct 3H response would be invitational. North raises to four.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users