[mr1303]

---

Result was +2, which was not a great success.

[Cyberyeti]

None of the actions are individually terrible, both have been a little pessimistic, I would very likely have fallen from grace a different way, I might have tried 3N with the south hand, in that partner could be worried I had simply protected him with a sub minimum or minimum opening bid and not bid game when it's cold, 3N at least shows the club stop and the range. I can't really raise 3♥, no particular reason to suspect partner has more than a 3 count.

[LBengtsson]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-November-28, 03:19, said:

None of the actions are individually terrible, both have been a little pessimistic, I would very likely have fallen from grace a different way, I might have tried 3N with the south hand, in that partner could be worried I had simply protected him with a sub minimum or minimum opening bid and not bid game when it's cold, 3N at least shows the club stop and the range. I can't really raise 3♥, no particular reason to suspect partner has more than a 3 count.

I rarely disagree with Cyberyeti, but give North as little as ♠xxx ♥Qxxxx ♦xxxx ♣x and there is some play for 4♥ although a 3-1/4-0 ♥ break might set the contract. 4441 hands can be difficult to evaluate, but this is a lot stronger than a basic 16HCP in support of the ♥ suit. Admittedly, raising to 4♥ can be wrong, but vulnerable games, as far as I aware, should be bid on a 40%+ chance. I think South should at least consider a raise to 4♥ here. It could be a difficult contract to play and make, but imo I think you have to take a chance here.

[Cyberyeti]

LBengtsson, on 2022-November-28, 06:17, said:

I rarely disagree with Cyberyeti, but give North as little as ♠xxx ♥Qxxxx ♦xxxx ♣x and there is some play for 4♥ although a 3-1/4-0 ♥ break might set the contract. 4441 hands can be difficult to evaluate, but this is a lot stronger than a basic 16HCP in support of the ♥ suit. Admittedly, raising to 4♥ can be wrong, but vulnerable games, as far as I aware, should be bid on a 40%+ chance. I think South should at least consider a raise to 4♥ here. It could be a difficult contract to play and make, but imo I think you have to take a chance here.

What makes you think partner has 5 hearts, if he doesn't, you need a decent hand. Also better odds on partner having diamond cards than heart cards.

[pescetom]

I would say that the only call even close to shocking is 3♥, a clear underbid IMO.

[ali quarg]

A standard bid would be 3NT 16+hcp with a stopper so from this perspective South's X is an under bid as they do not have a longer suit/stronger hand for a rebid.

[AL78]

I think I would have chanced a raise to game on the South cards. Yes it will go wrong if partner has rubbish but if you don't take an action because the worst might happen you will rarely, if ever, gain anything. Give around 8HCP for opener and partner and RHO hold around 16 HCP between them, no reason partner won't hold around half of them and/or hold more than four hearts, and with a likely club shortage opposite and a diamond shortage in my hand, there should be some ruffing opportnities.

[LBengtsson]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-November-28, 06:30, said:

What makes you think partner has 5 hearts, if he doesn't, you need a decent hand. Also better odds on partner having diamond cards than heart cards.

True. But after a opponent's pre-empt you can expect nearer 7HCPs rather than 3 or the actual 10 of the North hand. I agree that your suggestion to bid 3NT in the balancing seat automatically shows a 16+ count with a stopper in the opps. suit so that may be preferable to X. But down you go in that contract if the opps. find the ♦ lead.

Those commentators (voters) that suggest that North is underbidding with 3♥ here instead of 4♥ would have difficulty playing a Moysian fit if the South hand only contains a 3 card ♥ suit. X here I would take as at least 3 cards in both majors, but not guaranteeing 4 card major suits.

Pre-empts are designed to make life difficult, and it is neither North or South's fault that they missed the game. You can be brave here and win but being brave may also be the wrong option imo.

[Cyberyeti]

LBengtsson, on 2022-November-28, 10:32, said:

True. But after a opponent's pre-empt you can expect nearer 7HCPs rather than 3 or the actual 10 of the North hand. I agree that your suggestion to bid 3NT in the balancing seat automatically shows a 16+ count with a stopper in the opps. suit so that may be preferable to X. But down you go in that contract if the opps. find the ♦ lead.

Those commentators (voters) that suggest that North is underbidding with 3♥ here instead of 4♥ would have difficulty playing a Moysian fit if the South hand only contains a 3 card ♥ suit. X here I would take as at least 3 cards in both majors, but not guaranteeing 4 card major suits.

Pre-empts are designed to make life difficult, and it is neither North or South's fault that they missed the game. You can be brave here and win but being brave may also be the wrong option imo.

Agree with quite a lot of this, also do you protect with a double on an 8 count with a stiff club or even xx sometimes ? We do, 4♥ would be a massive overbid. Actually on a good day The preempter has ♠Jx, some 4 card diamond holding and all the clubs meaning 3N rolls and 4♥ could be vaguely tricky.

[pescetom]

LBengtsson, on 2022-November-28, 10:32, said:

Those commentators (voters) that suggest that North is underbidding with 3♥ here instead of 4♥ would have difficulty playing a Moysian fit if the South hand only contains a 3 card ♥ suit. X here I would take as at least 3 cards in both majors, but not guaranteeing 4 card major suits.

It would take a huge hand to convince me to X here without 4 cards in both majors, given the level, vulnerability and score at stake.
But to some extent a question of style, I concede.

[steve2005]

pescetom, on 2022-November-28, 14:03, said:

It would take a huge hand to convince me to X here without 4 cards in both majors, given the level, vulnerability and score at stake.
But to some extent a question of style, I concede.

I agree double rates to not work on many occasions
However, once you have decided to double surely you raise to 4♥
You should have a play opposite a hand lower than the expected 7.
Sure, with a preempt the odds for a 4-1 break could give you problems
but it pays to bid vul game at imps (you didnt say what form of scoring this is.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-November-28, 03:19, said:

None of the actions are individually terrible, both have been a little pessimistic, I would very likely have fallen from grace a different way, I might have tried 3N with the south hand, in that partner could be worried I had simply protected him with a sub minimum or minimum opening bid and not bid game when it's cold, 3N at least shows the club stop and the range. I can't really raise 3♥, no particular reason to suspect partner has more than a 3 count.

It is losing bridge to assume that partner has a three count.

Of course he may have a three count. He might have worse.

But catering to that is terrible bridge.

Give LHO KQJxxxx in clubs (yes, I know he doesn’t actually have that) and add in our 16, and partner will typically hold around 8-10 hcp. He won’t always be jumping to game since you are in balancing seat and could be lighter (not to mention say 4=3=4=2).

Yes, bidding 4H will sometimes lead to a bad result. Passing 3H can and did here lead to a bad result.

Now, the above is based on the assumption, possibly erroneous, that this is imps. Not raising here is extremely bad at imps. At mps, passing is rolling the dice, hoping that partner has that bad three count. I wouldn’t pass…mps isn’t imps but it’s still a form of bridge and scared bridge is generally a loser at all forms of scoring.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2022-November-28, 22:36, said:

It is losing bridge to assume that partner has a three count.

Of course he may have a three count. He might have worse.

But catering to that is terrible bridge.

Give LHO KQJxxxx in clubs (yes, I know he doesn’t actually have that) and add in our 16, and partner will typically hold around 8-10 hcp. He won’t always be jumping to game since you are in balancing seat and could be lighter (not to mention say 4=3=4=2).

Yes, bidding 4H will sometimes lead to a bad result. Passing 3H can and did here lead to a bad result.

Now, the above is based on the assumption, possibly erroneous, that this is imps. Not raising here is extremely bad at imps. At mps, passing is rolling the dice, hoping that partner has that bad three count. I wouldn’t pass…mps isn’t imps but it’s still a form of bridge and scared bridge is generally a loser at all forms of scoring.

Would you have doubled or bid 3N ? What are you doing if you double and partner bids diamonds at any level ?

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2022-November-29, 02:52, said:

Would you have doubled or bid 3N ? What are you doing if you double and partner bids diamonds at any level ?

I was addressing my view of the best action after the 3H advance

As to what I’d bid in balancing seat, I think it very difficult and I’m biased by knowing partner’s hand, so I can’t give an objective answer. It’s any of pass (expecting multiple red undertricks much of the time), 3N (probably eliminating reaching a major) or double (intending to bid 3N over 3D but risking a disaster if he jumps to 4D, which I play as forcing)

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2022-November-29, 09:34, said:

I was addressing my view of the best action after the 3H advance

As to what I’d bid in balancing seat, I think it very difficult and I’m biased by knowing partner’s hand, so I can’t give an objective answer. It’s any of pass (expecting multiple red undertricks much of the time), 3N (probably eliminating reaching a major) or double (intending to bid 3N over 3D but risking a disaster if he jumps to 4D, which I play as forcing)

I understood you were talking about after X/3♥, I just thought it was an interesting problem, and I was inclined to bid 3N. Also over 3♣-P-P-X I presume you bid 3♥ with 4-4 reds, what do you do with 4-5 or 4-6 ?