BBO Discussion Forums: Reese and Schapiro 3 - BBO Discussion Forums

Board 11 of the same match. North-South successfully talked their opponents out of a cold game here. South elected not to pre-empt, as he knew North had five hearts, and if North had spades too, it could easily be their hand. North, having shown 5+hearts, and aware his partner only had two, saw little point to opening 1H (which should show six, as he had already shown 5+). East doubled, and South, knowing North was something like 3-5-3-2 with the doubleton not in hearts, raised semi-psychically to 2NT (natural in those days) prepared to run to diamonds if he was doubled. East bid 3S and West might have raised, but chose not to. In the other room, Konstam overcalled 4S over the more natural 1H by Bishop, and South doubled, conceding -590. "Nice 1NT bid, and nice 2NT raise" commented Mathe, East. Reese and Schapiro smiled.

I find this rather unpersuasive.

Presumably a 2D opening bid by South would not have been weak in 1965, so the choice in first seat was between Pass and 3D. OK, we are not vulnerable, but neither are they, and I am not convinced that the modern trend to pre-empt at the 3 level with a flat KQ-vomit to 6 would have been so popular in those days. Did they open 3D in the other room? Is it possibly so borderline that I might be influenced by prior illicit knowledge that North has 5 Hearts? If anything I am more likely than before to have an elevated expectation that the opponents control Spades. I would be more inclined to pre-empt than before.

For me, opening 1N with the North hand, in range, is automatic.

East's double of 1N may be slightly unimaginative. He surely cannot have expected it to be left, so we assume that double followed by 3S is their system for showing this sort of hand. Perhaps E/W deserve their fate.

The 2N raise is the most bizarre aspect to the hand. Not whether or not South has his bid, but the fact that the announced meaning for the bid should be part of their armory in the first place. You are sufficiently confident of making 1N that you suspect that you might be making 2 overtricks, but only opposite a maximum 1N opener. Under those circumstances you expect 2N to be at some risk opposite a minimum opener. Without the double it is a risk that you might be prepared to bear. But why on earth would you take that risk if you have an alternative of playing doubled in 1N which you expect to make with good prospect for overtricks?

I have not really thought about what would be a better use for 2N, but anything would be better than that. But if you are playing it that way, then given that there is no sensible hand on which you would deploy it, there has to be a better than even chance that it is a psych.

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 17:09, said:

I agree with 1eyedjack. When your RHO doubles 1N, how can 2N be a normal natural bid? South's doubletons in the majors are an incentive to take some action because opponents may have a major contract. Knowing that partner has 5 ♥ makes 2N less attractive because the hands are more of a misfit. This deal is a strong argument against RS signalling in ♥.

nige1, on 2014-April-08, 03:47, said:

You are sounding like Terence in Story of an Accusation. Somebody else might say "knowing that partner has five hearts makes it more likely that the opponents are cold for 4S, therefore pretending to have a natural 2NT is more attractive". I wonder if 2NT really was natural, even in those stone-age days, although North's pass and the absence of any commentary to the contrary suggests it was; perhaps other readers have commentary from the time. And all three hands, with completely different commentary, were in an old EBU magazine. The hands and play are accurate; the alleged exchange of words not.

Was it common in those days to open 1NT with a 5-card major and/or with a small doubleton? I thought both of those were relatively recent developments.

1eyedjack, on 2014-April-07, 23:33, said:

The OP said that North opened "the more natural 1♥" in the other room. South was totally shut out of the bidding when East leaped to 4♠.

barmar, on 2014-April-08, 09:56, said:

What is the point of opening 1H with a 5-card heart suit and a balanced hand? Surely 1H in R-S must show six? It was the poor methods in the other room that were to blame for the bad result.

lamford, on 2014-April-08, 07:21, said:

Reese was one of the best analysts of all time, so that's an unmerited compliment -- but thank you, anyway.

lamford, on 2014-April-08, 07:21, said:

South has a doubletons in both majors. Knowledge that partner has major suit length decreases the chances that opponents can compete profitably.

lamford, on 2014-April-08, 07:21, said:

With opponents silent, 2N would probably be natural --- but when RHO doubles partner's 1N, then obviously not.

nige1, on 2014-April-08, 13:14, said:

Unfortunately, the primitive signalling methods could only identify the number of hearts held. However, knowledge that North has five hearts actually increases the chances that EW can compete in spades. Combined with the INT opener, which should have been alerted as showing 2-5-3-3, 3-5-3-2 or 3-5-3-3, we know that EW have at least an eight-card fit and possibly a nine-card fit in spades.

nige1, on 2014-April-08, 13:14, said:

Why then did North pass it? And why was there no note to say that, for example, it showed one or both minors. I think it should show one of four hand types:
a) single-suited clubs or diamonds
b) both minors
c) a game-forcing two-suiter
d) a single-suited slam try.
That might be the modern treatment but this was the late 1950s.

lamford, on 2014-April-08, 18:04, said:

IMO, after partner's notrump opener is doubled, an immediate raise to 2N can't really be a constructive natural bid; especially when partner's 1N is weak and you are a passed hand; but it might be an undiscussed improvisation.

lamford, on 2014-April-08, 18:00, said:

IMO, when partner opens 1NT and you have doubletons in both majors, opponents might have a contract in either or both majors. If you know partner has length in either major, the danger is reduced by at least 50%. We're just repeating the same arguments ...

Perhaps, we should agree to differ?