[mr1303]

---

Partner was North.

2D was 8 playing tricks in a single suited hand or 16-22 3 suited. 2S was the better major, 2NT showed the 3 suited hand, 3C asked for the shortage, 3S showed spades, 4H was to play.

This hand lost us the Penzance Swiss Teams.

I'm putting the blame entirely on partner for this one (which he accepts), but which call was the worst?

[Cyberyeti]

 mr1303, on 2012-October-22, 07:15, said:

---

Partner was North.

2D was 8 playing tricks in a single suited hand or 16-22 3 suited. 2S was the better major, 2NT showed the 3 suited hand, 3C asked for the shortage, 3S showed spades, 4H was to play.

This hand lost us the Penzance Swiss Teams.

I'm putting the blame entirely on partner for this one (which he accepts), but which call was the worst?

Define 3 suited, which of the following are included ?

5440 presumably
4441 presumably
5431 ?

I much prefer 553 to be treated as two suited initially, and a really prime 22 (AK/AKQ/KQ) with a void is IMO too good if singleton is allowed.

Given that, I would move over 4♥, I appear to have an excellent small slam opposite the right 2 count (xxxxx, Qxxx, xx, xx) and a not stupid grand opposite the right 4 count (xxxxx, 109xx, xx, Ax).

Bidding simply and (old school) naturally initially 2♣-2♦(neg)-2♥-3♥-4N(exclusion spades, 4♠ would be kickback)-5♦(1)-5♠(Q?)-6♦(yes and a diamond control which must be a shortage as with a 9 count wouldn't bid 2♦)-7♥ is easy.

Blame all on partner is too harsh, the system that doesn't tell you whether partner has x, AKJx, AKJx, xxxx or what he actually has by the time you bid 4♥ is not good. Maybe allowing him to bid something beyond 3♠ with a huge hand like this would help.

[iviehoff]

 mr1303, on 2012-October-22, 07:15, said:

I'm putting the blame entirely on partner for this one (which he accepts), but which call was the worst?

I think the worst call was agreeing to play 2D as showing 8 playing tricks in a single suited hand or 16-22 3 suited, especially the 3-suited bit.

Essentially it amounts to opening 2N with a 16-22 3-suited, in the sense that very little information has been transacted until opener responds 2N. Now people who use 2N as a flat hand usually restrict it to a 3-point range, sometimes even just 2 points. The problem starting to exchange info at the 2N level is that there isn't much space, and you still have quite a lot of info to transact. That's why people use narrow ranges for the 2N call after 2D.

So what happened? South, who still might have a 0-count, gets no opportunity below the 4-level to show preference to your suit, which might be just a 16-count and with a singleton rather than a void. As it happens, he's got a 7 count with a useful Ace and 4 card support, and a really nice fit. But is he really strong enough to do anything other than bid your suit, when you might be a 4441 16 count (or given that you considered 5530 as 3-suiter, maybe you use this with 5431 too)? I find no fault in South's call, he was forced into it by a system.

North, with his 2 loser hand, apparently didn't find it worth encouraging above the 4-level, when for all he knows your parther, for systemic reasons, could have only 3-card support and probably about 0-12. I think, with a 2 loser hand, I might just have made one more try, because likely partner isn't a 0-count, there are 18 points out after all.

If I had a normal Acol 2C bid available on this hand, I think I'd have bid it. Though bidding over 2C often doesn't go very well either, it is OK on this occasion.

[EricK]

If you can include a 2 loser hand in the 16-22 3-suited group, then partner will never be able to evaluate his hand. If 2♣ is also a strong opening, then I think north should have opened that.

[ggwhiz]

 iviehoff, on 2012-October-22, 08:24, said:

I think the worst call was agreeing to play 2D as showing 8 playing tricks in a single suited hand or 16-22 3 suited, especially the 3-suited bit.

A system where you only set trumps by bidding game is fatally flawed when South could have a mis-fitting poor hand or this OR quite a bit better. Both players have too wide a range and have said exactly nothing about it except what the trump suit is all the way to a game bid.

At least play a transfer into the trump suit after finding the shortness with some way for North to super accept or so South has a chance to show a pulse. If you can't work that into the system, scrap it.

I make the blame more like 75% North who should have moved and 125% the methods.

[rmnka447]

Neither player is free from blame.

It ought to be clear to South that a fit should exist when holding 9 cards in the majors and partner has announced a 3 suiter. In addition, the holdings in the minors are useful opposite any major suit fit. Not knowing the exact response scheme, I can only suggest that a forward going bid showing the 4 ♥ be made after the 3 suited is announced.

I certainly agree with the earlier comment that a 5-5-3 hand is a two suiter not a three suiter. But even more importantly North has a 2 loser hand.
I think one more try should be made over 4 ♥ towards slam. South needs only one useful card ( ♥ Q, ♦ J, ♣ AJ, or even just 4 ♥) for 5♥ to have a pretty good play. I would proceed with 4 ♠ confirming a ♠ void or stiff A. South can show the ♣ A and you're off to at least 6 ♥.

But if this hand is opened a strong 2 ♣, it's child's play to get to slam. 2 ♣ - 2 ♦(waiting) - 2 ♥ - 3 ♥(strong raise Hxx or xxxx minimum support) followed by cue bidding.

[Fluffy]

yeah partner is too heavy, but remove ♦AKQ and you still miss slam.

south's hand is a powerhouse over a strong 3 suiter with short spades. Both players underbid

[ArtK78]

Don't you have some other action for responder other than to bid his best major (or best suit)? It seems that the South hand should be able to make an inquiry as to opener's hand type at a much lower level. It will become clear to South right away that he has a huge hand opposite a maximum 3 suiter short in spades.

So, while others blame the fact that you used the 2♦ bid in this manner, I blame the response structure.

[mikeh]

It is impossible to adequately answer the OP without knowing more about the method.

I can't understand how one can call the N hand a 3-suiter.

As far as I can see, the methods do not allow opener, at any time below 4♥, to differentiate between x Axxx KQJx KQJx and his actual hand. That is simply absurd.

If 5530 is permitted, is 0=3=5=5 or 1=3=(45) permitted?

Has responder shown better than xxxx xxx xxx xxx? How was he supposed to bid with xxxx xxx xxx xxx? When was he supposed to pass? Could he be playing a 3=3 fit???

If N's opening was permissible, then both partners deserve the result equally. Personally, if I agreed to play that 2♦ could be a 16-22 3 suiter, I'd see the hand as, firstly, a 2-suiter and, secondly, as too strong....no way could I expect S to ever cater to this holding when my lower end is sooo much weaker and I can't ever begin to describe the difference below the 5 level!

So I blame N.

But I also blame S because playing a silly method requires partnership agreement. And the method strikes me as silly even if N violated it.....how would the result be otherwise if N held 0=4=5=4?

[PhilKing]

When does the divorce from North come through?

North's bid of 3♠ was brilliant, but all his other actions were insane, so it's hard to pick a winner.

South's 4♥ was a bit delicate, but how can he tell whether North has a 1444 16 or a 0544 22? But I don't blame the method - I presume North is capable of butchering any auction on this evidence.

[bigbenvic]

North, his hand isn't in the 16-22 HCP range, it is way to good! a 22HCP 5-5 is just way too much for south to ever understand.

South has a great hand given the auction, but north could have a stiff spade, no A (or K) of Hearts and slam isn't making.

[the_clown]

I blame the system, 16-23 is a huge range. After a standard 2♣ opening, not to mention after a strong club you would bid grand easily.

[Fluffy]

 the_clown, on 2012-October-23, 02:46, said:

I blame the system, 16-23 is a huge range. After a standard 2♣ opening, not to mention after a strong club you would bid grand easily.

I find natural 1♥ even easier

[Cyberyeti]

 Fluffy, on 2012-October-23, 04:59, said:

I find natural 1♥ even easier

I'm all for bidding 1♥ on big hands but ...

Partner's hand was actually xxxx, void, Jxxx, J987x hope you enjoyed playing in 1♥ when you could have been in 6 of either minor.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I can't find anything nice to say about this 2D opening convention with a strong hand.

[Zelandakh]

I have played a 2♦ opening in a similar style to this and I dislike it with a vengeance on this North hand. That is the worst call of the auction. However, the follow-up structure does not help at all. After 3♣, try
3♦ = short hearts
3♥ = short spades
3♠ = short clubs, min
3NT = short diamonds, min
4♣ = short diamonds, max
4♦ and up = short clubs and max + zoom

You need to be able to split the range up before reaching your end contract. You also need to agree what can be included in the gadget and not be tempted to use it when there are better options available. If the North hand is indeed a 2♦ opening then South has to be able to get a further ask in, presumably 4♣. The suggested structure is just simpler here - Responder can relay 3♠ and Opener shows the extras and spade void. Now a couple more relays and you are there.

So both partners have some potential blame and so does the system. North gets a bigger share if you are keeping score.

[Fluffy]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-23, 07:02, said:

I'm all for bidding 1♥ on big hands but ...

Partner's hand was actually xxxx, void, Jxxx, J987x hope you enjoyed playing in 1♥ when you could have been in 6 of either minor.

you can find better examples than one where opponents have obvious spade overcalls.

[Cyberyeti]

 Fluffy, on 2012-October-23, 10:02, said:

you can find better examples than one where opponents have obvious spade overcalls.

You may overcall 1♠ with:

AKQx, xxxx, xx, xxx over the 1♥ opposite Jxxxx, Qxxx, xx, Ax, I don't think I do from either hand.

[gszes]

If there is any blame I place it on N* and the rest on misuse of system and the
system failing to produce when it would have worked even when used improperly.

S needs to consider the possibility that there can be 3 losers off the top when p
has a singleton spade and cannot move beyond 4h with any degree of safety.
N has to take into consideration that S may have a balanced hand and even some
wasted spade values (not enough to bid 3n) making pass not totally unreasonable.
*I admit looking at a spade void and near the very top of my range a 4s bid would
have helped your side reach at least a small slam (small risk of down one vs possibly
getting to a grand and huge reward).

The range is just too large to be easily workable and there appears to be no safety net
when opener is near minimum (for ex: why would responder ever bypass a possible 44
heart fit just to show a nebulous "better" major which could be 3 vs 0/2 or 2 vs 1/0?).