[hrothgar]

 32519, on 2014-March-04, 15:42, said:

---

This is another example where you might want to focus on your declarer play rather than your bidding.

[Cyberyeti]

So you went down in a lucky but makable 3N when 5♦ is no bargain but can make and you have a combined 27 count so are going to be in game anyway. No big deal, what happened on the first couple of tricks ?

[waldorf1]

 32519, on 2014-March-03, 12:03, said:

Was dealt this gem today:

---

Basic system is 2/1
What the heck was I supposed to answer on this? Nothing fits in perfectly playing 2/1 where -
1. 1NT shows 6-10 HCP, no 4-card major (I had 11 HCP)
2. 2♣ shows 12+ HCP and is 100% GF (I had 11 HCP)
3. 2♦ shows 6-9 HCP and 5+ ♦ (sometimes only 4 if that is the best bid available)
4. 2NT shows 10-12 HCP, no 4-card major or 5-card ♦ suit but otherwise balanced/semi-balanced, invitational
5. 3♦ shows 10-12 HCP, 5+ ♦, no 4-card major, game invitational

The hand is heavily skewed towards the minors.

[SelfGovern]

 ahydra, on 2014-March-04, 06:33, said:

I would have thought that in 2/1, 1NT is the response here. I've never played it, but from what I've heard, 1NT covers all non-GF hands where you don't have a 1-level bid, and is forcing one round (or at least semi-forcing).

To be honest, just upgrade to 2C. With that nice suit and diamond fit you should be OK.

ahydra

What you say about the 1NT response is true for 1NT in response to a major:
it's forcing, and can contain invitational-strength hands (such as 3-card support and 11 points, or a hand with another suit but not-quite-strong-enough to make a game-forcing 2/1 bid in that suit.

1NT over the minors (at least in 2/1 systems I'm familiar with) is not forcing, and denies a 4-card major, and is less-than-invitational strength.

[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2014-March-04, 15:55, said:

This is another example where you might want to focus on your declarer play rather than your bidding.

OK, so I played the hand like an ass. With the benefit of double dummy -
1. Tell me how I should have played it
2. Tell me how it can be beaten

[helene_t]

 hrothgar, on 2014-March-04, 15:55, said:

This is another example where you might want to focus on your declarer play rather than your bidding.

hmmm ... I don't think I would have made it. Setting up a club trick seems more likely than both heart honours onside.

[Trinidad]

 32519, on 2014-March-05, 02:50, said:

OK, so I played the hand like an ass. With the benefit of double dummy -
1. Tell me how I should have played it
2. Tell me how it can be beaten

I think Hrothgar is somewhat unfair. I can see ways where you would legitimately go down in 3NT (e.g. heart lead for the jack; club return, finessing and losing; diamond exit; trying to set up a long club ... down 1).

But he is very right that you shouldn't be ashamed of reaching 3NT. After all, seeing only the NS cards as well as double dummy, it is the right contract. It's somewhat unusual to wonder where you bid wrong when you got to the contract that you want to be in.

Edit: Helene beat me

Rik

[rhm]

 32519, on 2014-March-05, 02:50, said:

OK, so I played the hand like an ass. With the benefit of double dummy -
1. Tell me how I should have played it
2. Tell me how it can be beaten

I agree.
It is the type of deal, which you can make, but where you often go down single dummy.
I might have gone down.
But exchange the East-West hands and most players would make the hand without breathing hard.
Now show me the bidding system, which can find out in the bidding, which layout of the East-West cards actually exists.
I do not have sleepless nights over this.
I have much worse nightmares at this game to worry about.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

 32519, on 2014-March-05, 02:50, said:

1. Tell me how I should have played it

What did they lead?

[Cyberyeti]

 32519, on 2014-March-05, 02:50, said:

OK, so I played the hand like an ass. With the benefit of double dummy -
1. Tell me how I should have played it
2. Tell me how it can be beaten

Depends what was led.

If high heart, absolutely you should make it by playing the leader for the other one.

If 7♥ you have a tough decision at trick 1, if you get it wrong, you probably take the club finesse and go down, but Q♥ at trick 1 isn't the worst gamble in the world.

If a spade you probably take the club finesse and go down.

[rhm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-05, 03:33, said:

Depends what was led.

If high heart, absolutely you should make it by playing the leader for the other one.

If 7♥ you have a tough decision at trick 1, if you get it wrong, you probably take the club finesse and go down, but Q♥ at trick 1 isn't the worst gamble in the world.

If a spade you probably take the club finesse and go down.

As usual the lead has an impact.
But in all cases it costs nothing to cash your diamond first and see two discards from East, which are not easy single dummy.
If he squirms an endplay looms

Rainer Herrmann

[claveat]

This hand is the perfect reason while many play (or should play) that 2/1 is not in effect when the auction starts 1D P 2C. An old fashioned 2C response works just fine. 2/1 is basically a crutch for bidders with no sense of judgment or hand evaluation.

Claveat Onk

[steve2005]

anyone for an inverted minor raise 2♦? doing on 4 is ok. Maybe you will arrange to play from the side with the stopper not that it really matters in this case think im taking ♣ hook.

you also didn't define 3♣ - INV 6 ♣

if your gonna play 2/1 might as well go whole hog

3N isn't that horrible (at worst 50%). you gonna stop bidding 27 pt games that have good suits?

[Trump Echo]

I would respond 2 Clubs.

[rhm]

 claveat, on 2014-March-05, 16:34, said:

This hand is the perfect reason while many play (or should play) that 2/1 is not in effect when the auction starts 1D P 2C. An old fashioned 2C response works just fine. 2/1 is basically a crutch for bidders with no sense of judgment or hand evaluation.

Claveat Onk

You may believe that your methods are best. That is what most Bridge players believe.
This is no good reason to degrade people, who have different views. By the way some of them are world class.
A hand can illustrate a point, but playing a bid as game forcing or not has almost always advantages and disadvantages. It is a trade-off.
Most people raise diamonds with four.
An inverted raise (what also many people play) followed by 3♣ describes this hand quite well, whether you play a 2♣ response as game forcing or not.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

 claveat, on 2014-March-05, 16:34, said:

An old fashioned 2C response works just fine. 2/1 is basically a crutch for bidders with no sense of judgment or hand evaluation.

You are absolutely right. Players like Zia Mahmood and Chip Martel are complete duffers with no judgement or evaluation skills whatsoever. You should write to them some time and teach them how to play the game - I am sure they will be eternally grateful. Perhaps they could even reach a decent level under your expert guidance.

[MrAce]

 claveat, on 2014-March-05, 16:34, said:

This hand is the perfect reason while many play (or should play) that 2/1 is not in effect when the auction starts 1D P 2C. An old fashioned 2C response works just fine. 2/1 is basically a crutch for bidders with no sense of judgment or hand evaluation.

Claveat Onk

Welcome to forums but i disagree with most of what you said.

[mycroft]

I would agree that, well, with almost everyone at world championship level moving to either a 2/1 structure or something equivalent (usually making 1♣ and/or 1♦ the crutch), that if it's a crutch, it's a really really good one.

Having said that, the argument in favour of 1♦-2♣ being almost but not completely GF is strong.

Having said that, it doesn't matter what your agreement is about this auction, without other crutches, it sucks massively. Anytime there are full-out conventions to handle one starting sequence, it's clearly a problem. I don't play any of those things ATM, because there are bigger holes in our system; but I know that when it comes up, we're in guess-and-hope time.