Post by a***@yahoo.co.ukCross IMP pairs, playing 5 card majors, short 1C, 15-17NT.
A743
A4
K754
Q92
QJ85 T96
QT8 52
Q62 AJT983
AT7 54
K2
KJ9763
-
KJ863
N E S W
1C 1D 1H 2D
P P 3C 3D
AP
3D went two off which was a small minus score (-3.2 imps). We have 4H
or 6C on, two pairs found 4H, one was in 3NT off two and one pair was
in 3C+3. I found it difficult to come up with another bid given I have
a weak balanced hand, the intervention, and no great support for
partners heart suit. I guessed that after the 3C bid partner was
something like 5-5 but I felt that getting 3D down would be better
than going off in 4C, and I didn't expect partner to have that much
playing strength. Should I as North done something like double 3D?
I think I'd blame the system here, with secondary blame going to South.
South has an extreme two-suiter (6520!), but the system (as far as I
can make out from these bids) isn't very good at showing it; as far as
I can tell from those bids, they don't distinguish between a) an
extreme two-suiter and a more balanced two-suiter; b) strong Souths
and weak Souths; c) genuine clubs by North against tolerable clubs by
North against artificial clubs by North.
There are several possible fixes. Probably point c) is the easiest to
fix; most 5-card-major systems I know (e.g. Standard American) don't
insist on 5 card minors, so even in a short club system, it'd be usual
to open diamonds if you have a balanced hand with 4 of them. This not
only helps your partner work out whether you have diamonds, it also
helps your partner work out whether you have clubs (as a 1C opening
can only be as short as 2 cards if your shape happens to be exactly
4=4=3=2, as otherwise you could have opened a higher-ranking suit).
The system as you have it at the moment is highly dependent on the 1NT
rebid, and thus is very vulnerable to be pre-empted (as happened
here).
Note that if you had managed (as North) to convey the fact that your
hand was balanced, South could have signed off in 4H (that South hand
is a favourite to make game in hearts against *any* balanced hand that's
strong enough to open).
For point a), it's highly common to use a convention to deal with this
situation over an opponent's opening bid. The situation when your
partner opened is a bit more complex, and depends on the rest of your
system. When using a system with no short opening bids, you basically
have three possibilities:
- your extreme two-suiter is in the two unbid suits (double)
- your extreme two-suiter includes your partner's suit (raise it)
- your extreme two-suiter includes the opponent's suit (less
obvious than the other two cases, and often bid with a penalty pass)
When you do have a system with short opening bids, though, there's a
fourth possibility:
- your extreme two-suiter includes your partner's "suit" but you don't
know if it's genuine
That's what happened here. There are commonly used conventions that
help. For example, "fit-jumps in competition" is fairly common; that
would allow South to respond 2H to show a very powerful heart suit
(five cards plus an honour concentration or extra length), *in addition
to* support for clubs if that happens to be a genuine suit, in addition
to a 1-round force. Then you as North could set hearts as the suit (if
your hand is balanced) or clubs (if you have genuine clubs, and short
hearts as a result).
For point b), I think there's something that South could well have done
here: bid again rather than passing 3C out. North has an opening hand
(after all, North opened). South also has what most bidding systems
would consider a clear opening hand (typically 1H). So South should
probably not allow the opponents to play undoubled below game. Depending
on partnership agreement, double (rather than the final pass) probably
shows either penalty/values or spades, so that's out, but I'd have
expected South to improvise a bid there if there isn't one in the
system: most people would take 4C as showing a 6:5 hand outside
competition, but it's less clear what it means inside competition.
Perhaps 4H would be the correct bid; that's unconditionally game forcing
(in every system ever designed or that ever will be designed), and as
North I'd probably take it as offering a choice of 4H or 5C. There are
agreements in whuch double would be defined as showing a hand like
South's (diamond shortness and more strength than expected), in which
case North would be quite happy to penalty pass, but I wouldn't expect
any particular pair to be playing them.
Note that the shortness in the opponent's suit means that it's highly
likely that at least one side has game on. What was the vulnerability?
If it's anything but green against red, I'd probably prefer to bid on to
the 4 level than try to penalise at the 3 level, as the game our way is
probably making and thus we can buy a more expensive sacrifice out of
the opponents. At green versus red, 3DX only has to go two down to be
worth more than game, so being able to penalise then is more useful.
--
ais523