BBO Discussion Forums: Matchpoint operation ATB - BBO Discussion Forums

2/1 context matchpoints ATB





3NT - 1, whose to blame?

South mainly. I suppose this will be critized for being posted here.

Why not both/partnership agreement? If for this partnership S is allowed to rebid 2NT with a known major fit then North is at fault for not checking back. And in turn if North is not mandated to check back with a 5c major then South is at fault.

With presumably no agreements about any of this, it's mainly South's fault for shooting.

Hanoi5, on 2012-March-23, 11:41, said:

This is the expert forum: why shouldn't the OP be criticized? Doesn't he understand that no expert would think 2N is appropriate?

I mean, I can just barely accept that there may be hands on which it is appropriate to deliberately misbid in an effort to steal a good mp result, but with this South hand?????

No diamond stopper.

No club stopper.

AKJx in partner's suit.

A ruffing value.

2N is not merely flawed: it is absurd.

I am sure S criticized partner for not checking back, but N has KQ in his partner's 'suit', which is known to be at least 4 cards in length. And he has a soft hand, on which a 5-3 spade fit might easily fail due to trump losers, with 9 tricks in 3N.

Whether anyone here would choose to check back or not is a decision that might be worthy of a discussion at, say, the advanced level....but the pros and cons of this 2N call belong, at their highest, in the I forum.

I suggest to the poster that if he or she really thinks that there is room to debate 2N at an expert level, he or she is not an expert and should consider carefully where to post these sorts of questions in the future.

I blame the player who bid like a non-expert.

The two calls here to discuss I think are 2NT and 3NT. I don't expect either to be majority opinion. Are we really suggesting 2NT is absurd? Partner responded with next to no possible HCP in the majors, would the south hand get the credit, if a small spade became a small club and now 3NT doesn't look all that bad.

Should north be penalized for seeing his hand as being better in 3NT then a potential 5-3 spade fit?

I'm delighted these are laughable things to discuss, simply thought this hand was interesting.

rduran1216, on 2012-March-23, 12:32, said:

I think they are saying that it may be interesting for intermediates, but not for experts, and as such should be posted in the intermediate forum.

I rarely use language like this here, but 2NT rebid by South is selfish, dangerous, and absurd. With 2 half-stoppers in the minors and a major suit fit, playing the hand in NT is ridiculous.

rduran1216, on 2012-March-23, 12:32, said:

Yes, that's what we're saying.

Quote

Are you saying that you want to play in 3NT with 10976 Q82 KQ 10532 opposite AKJ4 AK63 J87 Q6 ?

In 3NT, there are four or five losers on top. If they don't cash five winners but the spades come in, you'll usually make nine tricks for +600; otherwise you'll go one or two down.

In 4♠, there are only three losers on top. If the spades come in, you'll usually make ten tricks for +620; otherwise you'll usually go exactly one down.

rduran1216, on 2012-March-23, 12:32, said:

in the context of a forum intended to address issues that arise in expert bridge? Yes.

Imagine, if you will, a panel of real-life experts....not simply players who are seen at the local duplicate club as the 'experts' but people who are routinely a 1-seed in A flight events at Regionals (to use a fairly generous definition of experts)....and you want to put to them some questions for them to consider...not as part of an educate the masses seminar, but as a serious expetrt-level discussion.

I think the only real discussion that would occur would be whether to bid 4 or 3♠ and I think the overwhelming response would be to bid 3♠.

I suspect that part of the problem here was that S recognized that 4♠ was an overbid, and couldn't bring himself to make the correct call of 3♠ because he held 18 hcp, so had the 'brilliant' idea of showing his hcp rather than his support, and then decided to stick to it. That may be an understandable error on the part of a bad player, but it doesn't make it a subject appropriate for this part of the forum.

mikeh, on 2012-March-23, 12:47, said:

I think you give south too much credit for thinking. My guess is crude and simple handhogging.

If we want to talk about something on this hand, maybe we can consider an opening 1NT by south, although that may still be laughable for experts? At least it seems better than the 2NT rebid and the final pass.

billw55, on 2012-March-23, 12:52, said:

100% agreed. And by the way, 3♠ is my vote for correct call, not 4♠, because in my mind this hand is not strong enough to demand game opposite a perfect minimum response. But it is enough to strongly invite it and responder should then find 4♠. I realize I am "late-intermediate" to "early-advanced," but I'd love to hear how closely my opinions align with those of legitimate experts.

Anyway, the only potential question in my mind that is interesting to discuss is south's first rebid (and whether north should bid game if south invites it).

mikeh, on 2012-March-23, 12:47, said:

UGGH. ONE of these days Mikeh is going to say something that isn't spot-on, but I'm still waiting for that day to come.

mikeh, on 2012-March-23, 12:47, said:

Personally, in otherwise simple systems I use the cheapest splinter to show 18-19 balanced with 4 card support. So here 3H. Then 3S/4S is always shapely. Just makes more sense to me. I feel like I get a lot of mileage out of this gadget.

phil_20686, on 2012-March-23, 13:00, said:

I like it. But then how do you show an actual splinter?

mikeh, on 2012-March-23, 12:08, said:

Also, I thought most experts had given up checkback over a 2N rebid. Don't we all play the 3 level as natural and forcing now? Or transfers. Checkback just makes minor suit slam bidding into such a nightmare.

HighLow21, on 2012-March-23, 13:04, said:

4H? I lose a level when I have to splinter, its a loss, but not a huge one imo. Having a GF splinter is quite rare, and playing 3H as a non-GF splinter makes partners bidding tricky. Think its more important to deal sensibly with the 18-19 bal with 4 card support. I mean a 4 S bid based on good spades and good clubs is v different from an 18-19 NT, and partner is somehow expected to make good slam decisions over it.

There is a very simple principal at work here. If a player takes an action that is "unusual," such as a psyche, any adverse result that follows is solely that player's responsibility.

Here, South decided to misrepresent his hand to partner and opps by concealing his spade support and representing more values in the minors. If a bad result follows, that result is 100% his responsibility.

Whether North should have taken an action other than 3NT is not relevant in my opinion.

phil_20686, on 2012-March-23, 13:08, said:

I like all of your reasoning. I still like 3♠, but only because I seem to have an aversion to trying anything new.

100% south unless there's something systematic that requires him to rebid 2NT with 18-19 inspite of great 4 card support and if that is the case, one wonders why this was posted here so 100% south.