[hrothgar]

---

Please comment on the following bottom

[Fluffy]

I dislike 2♣ and 3NT. 1NT by south looks better. 3NT is close since the club raise tends to cover the bad clubs. Maybe 3NT is right after all.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

hrothgar, on 2013-February-10, 15:18, said:

---

Please comment on the following bottom

I rather use 1NT rebid also..... so much easier with a NMF system available .

But 2C is more descriptive, and now Responder has 2-ways to bid 3C :

1) Use 2D! as artificial-cheapest-bid-new suit- forcing ... then bid 3C= GF .

2) direct-3C = non-forcing, invitational .

[JLOGIC]

The auction was fine until the final 3N bid which is simply an overbid with 13 and 6 bad clubs.

Rebidding 2N or 3C is a whatever MP decision, I'd bid 3C myself but 2N would be fine. On this hand 3C is probably the best spot (?) but it's easy to imagine playing 2N doing better if they misdefend and don't get hearts going, or if there is a lucky heart layout.

This post has been edited by JLOGIC: 2013-February-10, 16:45

[JLOGIC]

I guess what I am trying to say is that norths 2nd bid is debatable and he has 2 good options, and the closeness of whether 2N or 3C will score better (120 vs 110? 150 vs 130? or 120 vs 130 or -50 vs 110, it is close) is a reflection of how close the north hand is and how thin the line is at MP.

What is not close is south bidding again over an invite, it is just a bad evaluation and that is why NS got too high. 13 is somewhere in the middle of expected high cards, ok, but the trick source is severely lacking, and south has only 6 clubs when he might have 7. A 10 or 11 count is typical for partner so with 23-24 HCP and a horrible trick source, it is not surprising to just be overboard, there is no way imo that south can think game will make >50 % of the time opposite an invite here. This type of spot should not be about HCP it should be about tricks, especially when you're in the middle of your HCP range.

[hrothgar]

Thanks for all the replies...

(FWIW, I was south, and it looks like my final 3N was the big no-no)

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on 2013-February-10, 19:42, said:

Thanks for all the replies...

(FWIW, I was south, and it looks like my final 3N was the big no-no)

You don't get 100% blame, IMHO. 3C apparently is O.K. at MP for most, but I don't believe North has invitational values; and I don't think he has reason to fear the opponents coming into the auction, either.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-February-10, 20:06

[nige1]

hrothgar asks us to comment

IMO..
1♣: OK
1♥: OK
2♣: IMO 1N = 10, 2♣ = 8.
3♣: IMO Pass = 10, 2N = 8, 3♣ = 6.
3N: OK (i.e. 3N = 10, Pass = 7).
Anyway, 3N is a reasonable contract

---

[rhm]

North has a close decision between 3♣ and 2NT at his second turn. Passing 2♣ is too conservative.
South should pass 3♣ or sign-off in 3♣ over 2NT.
Passing 2NT would be too much of a gamble even at matchpoints.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

3N is far from a stupid contract at IMPS in that they're likely to lead a spade and may well find themselves unable to cash more than 3 hearts, but at MPs it's less than 50% so you don't want to be in it.

Both hands could have been better in the way they fit with the other. N could easily have held Kx/J10x in the minors which would make this a lot better, S could have held K, Jx, Axxx, AJ9xxx or same majors and Axx, Axxxxxx where game is excellent. Both hands made reasonable decisions taking a slightly rosier but plausible view of partner's hand.

Very little blame.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the auction is ok.

You have dublication in diamonds, which you know, when you see it.

I assume IMPs, I dont have an opinion regarding MP, except maybe, that
playing MP, thin games should be avoided.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[aguahombre]

When the OP mentions getting a bottom on the board, for some reason I assume MP.