[jillybean]

Here, I let the pressure of playing at this level get to me.
Bidding hearts rather than spades improves the chance of partner playing the hand and after West bids at the 3 level I am too nervous to bid spades at the 3 level.

---

1♦ 2♣ X P
2♠ 3♣ 4♠

I can make 4♠, North can't.

[paulg]

I don't think this hand is as easy as it looks, but South should probably bid 3♠ after 3♦: after all, why has North doubled if they don't have a four-card major?

Not getting to 4♠ is certainly not a crime non-vulnerable at matchpoints.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2026-May-14, 06:44, said:

I don't think this hand is as easy as it looks, but South should probably bid 3♠ after 3♦: after all, why has North doubled if they don't have a four-card major?

Not getting to 4♠ is certainly not a crime non-vulnerable at matchpoints.

This is teams. It not the worst mistake I've made but I can do better by starting with spades, now we have a double fit.

The OT got to an unmakeable 3nt so I didn't have too much egg on my face.

edit: I considered 3♣ but my wasted K♣ convinced me not to.
After further thought, starting 2♥ and bidding 3♠/3♦ is the same level as 3♥/3♦, so there is no reason not to bid majors up the line?

[mike777]

Don't understand double by North, I would support diamonds immediately

I may or may not back into 4S, or end up in diamond Partial, tough one

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2026-May-14, 10:43, said:

Don't understand double by North, I would support diamonds immediately

We have 4 spades, no hurry

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2026-May-14, 10:47, said:

We have 4 spades, no hurry

Clearly there was..

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2026-May-14, 10:48, said:

Clearly there was..

Only thanks to my nervousness. Are you bidding a nf 3♦?

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2026-May-14, 10:49, said:

Only thanks to my nervousness. Are you bidding a nf 3♦?

3C over 2C
Then who knows how the rest proceeds
South rebids 3H, then who knows,
Not an easy one, certainly not placing blame.

[pescetom]

I don't like double by North either.
I would cue clubs to show diamonds support and then over 3H of South doubled by West bid 3S.
South will probably raise to game (and if East finds a diamonds lead after that auction I'll have a quiet word with Director later on).

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2026-May-14, 10:51, said:

3C over 2C
Then who knows how the rest proceeds
South rebids 3H, then who knows,
Not an easy one, certainly not placing blame.

ok 3♣ I can live with but still don't like hiding the spade suit.

Oh, another vote for 3♣, its ok, I have broad shoulders.

[DavidKok]

I prefer 3♣ by North the previous round. I think North has severely undervalued the hand by bidding a NF 3♦.

[jillybean]

---

[DavidKok]

3♠, natural and forcing to game.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2026-May-14, 11:51, said:

3♠, natural and forcing to game.

Based on a 9-10 card ♦ fit, ♠K and ♣QJ?

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2026-May-14, 11:55, said:

Based on a 9-10 card ♦ fit, ♠K and ♣QJ?

Yes. The hands that open 1♦ on three cards, if any, also contain 4 spades and have a double fit. If not we have a 10-card diamond fit and likely ruffing values. It's also a 12-count. If you want we can also throw the losing trick count at it. There are lots of minimum openings opposite which we make game, turning partner's potential lonely ♦A into six tricks. All of 3NT, 4♠ and 5♦ are possible.

Like I said, I disagree with how North evaluated the hand.

[apollo1201]

I disagree with several comments before.

N s X is fine. The 3D bid, however, looks insufficient at teams although we can say QJ C are wasted (who expects K opposite) and tje eg H does not improve the minimum 12 HCP. But not exploring a S conttact by cueing first is a bit masterminding. 10 tricks are easier than 11, so I was told.

Next in the sequence, S should probably correct to 3S but 3D is an easier contract😅! Why correct? Partner Xed so if they are not 44 majors; they have a landing place in case we have the wrong one (such as D fit, NT, sometimes a 5th S). That is why with 44 M opposite the X, we should always bid 2H to leave more room for corrections. In all cases here when partner does not compete in H it means they have S.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2026-May-14, 07:00, said:

This is teams. It not the worst mistake I've made but I can do better by starting with spades, now we have a double fit.

The OT got to an unmakeable 3nt so I didn't have too much egg on my face.

edit: I considered 3♣ but my wasted K♣ convinced me not to.
After further thought, starting 2♥ and bidding 3♠/3♦ is the same level as 3♥/3♦, so there is no reason not to bid majors up the line?

Starting with spade is certainly better, if you get another chance, you will discover the 44.
Not sure, I would have done this.
The problem is, that after a 3D bid you are not sure, that you want to go further.

Anyway I think the auction was fine, it did not work out, West got you, by rebidding his
wonderful 7 carder 2 times being red, taking away the 3C cue.
And yes North was taking the low road, but 11 tricks game, are hard, a club stopper in light
of the bidding was not likely, he sees QJ tight, which basically rules out 3NT.

[Cyberyeti]

apollo1201, on 2026-May-14, 12:06, said:

I disagree with several comments before.

N s X is fine. The 3D bid, however, looks insufficient at teams although we can say QJ C are wasted (who expects K opposite) and tje eg H does not improve the minimum 12 HCP. But not exploring a S conttact by cueing first is a bit masterminding. 10 tricks are easier than 11, so I was told.

Next in the sequence, S should probably correct to 3S but 3D is an easier contract😅! Why correct? Partner Xed so if they are not 44 majors; they have a landing place in case we have the wrong one (such as D fit, NT, sometimes a 5th S). That is why with 44 M opposite the X, we should always bid 2H to leave more room for corrections. In all cases here when partner does not compete in H it means they have S.

X is horrible, consider what happens if next hand jump raises clubs to 4 or 5 and partner does not have 4 cards in either/both majors, and doesn't know you have a diamond fit. You may be snookered into bidding a hopeless 5♦, or partner will be dissuaded from bidding a good one.

[mw64ahw]

An alternative auction playing The OS - I do like the 2-suited bids
1♦ - (2♦) 5♣4♥ - X (raising ♦ would be weak) - (3♥)
3♠ - (4♣) x4x6 - 4♠
May decide to compete further even at this vulnerability

[apollo1201]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-May-15, 01:31, said:

X is horrible, consider what happens if next hand jump raises clubs to 4 or 5 and partner does not have 4 cards in either/both majors, and doesn't know you have a diamond fit. You may be snookered into bidding a hopeless 5♦, or partner will be dissuaded from bidding a good one.

If we can find a 44 M after a cue then the bid is perfect. I doubt it is mainstream, though (a bit like inv minors with 4 cM).

I am not worried by a no majors hand opposite, as makes it less likely they bid a high number of C, partner will tend to have more C in that case. And I am definitely not frightened to support partner with KQJ to 6. The 3C cue does not solve everything since it promises no more than 4, I guess, while I have 6…