Great defense, but I think that North overbid his hand. Clearly he’s looking for 3NT (or, in some partnerships, when a 3=4=3=3 hand is opened 1C and rebid 1NT, a diamond game). With a club void, I’d just rebid 3D.
Bob Lipton
A V Ramana RaoMarch 12th, 2020 at 12:02 pm
Hi Dear Mr Wolff
But, do you approve South’s jump to 3 NT over 2 Hearts bid by north ? Perhaps South should have passed for reflection constructing north’s hand and bid 2 NT. Since south opened the bidding as dealer, there is no ambiguity about the points range in his hand leaving North to take a call. Kindly reflect
Regards
jim2March 12th, 2020 at 12:34 pm
In BWTA, I have two questions:
1) What would South need to have different to bid 3H?
and
2) What can North bid over 3D to “explore” a possible 3N contract?
bobbywolffMarch 12th, 2020 at 3:14 pm
Hi Robert,
I’d agree with you on the rebidding of 3 diamonds, instead of 1H, since partner has theoretically denied holding 4 hearts and, of course, the look of North’s hand is not NT.
However since the play (defense) of this hand was the primary teaching goal, the second choice bid by North of 2 hearts is selected.
After all (I hope at least most agree), some editorial privileges need to be retained by the author, in order to even begin to cover all our wonderful game has to offer. Not to mention today’s special quote which could be, at the very least, stretched to comply.
bobbywolffMarch 12th, 2020 at 3:19 pm
Hi AVRR,
A good question, but simply answered by South having good stops in the unbid suits, plus a possible good source of tricks in clubs, and a hand many playing opening 1NT as 15-17 would open to differentiate as a maximum for his not.
bobbywolffbMarch 12th, 2020 at 3:29 pm
Hi Jim2,
1. Usually a 4 card holding, skipped over the previous round or, at the least a double honor, likely AKx or AQx, which might lead to the better final contract of 4 hearts (rather than 3NT) if continued.
2. Simply 3 hearts by North might entertain partner to prefer 3NT, since North’s 3 club bid firmly denied holding 4 hearts (except perhaps in very rare circumstances, such as very good black holdings and only xxxx in hearts) and even then to do so, would, by many, be considered incorrect to even a significant violation.
jim2March 12th, 2020 at 3:54 pm
TY for your answer, but it suggests follow-up Qs:
1) Does not South HAVE that heart holding?
2) With North having bid both black suits, is South waiting to hear if North also has biddable values in hearts before trying for 3N?
Iain ClimieMarch 12th, 2020 at 5:54 pm
HI Bobby,
A hand where the weak NT can work well – 1N 2C 2D and either pass (if feeling cautious), 3D if invitational or punt 3N hoping the diamonds run.
On BWTA though, I take your point. The hand is going backwards at a rate of knots given the increasingly likely misfit. Even at teams a plus score still has merit and I shudder at the memory of one hand many years ago where I held KJ9xxx Qxxxx None Ax and opened 1S (11-15, 5+ spades, pass from LHO, forcing 1N from partner (P) 2H (P) 3D and I really should pass and pray now. LHO had a strong 2S sitting over me and I had to go and try to improve matters with 3H… Minus a very large number and deservedly so I’m afraid opposite a 1174 weakfish hand. Fortunately in the other room my hand passed (Red vs Green), LHO opened 2C ( an unspecified strong 2 or various strong balanced), 2D on his right (negative or relay) and in he rolled with 2S walking into an equally large penalty in the days when X was for blood.
Regards,
Iain
bobbywolffMarch 12th, 2020 at 6:30 pm
Hi Jim2,
Yes he does have that heart holding, but his distribution cries out for suit play, with apparently only a diamond contract in view.
IOW, South has a good heart holding (perhaps even better for suit play), but his diamonds lend themselves to a diamond contract, since it is just far too optimistic to expect diamonds to run, even though hearts are well stopped. While holding instead: s. x, h. QJx, d. AKJxxxx, c. Qx 3NT would be classic (perhaps making without using all the diamonds especially when 5 diamonds will have 3+ losers), since the nine trick game looks to be at least 50% while with the actual hand holding only the AJ of diamonds, playing opposite a singleton diamond is a synonym for death. However if holding: s. x, h. Ax, d. KQJ10xxx, c. Kxx I would then bid 3 hearts, but convert anything but 3NT from partner to 5 diamonds expecting partner to hold either something in hearts or the ace of diamonds if he chose that bid. However if he instead rebid something other than 3NT I would then jump to 5 diamonds, inviting a slam in that suit if partner held: s. KJxxx, h. xx, d. A, c. AQJxx. No doubt if partner had the Ace of spades instead of the KJ he might even begin thinking of all the tricks.
Admittedly, my exact cards are specifically chosen, but I hope I have gotten across the suggested thinking which precedes.
To emphasize the above, the diamond suit headed by the AJ and with 7-4 distribution reeks to play a suit contract rather than NT.
Finally, bridge being the game it is and your TOCM has made you the foremost expert on that, there are always surprises, but if one’s game reasoning is on target as is partners, good things (except of course for you) will likely occur. The above comment only is tuned into the partnership aspect and DOES NOT ever apply unilaterally.
Perhaps for you in the next life……
bobbywolffMarch 12th, 2020 at 7:22 pm
Hi Iain,
No doubt, the many different developments which can and do occur, trumpet the tune of the wondrous game we play.
Bridge is so consistently inconsistent, but in spite of that, winners continue to win and losers pay the price, for believing in the wrong gods of bridge choice.
To my mind, the talent of the better player, often determined by his or her numerate quotient, is severely challenged by his inability to play the game, as we know it, to take advantage of the opponents errors, always amplified by taking away both their bidding space when possible, and consistently giving them scary problems to overcome.
No such thing of correlating winning with anything but keeping one’s partnership basket
wide open for donations from them, which is a shortcut definition for creating the conundrums for them to fall victim.
Yes, many decide to take the safe view, which creates peace of mind, only to find that result, even on good days, sadly becomes somewhere around average.
The more one takes the high road to bidding, the better one gets about picking his or her spots to go into action and, believe it or not, when to tread carefully.
However, if anyone out there is a good listener and takes the above choice, please do me a favor and stay out of my games.
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Great defense, but I think that North overbid his hand. Clearly he’s looking for 3NT (or, in some partnerships, when a 3=4=3=3 hand is opened 1C and rebid 1NT, a diamond game). With a club void, I’d just rebid 3D.
Bob Lipton
Hi Dear Mr Wolff
But, do you approve South’s jump to 3 NT over 2 Hearts bid by north ? Perhaps South should have passed for reflection constructing north’s hand and bid 2 NT. Since south opened the bidding as dealer, there is no ambiguity about the points range in his hand leaving North to take a call. Kindly reflect
Regards
In BWTA, I have two questions:
1) What would South need to have different to bid 3H?
and
2) What can North bid over 3D to “explore” a possible 3N contract?
Hi Robert,
I’d agree with you on the rebidding of 3 diamonds, instead of 1H, since partner has theoretically denied holding 4 hearts and, of course, the look of North’s hand is not NT.
However since the play (defense) of this hand was the primary teaching goal, the second choice bid by North of 2 hearts is selected.
After all (I hope at least most agree), some editorial privileges need to be retained by the author, in order to even begin to cover all our wonderful game has to offer. Not to mention today’s special quote which could be, at the very least, stretched to comply.
Hi AVRR,
A good question, but simply answered by South having good stops in the unbid suits, plus a possible good source of tricks in clubs, and a hand many playing opening 1NT as 15-17 would open to differentiate as a maximum for his not.
Hi Jim2,
1. Usually a 4 card holding, skipped over the previous round or, at the least a double honor, likely AKx or AQx, which might lead to the better final contract of 4 hearts (rather than 3NT) if continued.
2. Simply 3 hearts by North might entertain partner to prefer 3NT, since North’s 3 club bid firmly denied holding 4 hearts (except perhaps in very rare circumstances, such as very good black holdings and only xxxx in hearts) and even then to do so, would, by many, be considered incorrect to even a significant violation.
TY for your answer, but it suggests follow-up Qs:
1) Does not South HAVE that heart holding?
2) With North having bid both black suits, is South waiting to hear if North also has biddable values in hearts before trying for 3N?
HI Bobby,
A hand where the weak NT can work well – 1N 2C 2D and either pass (if feeling cautious), 3D if invitational or punt 3N hoping the diamonds run.
On BWTA though, I take your point. The hand is going backwards at a rate of knots given the increasingly likely misfit. Even at teams a plus score still has merit and I shudder at the memory of one hand many years ago where I held KJ9xxx Qxxxx None Ax and opened 1S (11-15, 5+ spades, pass from LHO, forcing 1N from partner (P) 2H (P) 3D and I really should pass and pray now. LHO had a strong 2S sitting over me and I had to go and try to improve matters with 3H… Minus a very large number and deservedly so I’m afraid opposite a 1174 weakfish hand. Fortunately in the other room my hand passed (Red vs Green), LHO opened 2C ( an unspecified strong 2 or various strong balanced), 2D on his right (negative or relay) and in he rolled with 2S walking into an equally large penalty in the days when X was for blood.
Regards,
Iain
Hi Jim2,
Yes he does have that heart holding, but his distribution cries out for suit play, with apparently only a diamond contract in view.
IOW, South has a good heart holding (perhaps even better for suit play), but his diamonds lend themselves to a diamond contract, since it is just far too optimistic to expect diamonds to run, even though hearts are well stopped. While holding instead: s. x, h. QJx, d. AKJxxxx, c. Qx 3NT would be classic (perhaps making without using all the diamonds especially when 5 diamonds will have 3+ losers), since the nine trick game looks to be at least 50% while with the actual hand holding only the AJ of diamonds, playing opposite a singleton diamond is a synonym for death. However if holding: s. x, h. Ax, d. KQJ10xxx, c. Kxx I would then bid 3 hearts, but convert anything but 3NT from partner to 5 diamonds expecting partner to hold either something in hearts or the ace of diamonds if he chose that bid. However if he instead rebid something other than 3NT I would then jump to 5 diamonds, inviting a slam in that suit if partner held: s. KJxxx, h. xx, d. A, c. AQJxx. No doubt if partner had the Ace of spades instead of the KJ he might even begin thinking of all the tricks.
Admittedly, my exact cards are specifically chosen, but I hope I have gotten across the suggested thinking which precedes.
To emphasize the above, the diamond suit headed by the AJ and with 7-4 distribution reeks to play a suit contract rather than NT.
Finally, bridge being the game it is and your TOCM has made you the foremost expert on that, there are always surprises, but if one’s game reasoning is on target as is partners, good things (except of course for you) will likely occur. The above comment only is tuned into the partnership aspect and DOES NOT ever apply unilaterally.
Perhaps for you in the next life……
Hi Iain,
No doubt, the many different developments which can and do occur, trumpet the tune of the wondrous game we play.
Bridge is so consistently inconsistent, but in spite of that, winners continue to win and losers pay the price, for believing in the wrong gods of bridge choice.
To my mind, the talent of the better player, often determined by his or her numerate quotient, is severely challenged by his inability to play the game, as we know it, to take advantage of the opponents errors, always amplified by taking away both their bidding space when possible, and consistently giving them scary problems to overcome.
No such thing of correlating winning with anything but keeping one’s partnership basket
wide open for donations from them, which is a shortcut definition for creating the conundrums for them to fall victim.
Yes, many decide to take the safe view, which creates peace of mind, only to find that result, even on good days, sadly becomes somewhere around average.
The more one takes the high road to bidding, the better one gets about picking his or her spots to go into action and, believe it or not, when to tread carefully.
However, if anyone out there is a good listener and takes the above choice, please do me a favor and stay out of my games.