We got thrashed (iii)

[wackojack]

Game all:
  A9542
  A108
  93
  A83

  KQ
  J65
  Q2
  KJ7542

1  - (1  ) - 1  - (p)
2  - (2  ) -  3  - (p)
3  - (p)    - 4 -all pass

I thought we constructed that auction quite well.  Comments welcome.

Guess how many imps we lost and why?

[Masse24]

Can't say I'm jumping up & down about that 1 open. But I would do the same.

The entire auction seems quite reasonable. I like the 3 call, which under pressure can be HX. KQ is plenty.

I await your "tale of woe."

[kenberg]

I was the 1 opener and I agree it's a bit borderline, but I don't expect to have a rebid problem and I didn't. The 2 is a minimum with longish clubs, that's what I have. True it's an aceless 12 count. True. And KQ tight is not really 5 hcps. Also true.

I was a bit worried about my 3 . I agree that it's probably the best available option but my lho is showing at least 9 and probably 10 red cards so I don't expect the spades to break well. But what else? I figured I had said all that there was to say about my clubs, and for that matter all there was to say about my hand, so 3 seemed undesirable but what else?

As to Jack's 3 , I mentioned at the time that I figured it showed a stop.  When there are two suits, I regard it as standard to cue the suit you have. But, as I also mentioned at the time, I don't stop either suit so it didn't matter.  In support of my view on cues I did a quick check with Larry Cohen at https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/western-cue-bids  and found:

Quote:
What if the opponents have bid 2 suits?
Now, things change. When there are 2 suits to cue-bid on the 3-level, you should bid the one you do have stopped. The cue-bid is "telling" -- not "asking." 
Unquote

Of course LC is not the only expert out there, but afaik there is broad agreement on this.

The hand presumably belongs in a part score in . Hard to get there once I open 1 . There should be a reasonable play for 9 tricks, maybe 10 with luck.  My mantra for this set of hands has been that whatever I had a choice, I should have made the other choice. Still, I probably open this 1 the next time I am dealt it.

[jcreech]

Ken,

I will step up and admit I also opened your hand 1 .  Now the rest of the auction differed, but I will leave it to Jack to finish the free Armenian's story because I didn't believe that I was sitting Rueful Rabbit's seat at the other table (but I was).

[wackojack]

           
                          A9542
                        A108
                        93
                        A83
8                                    J10763
KQ94                              732
AKJ1076                        854
Q9                                !C106
                        KQ
                        J65
                        Q2
                        KJ7542

As you can see 4 at our table is doomed.

At the other table the bidding went:
1    - (dbl) (i)  -  (rdbl) (ii) - 1 
2    - (2 )  -   (3 ) (iii) - p
3NT all pass

I see opening 1 as routine.  You just cannot pass a 12 count with a 6 card suit no matter if you devalue KQ and Q2. 
(i) imo overcall then double is more precise than double then bid if partner takes out into  .
(ii) Not to my taste.  Would  prefer 1  forcing.  OR if playing transfers after double bid 1 .
(iii) I think the message intended was bid 3NT with a  guard.  Maybe the redouble muddied that message. 

West led the A  and East followed suit with the 8.  I know this pair play udca, but not sure if the 8 was intended as a discourage or a count signal showing 1 or 3  !Ds. 
If you play A asks attitude and King asks count.  OR the other way round for that matter then maybe there is still some doubt.  Let us say that the Ace was asking partner for a count signal.
 Then would you take the chance that partner has 3 and continue or would you decide that South would be mad to bid 3NT with  Q2 and decide that South had Q542?  Therefore there was a maybe a chance to get partner in with  .  West decided on the latter and switched to K  and so South wrapped up the contract.  14 imps gone

A word on
Quote:
What if the opponents have bid 2 suits?
Now, things change. When there are 2 suits to cue-bid on the 3-level, you should bid the one you do have stopped. The cue-bid is "telling" -- not "asking." 
Unquote.  Err  .  In this position it just looks wrong to cue 3  and yet if a direct 3N says I have stops in both opps suits and a cue of one of opps 2 suits says I have a stop in this suit logic says that I should have cued 3  .     
 

[jcreech]

Admittedly, the auction was what four clones of me would not have had. 

I agree with Jack, that a diamond overcall followed by a double would be preferred than a double followed by the diamond overcall.  My reason is different.  The card difference in length is my major reason.  With 5-4 in the reds and the same extra values, I would be slightly more inclined to double first (assuming that the sixth diamond was converted to spade); now you are willing to hear any of partner's suits.

I would also bid 1 over the double.  With five, it is hard for us to get to a 5-3 without bidding the suit first.

With 3 , I thought he was either showing a full stop himself, or at least a partial stop.  I never dreamed that he would show up with xx.  With many of my partners, when two suits are shown by the opponents, a cue is a telling bid.  With this partner, as with many partnerships in IAC, the discussion has not come up.  Nonetheless, I expected different than what I got.

Then when A hit the table, I started to plan for either 3 or 4 pitches, and hoped it would not be more.  A lot of people use the A and K to ask specific questions - originally, the A asked for count and the K asked for attitude, starting in the 1980's some players thought it easier to remember A for Attitude and K for Kount (I know I was among them, as I asked partners to consider swapping the meaning).  Now no one is certain without asking partner.  With six, headed by the AK, I would want to know count, but without asking, I have no idea what was asked and what was answered at the table.  All I know is that declarer shifted, and I got an unasked for, but welcome reprieve.

I did have a major clue that the clubs would break before I got around to playing them.  I played two rounds of spades and West showed out.  If 6-5, I would expect either a Michaels cue bid or bidding both suits.  In the end, I got Rueful Rabbit's luck as declarer and made the contract.

[kenberg]

Comments on the action at Jim's table.

For defending against NT, BWS says:

Against notrump contracts:
   (i) Honor leads: ace requests unblock or count signal; queen requests jack; highest equal from non-ace sequences and interior sequences
   (ii) Spot-card leads: fourth-highest; second-highest (but highest of equals) from a weak suit


Playing this way, W starts with the A, sees the 8 from partner, denying the Q but, for udca, showing  three (a stiff is virtually impossible on the auction) and so W  runs the suit.

So they were not playing that. 

As to the 3 call: The usual agreement about the XX is that then the opponents are not allowed to play the contract at the 2 level undoubled.  With that agreement, pass would have been an option. If E passes, as well he might, then S might well bid 2 showing a stopper, denying a stopper.  This might at least possibly lead to a 3 call from N.  If 3NT is unplayable then should be right (it is) and N does not really have the values to force to an 11 trick contract. It appears that NS can take 10 tricks playing in and EW can take 9 tricks playing in .

But 3NT making is better, so who would argue with success?