ist session hand 5 iac v Acol clb

[wackojack]

Hand 5 first session
 
               ♠ 2
                ♥ A982
                ♦ AKJ754
                Q10   
 
♠ AJ1097              ♠ Q653
♥ K105                  64
♦ 32                      986
♣ AJ96                    6543

            ♠ K84
              ♥ QJ73
              ♦ 32
              ♣ AJ96


NS vulnerable

At My table sitting EW
West   North   East   South
   1♦   p    1♥
1♠   3♥    p   4♥
p   p   p   

4♥ duly made -620.
We were playing against an Acol pair and I note that North raised to 3♥.  In the Monday evening discussion both Alan and Colin stated very definitely the raise to 3♥ would be pre-emptive.  I argued it could not be pre-emptive because when it is a known to be no more than a 4-4 fit there is no such thing as a pre-empt to the 3 level a you should not raise to more than the level of the fit.  (Aside:  Of course with a 5-4 fit the mixed semi-preemptive Bergen raise 1♠-3♦ is perfectly sound.) Nevertheless this particular North obviously meant the jump to 3♥ to show extra strength and South naturally raised to the comfortable 4♥ game. 

At Ken and Carl’s table
   1♦   p    1♥
1♠   2♠    3♠   p
4♠   p   p   p
Ken in the North position cue bid 2♠.  Was that bid meant so show a good raise?  And did it say anything about spades?  It appears that Carl did not see this2♠ bid as supporting hearts.  (Maybe perhaps asking for a stop in 3NT?)  If so it is not very easy to explain why 4♠ was not doubled for penalty.  As it happens, because of the favourable vulnerability for EW it is a good sacrifice for 3 off netting only 500.  In the play 4♠ went 4 off so instead of +7 imps we lost 9 imps.

I will leave it at that for now but will follow up with what happened at other tables witnessing extraordinary differences in hand evaluation.  Illustrating the “bee in my bonnet

[jcreech]

Hi Jack,

Before I start, there is an error in the hands.  Based on the auction and distributions, my guess is that West's clubs are actually Kx, and will be assuming that.

For first auction, I agree that when we are talking about a 4-4  (possibly 4-3 fit) it cannot be preemptive, so the jump in the implied (heart suit) has to be strong. 

If the rebid had been 3 , where the opener is rebidding their suit, it is less clear.  In an undiscussed auction, I would still regard the bid as strong, but can see arguments that the bid should be regarded as semi-preemptive, given the person opened at the one level.

In the second auction, I think 2 should be temporarily regarded as a good raise, subject to revision based on subsequent bidding.  Regardless, it should still show a good hand, and that North's pass should be forcing showing a spade control (in the form of a singleton), and South should view the K as wastage, and probably double to show a minimum good hand.  Whether North pulls the double based on more distribution than expected (or less defense) is different matter.  Once South cue-bid, I don't think N-S can play below game without doubling the opponents.

Just my two-pence (which is worth more than my two-cents, though not much more).

[kenberg]

The hands
                2
                A982
                AKJ754
                Q10   
 
AJ1097                Q653
K105                  64
QT                      986
K72                      8543

              K84
              QJ73
              32
              AJ96

N deals, NS vul, EW non-vul

Our auction
1   Pass  1   1
2   3    Pass   Pass
4   Pass  Pass  4

Imo bidding 2 and then,after the pass from pard, still going on to 4 shows a strong and shapely hand.  Bidding 3 instead of 2 would have been inivitational but with a stiff in the opponents suit and a strong six card side suit it seemed worth getting to 4 . I recall thinking that if pard has the K and the K I should at least have a play for 4.   So why not just bid 4 over 1 ?  Well, at the  time that I bid 2 partner might still have a much stronger hand than he has. Bidding 4 over 1 is obviously strong but I think bidding 2 and then 4 shows that the strength comes from shape.
But maybe I should have just bid 3 over 1 . A splinter, I should think.

Gib says 4 can be held to off 3 but it's tricky. I started with the AKJ of and it seems natural to ruff the third . But: To take 7 tricks it is necessary to take the finesse. The finesse works but how do you get to the board to take the finesse?


Carl acknowledged that he should have hit 4 . As to whether my pass is forcing that gets interesting. All he has done so far is to bid 1 in response to my opening bid of 1 . For all I know his values could be the QJxx in hearts and the Kx in spades.
Of course he has a good deal more.
If we agree that I have shown a strong and somewhat shapely hand then maybe the agreement should be that he should do as he thinks best knowing that I have a strong and shapely hand.
With the hand he had, yes, he should double and he said so. If his values were Kx in spades and QJxx in hearts should he still double? Maybe so, but I could understand fretting about it a bit.

Added: A couple more words about forcing, or not forcing, passes. It runs up against the maxim of bidding what you have and then shutting up.  My 4 was pushy. It's true that  thanks to pard's A we can bring in a lucky 5 but still my 4 was pushy. I think it is reasonable to say that after I bid 4 and then pass their 4 I am saying "I have said all that I have to say. You're up"
It's true that we are vul and they are not, which means they might be pushing with the 4 which gives added reason to X even if pard has little more than a minimum for his 1 bid. But there will be times when S will really not want to do anything another than pass and I am by no means sure this choice should be closed to him. In the case at hand, X is fine and even 5 might be fine if I get the play right. Or rather if he gets the play right.