| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | Pass | Pass |  |
| Pass |  | Pass | Pass |
| 1NT |
What's 1NT? How does it differ from double if they are similar?
- ROBERTO
- With no discussion, I would think that double brings hearts into the picture, while 1NT is minor-suit oriented.
- ED
- The usual way that a passed hand 1NT and double differ is that 1NT is more distributional, i.e., 5-5 instead of 4-4 or 4-5/5-4. There is not a strong reason to play it different here. The alternate meaning of 1NT is to show a balanced hand. That has some appeal since it could be the winning bid but it has a high level of risk.
- KENT
- 1NT is to play--I have a 4 by 3 or 4432 with the doubleton not in hearts with 10-11 soft. I had an unusual 1NT available last round. Partner isn't broke, and I didn't want them to play at the 1 level. If I'm playing 10-12 notrumps, I can't hold that hand. Maybe 9 soft? Sounds as if that's volunteering for a number, but at matchpoints it seems right to bid.
- MIKE
- Partner will bid clubs with equal in the minors after 1NT. Diamonds after a double. So double could be 5-4 while 1NT probably is 4-5. I wouldn't do this with say 2443, although I suppose somebody might. They better hope their partner thinks it's natural.
- WALTER
-
Natural, may not have spades stopped. West could have shown the
minors over
1 or by doubling instead of 1N. West probably has a balanced 11 with 3-4 hearts. - JEFF AT THE TABLE
- I was in tune with Ed. Partner was in tune with Kent.
- WINNING ACTION
-
1NT was intended as natural and was the last
making contract for either side.
1 makes. - JEFF UPON REFLECTION
- I think that without agreement, Ed's right, with agreement, Mike's version is better. In reality, however, the Kent/Walter agreement seems likely to be useful. At matchpoints. White.
AKxx Ax Axxx 10xx |  |
Q KQJx KJx K8xxx |
| West | East |
| |
| 2NT (nat. 13-16) | |
| |
| 4NT |
| |
| Pass |
- apportion the blame.
- ROBERTO
-
West 60%, East 20% (he could have stopped in
5 , but that's maybe a 1 instead of a 0), system 20% (I don't think the system is especially bad, just that this is a bad hand for the system) - ED
-
West might have divined to pass 4N and should have bid 5N over
5 so he gets 25%. East's4 bid gets 75%. - KENT
- East 70%
- MIKE
-
Tough hand to bid. The wheels came of big time. My first instinct was to
saddle east with all the blame for the
4 bid, but a closer examination shows that west had a bigger role. West 55%, East 45%. - WALTER
- East 90%
- CONSENSUS
-
West East Roberto 60% 20% Ed 25% 75% Kent 30% 70% Mike 55% 45% Walter 10% 90% Average 36% 60% - JEFF AT THE TABLE
- not fair; I was West
- JEFF UPON REFLECTION
- At first, I thought it was close; each partner made some questionable calls, but after a little thought, I've changed my mind. East 80%.
- which was the single worst call?
- ROBERTO
-
I'd say
3 was the worst call, followed by 4NT. All bids seem to be forced systemically up to3 . I would bid 3N over3 (three little clubs is a bad holding and I have good spade stoppers. I realize I have a lot of controls, but... also,3 is often a punt on this auction, and you can't really expect responder to bid 3N on 3 small... )4 seems reasonable.4 is OK. 4NT seems to have been intended as natural, but interpreted as blackwood (I think it should be Blackwood on this auction). I don't understand5 (was responder trying to get to 5N?) - ED
-
4 - clearly bad since E knew there was no slam opposite 13-16 bal. If3 was a cue bid for hearts, W would clarify that over 3NT by E.6 is also a weird bid since5 transferred to 5N but it was the4 bid that did the damage. - KENT
-
4 . This auction is absolutely vile. [That's obvious
--Jeff]
The first three calls seem routine. Then East goes looking
for a heart fit. Why? One group I play with thinks that 28-31
points in the combined (relatively balanced) hands demands 3NT
if slam is out of the picture, regardless of fit. Since West's
rebid denies clubs, slam is very unlikely from East's viewpoint
opposite a max of 16 balanced. Opposite 6 looks mighty good, but then West has a super maximum and might well take another call past 3NT, figuring that at worst 4NT was still a very likely make. [Yeah, right. --Jeff] [Furthermore, failing to bid East's best suit when a possible 4-4 major suit fit still exists seems unreasonable to me. --Jeff] - MIKE
-
Obvious candidates are the hopeless
4 call and the Breach of discipline/fatal error of6 . I'll go with4 : the one bid that got 45% of the blame, as it led west down the slippery slope.1 and2 are normal. West might have raised clubs at his second turn with all those prime cards, but it turns out it was right to start the brakes with 2NT on this hand, although perhaps this call caused west to try to catch up later with disastrous consequences.3 was normal, although some would bid 3NT.3 is a normal slammish move with all those aces but no clear direction, the drawback is that East probably thought that3 was asking for a stopper... at least that is the only way I can explain East's next bid.4 is an error. Here it is time to limit your hand with 3NT.West
4 bid seems ok. The alternative is5 , which is equally unattractive. And4 allows partner to bid 4NT, which you can pass... its biggest advantage, although I suppose that west was slamming at this point, given partner's4 bid.5 was a relay to 5NT, so west broke discipline with6 . At this point it should have been clear that the wheels had come off (how can east sign off after a 3-key response [zero or 3 response --J] ... oh, it wasn't blackwood!) but west was oblivious to this. West needed to form a plan with his hand. I think an immediate club raise would have been appropriate, even though his clubs were weak and short. [Given that the problem was to avoid clubs, that seems odd! --Jeff] - WALTER
-
4 . West doesn't have 4 clubs or 5 diamonds or 3 aces and and - JEFF
-
In order:
-
4 was an atrocity; going past 3NT was silly - Pass of
6 was giving up---East should bid 6NT -
2 was wrong---I'd bid1 -
6 was wrong; partner knew I had 3 keys and wanted to play 5NT - 4NT and
5 were just "I have no idea what's going on."
Walter has convinced me 100% that East's failure to bid 3NT at his third turn was a blunder, not just a misunderstanding. Until I got his note, I thought, "perhaps East reasonably thought that West lacked a spade stopper." That's just wrong.
I focussed on two calls that the rest of the panel didn't consider. Firstly, passing
6 is stupid or simply not trying to win. East knows that6 has no play; partner didn't raise clubs directly and East's clubs are bad. 6NT might make. Probably not, but it might. The only reason to pass6 is so that partner won't ask, "where's the hand you held during the bidding?" when dummy hits. Of course, passing6 is just delaying the inevitable. If 6NT were making, passing6 might be a partnership-ending action with some partners.My real heresy is that I think
2 was an error in judgment. East had a complicated hand, but in order, what he wants to show is (1) hearts, (2) notrump, (3) diamonds, and (4) clubs. To use a whole level of bidding to start one's fourth objective seems misguided to me.1 keeps the bidding low and will allow East to focus on spade stops for notrump later.2 will quite possibly make finding a 4-4 heart fit hard or impossible. My argument is: this is either a choice of games auction or a slam auction. If it's a choice of games auction, we are not playing clubs at matchpoints. If it's a slam auction, don't start by introducing a weak suit.Mike thinks that's crazy---he thinks East should start describing his hand. I think shape matters, but there should be some texture to the club suit to bid it. It doesn't have to be a great suit, but I don't see anything wrong with treating this hand as 2434 shape. Given the skewed honor distribution, I think that's a better description. [Given the quality of the heart suit,
1 is fine with me instead of2 . --Ed D.] If the honors in hearts and clubs were switched (if East had6 would be laydown, so as West, I'd never pass 3NT even if East bid it after3 . We would, however, get to 4NT thusly:1 -2 ; 2NT-3 ;3 -3NT;4 -4NT; Pass. That'd be an intelligent auction, focussing on club quality. Good! Since I think that's a great auction, and I think1 is a better first bid by East, upon further reflection, I'm upping East's blame to 95%. West gets 5% for not bidding 5NT (but I wasn't stopping below6 regardless), for not divining that partner, who refused to bid notrump three times already, had decided to bid 4NT naturally, and for confusing partner with3 , even though I think it's the right call. -
Systemic notes: 1NT opening was 10-12. Rebids by West
were "Kokish:"
AK98 KJ832 xx Ax| RHO | You | LHO | CHO | ||
| | Pass | Pass | ||
| 1NT* | All pass | ||||
RHO thought a long time before 1NT.
- do you agree with your bidding?
- ROBERTO
-
I pretty much agree, although a double of 1N is a possibility.
The tank over 1N suggests that RHO has hearts and was thinking
about leaving
1 in. - ED
-
I would have risked
2 over 1NT at this vulnerability. - KENT
-
No. I bid
2 . Someone's hiding that suit--find it hard to believe that it's not partner. - MIKE
-
I suppose the alternative would be
2 with this hand. Opponents have had little success with this kind of Michaels call and the one time I tried it, it was a disaster. The shape is right for the offshape, but the strength is awkward, too. Perhaps the delayed2 bid might have been indicated on the second round (what does that mean, asks Alan Cokin!) or a double, presumably for takeout. I don't think I'd've passed 1NT, especially with the long tank... if he screwed up, he's going to Brooklyn. [He's going for a large number if you double, he sits (he isn't) and you lead a heart. --J] - WALTER
- Yes
- JEFF AT THE TABLE
- not there
- JEFF UPON REFLECTION
- dunno.
- WINNING ACTION
- Hard to say
- what do you lead?
- ROBERTO
- I'll lead the top diamond and go passive. I am a big fan of short-suit leads against NT. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. [I hate that sort of lead and reasoning. Firstly, passive defense doesn't work well against 1NT, and secondly, I figure my partnership/team is better than the field, so I don't need to roll dice. --Jeff]
- ED
-
- KENT
-
Partner holding
- MIKE
-
The tank suggests a heart lead, since with a big hand and two heart stops,
he'd've bid it faster. Although I suppose he could have...
- WALTER
-
K
- JEFF AT THE TABLE
-
not there. Partner led the
- JEFF UPON REFLECTION
-
- WINNING ACTION
-
a heart. The whole layout was
A heart lead gets it five! Jx 107xx QJ9xxx xx AK98 KJ832 xx Ax 10xxxx Q9 Axxx xx Qx Ax Kx KQJ10xxxWould you bid
1 with the East hand? Given how light this partner overcalls and the failure to make a takeout double, it seems that bidding1 is asking for trouble, but it's close.