[inquiry]

Board 3
Dlr South
Vul E-W
Bidding by Jlall and han

Bidding Script: west opens or Overcalls 2♥. Submitted by
Valardent

---

The bidding script calls for a natural 2♥ overcall, not thinking south might open 1♥. We realize that 2♥ is usually michaels, but to follow the script, here it was announced as natural.

Fortunately for the scorer, both sides reached the same contract. I think that 6♣ has enough chances to be the top spot. but others might disagree.
Scores:

6C = 10
3N = 7
5C = 4

---

After board 3, Jlall-han maintain their lead, 23 to 15

Board 4
Dlr West
Vul Both

North-Mrgoodwin, South TimG

E-W do not bid, submitted by Valardent

---

North Han, south Jlall

Scores:
5D = 10
6D = 6
3N = 3

My thoughts is 6 diamonds will need a 2-2 split most of the time, but so does 3NT. So both 6D and 3NT make or go down on mostly the same hands.

---

After four boards. I have the score at Jlall-han 33, the Goodwins at 21. I realize that the scoring on this one might generate some discussion.

[PhantomSac]

Ben, on board 4 3N just needs not 4-0 diamonds, it doesn't need 2-2...it can handle 3-1 diamonds. 3N is definitely > 5D because it has 10 tricks 90 % of the time.

[awm]

Interesting scoring here too.

On board 3, I don't think 6♣ is that good. It seems like you have a spade loser, so you need the diamond finesse and that's not really enough by itself either (although there are many chances if the diamonds come in).

On board 4, 3NT just needs diamonds not 4-0 if you have the hands right. In fact, 3NT will almost always make 10 tricks. So 5♦ shouldn't really be the top spot. In fact 6♦ seems pretty good -- in addition to making any time diamonds are 2-2, you will probably also make if the ♦J is singleton, and have good chances if the ♦J is with the longer spades as well. I'd have scored 6♦>3NT>5♦ on this one.

[PhantomSac]

Regarding our auction:

Again we were on a different page here, and I operated too much. I bid 3D trying to rightside 3N, or help us get to a diamond slam if one was there (or 5D instead of 3N). In a bidding contest, partner never has a 4432 weak NT! My other option was 1N since we play inverted minors and have no way to show a mixed raise.

Personally, I thought that 3D would be constructive, and 2D inv+. With a weak hand I would just pass. Incidentally, I like playing this way when vul even when not in a bidding contest if I have only 2 raises available (NV playing a more loose style). We had not agreed to this, but we had agreed to very sound/constructive preempts. Han was thinking I could just be weak with 5 diamonds (ldo), so he was thinking more along the lines of stopping below game rather than slam or 3N as opposite a "normal" 3D preemptive raise.

[PhantomSac]

awm, on 2010-November-25, 00:18, said:

Interesting scoring here too.

On board 3, I don't think 6♣ is that good. It seems like you have a spade loser, so you need the diamond finesse and that's not really enough by itself either (although there are many chances if the diamonds come in).

On board 4, 3NT just needs diamonds not 4-0 if you have the hands right. In fact, 3NT will almost always make 10 tricks. So 5♦ shouldn't really be the top spot. In fact 6♦ seems pretty good -- in addition to making any time diamonds are 2-2, you will probably also make if the ♦J is singleton, and have good chances if the ♦J is with the longer spades as well. I'd have scored 6♦>3NT>5♦ on this one.

I agree with this, when diamonds are not 4-0 6D is clearly >50 %. When diamonds are 4-0 3N will go down also anyways. 6D>3N>5D looks right

[PhantomSac]

TimG, I think you did well to bid 6D. Was it because you suspected 3N was best so it was right to gamble it out? I would have thought after 4D you guys would bid 4H-5C-6D.

Also, would 4C by you be a cuebid over 3D, or a natural bid?

ETA: Fixed typo

This post has been edited by PhantomSac: 2010-November-25, 02:43

[MrGoodwin]

I think he bid 6D (on 4) because he thought we would make it: he had the best possible hand he could have for responding 1NT in our style. It would feel a bit unlucky to go down in this slam.

Bd. 3 would be messy if different contracts had been reached, and probably should have been thrown out (with a 17th board bid by both pairs to substitute in case a "fouled board" like this one happens?). As it was, we were faced with a situation we've never encountered at the table, although we've played canape style for many years. "Natural cue-bid overcalls" is a possible defensive agreement vs. canape, but (as I said) we've never run into it.

[MrGoodwin]

And with regard to Bd. 4, I assume PhantomSac is asking about 1S-1NT; 3D-4C (not 4C over 4D, an obvious typo). 4C would be natural with us, as we could well respond 1NT holding a fistful of clubs.

[PhantomSac]

Quote

Fortunately for the scorer, both sides reached the same contract. I think that 6♣ has enough chances to be the top spot. but others might disagree.
Scores:

6C = 10
3N = 7
5C = 4
[/hv]

After board 3, Jlall-han maintain their lead, 23 to 15

Ben we played 3N and they played 5C, we weren't in the same contract You added 4 to our score and gave them a zero which is the correct difference of margin but not the correct actual score right now (7-3), doesn't really matter but thought you should no.

I agree with awm that 6C is not the best spot. If clubs are 4-0 you're down. If the diamond hook is off as far as I can tell you're just down. Maybe you're still not below 50 % if you believe that west is less likely to hold the DQ because of the bid and that that's significant, but you still have *two* spade losers to account for. You're not close to cold even when the D hook is on and clubs behave. If the spade king is offside you might definitely be in trouble especially if clubs are 3-1.

IMO 3N should be the top spot and then 6C or 5C (you could make a case for 6C>5C if many people are in 3N...as in the first 2 hands).

[PhantomSac]

MrGoodwin, on 2010-November-25, 02:35, said:

I think he bid 6D (on 4) because he thought we would make it: he had the best possible hand he could have for responding 1NT in our style. It would feel a bit unlucky to go down in this slam.

Fair enough but more importantly than his maximum/minimum is your maximum/minimum. Were you relatively min for 3D in your style?

Also just curious is your style ACOL or something similar? I noticed weak NT and 4 card majors.

[Fluffy]

I also think 6♦ should outscore 5♦ on board 4, with no opposite bidding I wouldn't even think about 4-0 split when scoring this one.

[MrGoodwin]

My jump-shift on Bd. 4 was close to minimum for the bid: we play that the 1NT response may be very weak, so opener must be close to a strong two-bid to jump-shift after that response. I could have had more (we don't have any strong forcing opening bids), and that is why I didn't control-bid 4H over Tim's raise to 4D.

No, our style isn't Acol. It is basically "Churchill" with canape appended. Not that our results in this contest will win any converts to the style . . . .

[PhantomSac]

MrGoodwin, on 2010-November-25, 05:38, said:

My jump-shift on Bd. 4 was close to minimum for the bid: we play that the 1NT response may be very weak, so opener must be close to a strong two-bid to jump-shift after that response. I could have had more (we don't have any strong forcing opening bids), and that is why I didn't control-bid 4H over Tim's raise to 4D.

No, our style isn't Acol. It is basically "Churchill" with canape appended. Not that our results in this contest will win any converts to the style . . . .

Cool thanks for sharing, I understand now

[Free]

I must be missing something here. 6♣ looks really aweful, while 6♦ looks attractive. Where do all the tricks come from on board 3? On board 4 you'd prefer trumps 2-2, but even with trumps 3-1 you can try to ruff 2 ♠s in the South hand. trumps 2-2, ♦J stiff, or 4♠-3♦ are all fine.

[PhantomSac]

Fluffy, on 2010-November-25, 05:11, said:

I also think 6♦ should outscore 5♦ on board 4, with no opposite bidding I wouldn't even think about 4-0 split when scoring this one.

I agree that 6D should be higher than 5D but I don't think this inference holds much weight at all, the opponents have 12 HCP and only an 8 card heart fit vulnerable, they won't bid every time just because they have a void (especially over a 1S opener like the goodwins made).

[Fluffy]

what meant and worded badly is that 4-0 breaks matter only as tie-breakers IMO, even less with opps not bidding.

[TimG]

PhantomSac, on 2010-November-25, 00:38, said:

TimG, I think you did well to bid 6D. Was it because you suspected 3N was best so it was right to gamble it out? I would have thought after 4D you guys would bid 4H-5C-6D.

Also, would 4C by you be a cuebid over 3D, or a natural bid?

You were watching, so you know that it took me a while to bid 6♦. 3♦ established a GF, and 4♣ over it would have been natural, so I hadn't come close to showing what I had with 4♦. I wondered about the failure to cue-bid hearts on the way to 5♦, but decided there were hands where partner would not want to insist upon a cue-bid from me (I could have had the same had with a club spot instead of the ♣K and would have bid 5♣ over 4♥); four trumps, a doubleton in partner's second suit, and the side AK were just too much, I thought, not to bid slam even though I could construct hands consistent with the bidding where we were off the cashing ♥AK. So, we got a little lucky.

[PhantomSac]

TimG, on 2010-November-25, 08:16, said:

You were watching, so you know that it took me a while to bid 6♦. 3♦ established a GF, and 4♣ over it would have been natural, so I hadn't come close to showing what I had with 4♦. I wondered about the failure to cue-bid hearts on the way to 5♦, but decided there were hands where partner would not want to insist upon a cue-bid from me (I could have had the same had with a club spot instead of the ♣K and would have bid 5♣ over 4♥); four trumps, a doubleton in partner's second suit, and the side AK were just too much, I thought, not to bid slam even though I could construct hands consistent with the bidding where we were off the cashing ♥AK. So, we got a little lucky.

I wasn't trying to criticize or call you lucky fwiw, I just was hoping to generate some discussion about the hands and learn more about your system/how you got to the right spot. You did well, it sounds like there were almost no hands where you are off the AK of hearts.

[han]

While I'm usually all for throwing out boards because of bad scripts, I don't understand why this board should be thrown out. The script said they would overcall 2H natural, and they did, at both tables. As the bid was clearly explained at both tables, I don't see a problem with the script. This is something that can also happen in Challenge the Champs.

[MrGoodwin]

I'm persuaded, and withdraw any objection based on the script on Bd. 3. We earned our bad result. Mea Culpa.