[661_Pete]

I'm sure many will disagree, explain to me in great detail where I went wrong. I just thought 4♠ was a reasonable bet. From the Acol tourney, MPs: I was sitting North.

---

As you can see, against a ♥ lead and accurate defence, nothing declarer can do. Three down.

What really annoys me is how we landed a bottom on this board (along with a sarcastic remark by one of the opponents). How did the others escape? Was it just "not my night"?

[mcphee]

I am not fond of the 2S re-bid, however 4S did run into some bad luck and it is not your day to buy lottery tickets. Even if the re-bid is 2N the final spot looks like 4S. Your defenders were just better.

[StevenG]

This is Acol, so 2♠ is the only possible rebid. However, the obvious option is for South to open 1NT.

[1eyedjack]

I suspect that a 2N rebid would have shown 15+.

I favour a 1N opener, which would likely land you in a making 3N, as found by one pair for 100%.

That is rather resulting given the MP format where I would normally expect 4S to outscore it

[eagles123]

you did nothing wrong, your partners bidding however was very poor - it's an obvious 1N opener playing acol.

[1eyedjack]

eagles123, on 2016-June-12, 04:03, said:

it's an obvious 1N opener playing acol.

The significance may be questionable, but it may be worth mentioning that of the 11 tables, 2 opened 1N, 3 passed in 2nd seat, and the remaining 6 opened 1S.

Personally I think it is close between Pass and 1N, with 1S coming a distant 3rd. But that is just one opinion

[661_Pete]

I can see the sense of 1NT, especially with a straggly 5-card major which is not really rebiddable. Sniffing 3NT or 4♥, I would probably have put in 2♣, partner shows spades, so assuming no spade fit I go for 3NT. Which makes.

I blame the fairies.

[Cyberyeti]

661_Pete, on 2016-June-12, 05:14, said:

I can see the sense of 1NT, especially with a straggly 5-card major which is not really rebiddable.

No you miss the point entirely. The reason for opening 1N on 5332s regardless of suit texture is because of when you DON'T do it.

1♠-2♣-2♠ is now unequivocally 6 cards (or AKQJx, Jxx, Jxx, xx where you've treated it as 6)

1♠-2♦-2♠ is 6♠ or 5♠/4+♣

We would bid this hand to 3N in slightly unsatisfactory fashion but a lot of people would bid 1N-2♣-2♠-3♦(forcing for most people, not for us)-3N

[Jinksy]

If you open this hand 1♠ playing Acol, you might as well switch to SAYC.

[StevenG]

You should remember that for ordinary club players, opening 1M on this type of hand is systemic. They, and their social group, have learned that you do not open 1NT with a 5 card major. Ever.

I won't make any friends by saying this, but my experience is that playing in a club MPs, opening 1M is more often the winning choice. (Looking at the DD on the results sheet, it's usually 110 vs 90, or 140 vs 120. And it's usually easier to play.) The exceptions are hands like this where the suit isn't really rebiddable. When good club players suggest that 1NT should be systemic, I think they are misled by their own card-playing ability. Yes, it is right if your skill is such that you will winkle out another trick on a misdefence, but that is not the case for lesser players, who are more likely to crash the contract in NT rather than a suit.

[rmnka447]

The down 3 result is more a result of an extremely bad lie of the cards then anything else.

Maybe in Acol it's different, but IMO the South hand isn't an opening hand. 12 HCP only 1 1/2 QTs and a lousy suit would tip me to passing this hand.

Once South opens the hand, I think North bidding 4 ♠ is inevitable. If instead the hand is passed to North, you may still get to 4 ♠, but possibly some people are
passing short of game or getting to 3 NT which is a make.

P - 1 ♦
1 ♠ - 2 ♦
2 NT - ?

[Cyberyeti]

rmnka447, on 2016-June-12, 10:45, said:

The down 3 result is more a result of an extremely bad lie of the cards then anything else.

Maybe in Acol it's different, but IMO the South hand isn't an opening hand. 12 HCP only 1 1/2 QTs and a lousy suit would tip me to passing this hand.

Once South opens the hand, I think North bidding 4 ♠ is inevitable. If instead the hand is passed to North, you may still get to 4 ♠, but possibly some people are
passing short of game or getting to 3 NT which is a make.

P - 1 ♦
1 ♠ - 2 ♦
2 NT - ?

1♦-1♠-2♠- now you are bidding 4♠. Very few will pass the spade hand here.

[wank]

you bid entirely normally.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

It is a matter of partnership agreement, what you open with the given
hand, either 1NT or 1S, if you choose 1S, you have also to discuss,
if you rebid 2C or 2S. You do this upfront.
I can live with always 1S or 1NT, I dont like "depending on texture".
I also prefer a 2C rebid.

Looking only at the N/S hands, you want to be in 4S, espesially from
South, which protects the king of diamond against the lead.

So basically, it was unlucky to go down, and that it was as much as it
was did make the it more unlucky.

The only thing to be ... are the remarks by your opponents, but I would
say to myself, next time the coin flips for me.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

P_Marlowe, on 2016-June-12, 11:45, said:

Looking only at the N/S hands, you want to be in 4S, espesially from
South, which protects the king of diamond against the lead.

With kind regards
Marlowe

This is wrong - 4♠ is a lousy contract compared with 3N.

3N can't go off if A♣ is onside, 4♠ can in several ways, a heart lead ducked on a 4-2 heart break makes stuff really awkward. You have to draw trumps now to avoid the ruff (if they're 4-1 you can't get back to hand to draw the last). Then you have to guess the diamonds correctly and you can't get back to dummy's 4th heart so you have an extra club loser.

[rmnka447]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-12, 10:51, said:

1♦-1♠-2♠- now you are bidding 4♠. Very few will pass the spade hand here.

I don't disagree with your point that once North raises ♠, 4 ♠ is pretty inevitable.

However, some players may not raise with just 3 ♠ and a ratty ♦ suit where possibly declarer could be forced if in a 4-3 fit. Now, the auction I suggest becomes a real possibility. If, say, North for whatever reason then bids 3 ♥ instead of 3 ♠, you might end up in 3 NT. If North bids 3 ♠, 4 ♠ looks inevitable.

[Cyberyeti]

rmnka447, on 2016-June-12, 13:04, said:

I don't disagree with your point that once North raises ♠, 4 ♠ is pretty inevitable.

However, some players may not raise with just 3 ♠ and a ratty ♦ suit where possibly declarer could be forced if in a 4-3 fit. Now, the auction I suggest becomes a real possibility. If, say, North for whatever reason then bids 3 ♥ instead of 3 ♠, you might end up in 3 NT. If North bids 3 ♠, 4 ♠ looks inevitable.

Nobody rebids 2♦ as you risk playing in a 5-1 diamond fit with a 4-3 or 5-3 spade fit available, how do you fancy 2♦ rather than 2♠ opposite say Q10xxx, xxx, x, Axxx

[gszes]

Keep up the good work it was a generally unlucky ill fitting hands (KQ opposite single club) and unlucky distribution (opps on lead with stiff heart and their partner with 2 entries).
Don't worry about it and your "snickering" opps were hind sighted morons (feel free to pass that last comment on to them if u wish).

[661_Pete]

gszes, on 2016-June-12, 15:16, said:

Don't worry about it and your "snickering" opps were hind sighted morons (feel free to pass that last comment on to them if u wish).

Thanks for your support, but I feel I may have done my opps an injustice: I just thought that one of their remarks after the hand may have been a wee bit sarcastic (after I'd commiserated with partner). It was nothing, really!

[rhm]

eagles123, on 2016-June-12, 04:03, said:

you did nothing wrong, your partners bidding however was very poor - it's an obvious 1N opener playing acol.

wank, on 2016-June-12, 11:12, said:

you bid entirely normally.

P_Marlowe, on 2016-June-12, 11:45, said:

Looking only at the N/S hands, you want to be in 4S, espesially from
South, which protects the king of diamond against the lead.

All these comments show only one thing: That even seasoned tournament players have a poor grasp of hand evaluation.
This problem is an exercise in hand evaluation, not one where bidding system matters.
If you play weak notrumps and open 1NT with a 5 card major you may miss your spade fit.
But this is purely accidental.
For the sake of the argument assume playing 5 card majors and strong notrumps.

---

Obviously going down three is unlucky, but going down is not
Few people understand when they should play notrumps in spite having a fit in a major.
Of course the majority of deals, where you have a fit in a major, you should make the major trumps.
But there are many exceptions where it is profitable to play notrumps.
North is faultless. So lets concentrate on South.

---

First issue is, is this hand worth opening?
There is a lot of sense in subtracting a point if you have no aces.
So this is essentially a balanced 11 count. Passing the hand is good hand evaluation, particularly red in second position.
If you believe in aggressive light openings and this is too radical for you, consider the following:

There are hands, which are worth much more in a trump contract, and there are hands, which scream notrumps.
If you have a balanced hand with a preponderance of queens (and/or jacks) and a lack of aces you should make a real effort getting to notrumps.
Opening this hand with 1♠ because you have five cards is wrong.
Treat the hand as balanced with a four card spade suit and bid it like that. Do not worry about the dogmatists. Believe me it is good Bridge, not hindsight.

You might still get locked into spades but this is likely to happen only if you have a nine card fit and combined length in the majors makes it more likely that you belong there in spite of your hand.

Why is it sensible to subtract a point if you have no aces?
The answer is simple:
In high level contracts first round controls dominate the game. Lets disregard voids, because they are rare.
That aces are very important is obvious for slams.
But it is also true for games.
One can construct unbeatable 3NT contracts where declarer and dummy has not a single ace.
But these constructions are so rare in practice that you can consider these constructions freaks.
Major suit games make very rarely when declarer does not hold at least 2 aces. Such games can almost always be beaten. The defense only needs to create one further defensive trick and with 3 aces they control the play.
This is the case here and from the South perspective it is entirely predictable.
Assuming the required 25 HCP are present 3NT holding only one ace between declarer and dummy has much better chances on average.

Rainer Herrmann