[AL78]

I got this wrong in the bidding and the defence, although I was thrown by partner's low card at trick one, maybe I could have worked it out, I don't know.

---

Having completely misjudged the situation in the auction I contributed to messing up the defence. I led the club ace, partner playing the 3 and declarer the jack. I was confused by the apparent discouragement signal from partner but decided to trust her and switched to a diamond. That let the game through when declarer won, took the spade finesse and played another two rounds ditching the club loser (partner didn't ruff in on the second round). 4♥= NS was a bottom when we can make 5minor our way, taking 4♥ down would have got us 30%. Whilst I knew we had a double fit I was concerned about the flatness of my hand with useless major suit honors combined with the unfavourable vulnerability hence didn't bid 5♣. As a testament to the randomness at this club one EW pair was allowed to play in 2♣. I am still bad at judgement in these competitive auctions and am frequently throwing boards.

[LBengtsson]

Only comment: your partner is not helping your cause. I honestly do not like the 2NT Unusual with a strong 6-5 hand but that is a minor error imo, but worse than that is your partner's reluctance to signal constructively at trick one, then even worse not to ruff the winning ♠ so as to prevent the ♣ discard.

Not more else I can say.

[mw64ahw]

I think you have a number of bidding options over this sequence depending on agreements
2NT - both minors weak or very strong
2NT both minors Intermediate+
X - both minors 44/55
1NT Sandwich 55
1NT 5+♣4+♦
2♥ 5+♦ 4+♣
bid ♣ rebid ♦
bid ♦ rebid ♣
2♥ 5+♣4+♦
2♠ 5+♦4+♣
bid ♦ rebid jump♣
bid ♣ jump rebid ♦.
2♠ 65minors

I play the options in bold with 2♠ being my preference here with 2NT/3NT/4NT saying equal length you choose.
If you can design the bidding structure in such a way as to give partner an idea of strength and distribution then its easier to judge the appropriate level depending on vulnerability.
The opponents have then have the issue of how to defend/compete

Having said all that as East I'd bid 1NT with one partner as a takeout and 1♠ with the other but maybe not at this vulnerability depending on the opponents/partner

[LBengtsson]

mw64ahw, on 2023-January-06, 07:43, said:

I think you have a number of bidding options over this sequence depending on agreements

Agree. The unusual NT is best used when bidding over one major suit bid only. When the opps. have bid both majors there are plenty of other options available depending on agreements.

[DavidKok]

As for the play, your partner should have given a constructive signal. There's little point to "I could have worked it out" if it means ignoring your partner's requests. What if next time your partner identifies the killing defence, signals for it and you go into the tank and come up with something else? The goal is to cooperatively find the best defence. If one member of the partnership doesn't contribute to this the other was not supposed to have found this anyway.

I don't mind the 2NT bid. mw64ahw's structure looks very bad to me (modern standard is that 2♥ and 2♠ are natural, since openings and responses are not based on suit quality these days) - you also don't have much law protection with 5/4 in the minors at the 3-level, plus you're giving away free information when it is unlikely it's your hand. 2NT with 5/6 is completely fine.
The 3♦ bid is a clear mistake though. You have 3-card support for both of partner's minors. Furthermore, you should have paused for a moment to count the distribution of the majors around the table at that point. You've got 7 cards in the majors, and partner has at most 3 for the 2NT call. That gives the bad guys 16(+) of them, meaning they either have a double fit in the majors or a 9-card fit. Thankfully South has been kind enough to conceal a fit and not raise their partner, so you get to take advantage of this fact. Incidentally, you have little defence to 4♥ (the spades are sitting over you, you don't have ruffing value, your queen of diamonds is waste paper and the ace of clubs third devalues partner's defensive tricks in clubs). You should figure out now what you're going to bid over their 4♥, and make some cooperative bid or preemptively take it out with 5m.

[mw64ahw]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-06, 09:02, said:

I don't mind the 2NT bid. mw64ahw's structure looks very bad to me (modern standard is that 2♥ and 2♠ are natural, since openings and responses are not based on suit quality these days) - you also don't have much law protection with 5/4 in the minors at the 3-level, plus you're giving away free information when it is unlikely it's your hand. 2NT with 5/6 is completely fine.

I guess I'm not modern or a trend follower then.
I focus on getting to my partnership's optimum contract, and it helps partner when information is provided.
If the hand belongs to the opponents then fine.
At the level I play any detailed information I provide rarely has an influence, especially when I can throw in the occasional psyche.

[akwoo]

I think the bidding is fine at this vulnerability - going for 500 when they make 420 is fairly likely from both sides.

Your partner misdefended. Just stop worrying about these hands.

[mw64ahw]

mw64ahw, on 2023-January-06, 12:19, said:

I guess I'm not modern or a trend follower then.
I focus on getting to my partnership's optimum contract, and it helps partner when information is provided.
If the hand belongs to the opponents then fine.
At the level I play any detailed information I provide rarely has an influence, especially when I can throw in the occasional psyche.

I was thinking about this one further and with 6+M I can afford to Pass given 1♠ is forcing and bid M on the next round if desired.