[alsacco]

Holding AQT63, 8, A852 and T42, South, vulnerable, first in hand decided to pass this hand.
West passed and North opened 1 Club. East passed and South bid 1 Spade. North raised to 2 Spades and East doubles showing the red suits.
South now bid 3 Diamonds.
What would you bid now on the North hand KT52 AKT2 3 A753 ?
How do you rate South's 3 Diamond bid?

[DavidKok]

This depends entirely on your agreements - do you bid short suit trials, long suit trials or help suit trials? I'm assuming it's not short given this hand, but the difference between long suit and help suit is very relevant here.

Regardless the North hand you give has 5 losers by my count (it might seem like 6 until you see those beautiful aces) so I wouldn't have bid 2♠ to begin with. Thankfully partner is giving me another chance, so I would probably bid 3♥ intending to bid on with either 4♠ or 4♣ if partner signs off, and making some slam try if partner shows a maximum with 4♠. If only I'd bid 4♦ immediately over 1♠ I wouldn't have a problem now.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2020-September-27, 11:34, said:

This depends entirely on your agreements - do you bid short suit trials, long suit trials or help suit trials? I'm assuming it's not short given this hand, but the difference between long suit and help suit is very relevant here.

Regardless the North hand you give has 5 losers by my count (it might seem like 6 until you see those beautiful aces) so I wouldn't have bid 2♠ to begin with. Thankfully partner is giving me another chance, so I would probably bid 3♥ intending to bid on with either 4♠ or 4♣ if partner signs off, and making some slam try if partner shows a maximum with 4♠. If only I'd bid 4♦ immediately over 1♠ I wouldn't have a problem now.

Realistically AQxxx, xx, xxxx, xx has decent play for game, and you'd have more points to come, so you're clearly accepting the try.

I think I'd bid 3♠ with that N hand but I don't mind 2♠. 4♦ is over the top (my partner always has xxxx, xxx, KQx, Jxx when I make a bid like that).

[DavidKok]

I think the discussion on 3♠ versus 4♦ is interesting but possibly long, and comes down to partnership agreement, probabilities and average score. But I can't support 2♠ at all.

[apollo1201]

DavidKok, on 2020-September-27, 12:58, said:

I think the discussion on 3♠ versus 4♦ is interesting but possibly long, and comes down to partnership agreement, probabilities and average score. But I can't support 2♠ at all.

We could also discuss pass vs 1S, or blasting game vs inviting😉

[Huibertus]

This hand is huge. 2♠ on it is serious underbidding. Now that partner bids a trial, you have no way to describe your hand to partner, and should just gamble to only raise to game or to ask for keycards. Partner of course should have given a short suit trial, when you have a choice, alwyas pick the SST. This would have allowed North to go to slam confidently.

[sfi]

Huibertus, on 2020-September-28, 03:11, said:

This hand is huge. 2♠ on it is serious underbidding.

This. North's hand is closer to a 6S bid than to 2S.

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2020-September-28, 03:21, said:

This. North's hand is closer to a 6S bid than to 2S.

Somewhat system dependent, 4441s are not a great shape if partner only has 4 trumps, but much better if they have 5. If you bypass diamonds to bid a major for example, this changes the odds of having 5 spades, if you don't, you know partner is 4333 or has 5.

Also whether you play long or short suit game tries normally once east doubles 2♠ showing the reds, surely a red suit game try should be short suit.

I wouldn't start from here as I'd have opened 1♠ on the small hand and it's not that close for us. Since we open this sort of thing, the best hand I can have reduces and so the odds of 2 or 3 being the limit also massively increase. Also depends what 1♣ shows, if it's 2+ and partner will respond on a 3 count if shortish in clubs, you don't necessarily want to go nuts opposite.

[sfi]

sfi, on 2020-September-28, 03:21, said:

This. North's hand is closer to a 6S bid than to 2S.

Ignore me - I was looking at a totally different auction (I thought partner had overcalled 1S and North had simply raised to two).

[DavidKok]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-28, 04:25, said:

Somewhat system dependent, 4441s are not a great shape if partner only has 4 trumps, but much better if they have 5. If you bypass diamonds to bid a major for example, this changes the odds of having 5 spades, if you don't, you know partner is 4333 or has 5.

Also whether you play long or short suit game tries normally once east doubles 2♠ showing the reds, surely a red suit game try should be short suit.

Partner can hold length in clubs and exactly 4 spades even when not playing Walsh. I agree that short suit trials are helpful here. However, all of this isn't actually an answer to the OP's questions.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2020-September-28, 05:01, said:

Partner can hold length in clubs and exactly 4 spades even when not playing Walsh. I agree that short suit trials are helpful here. However, all of this isn't actually an answer to the OP's questions.

I already answered the OP's question, yes you accept the try and I wouldn't have bid 2♠, I'd have bid 3 (and even your comment about clubs and spades is somewhat system dependent, some people bid 1♠ with a 10 count 4-4 in the blacks, we bid 2♣ with our club showing 4, but yes if weak it can happen).

[DavidKok]

There are quite a few ways to accept - in particular I think you should start some SI sequence (which should be impossible, but I guess it's an "undo" bid).

[Zelandakh]

Both players appear to want to underbid as much as they possibly can. South has (for me) an opening bid and, if not, a clear game force over the 2♠ rebid. North has a clear 3♠ raise unless you play 3♦ as a mini-splinter, in which case that would also be fine. This is the kind of auction that gives the LTC a good name. Shortages are valuable when you have a fit. Both of these players appear to be pure Walruses that can only see their picture cards and have no appreciation of shape whatsoever. I would suggest to both going back to their beginner bridge book and re-reading the chapter on distributional points. That would be far more profitable than worrying about the 3♦ call specifically.

[Huibertus]

Zelandakh, on 2020-September-28, 05:26, said:

unless you play 3♦ as a mini-splinter,

About a decade ago I had a partner where 1X - 1 Major - 2♠/3Z promissed a mini splinter with in a 5+/4 hand. I found that to be a very effecitve bidding tool, and would have probably risked it here with only 4 ♣...

[akwoo]

1) Playing weak NTs, I think North's rebid of 2♠ is right. Playing strong NTs, I think North should rebid 3♠. But, playing weak NTs, with the South hand, I'm not bothering with a game try; I'll just bid 4♠.

2) Different people play different schemes for game trys. The most common expert scheme in the US is probably Kokish: new suits are a try showing a small singleton or void in the suit; 2N asks partner to bid the lowest suit they would accept a help-suit game try in. (Usually the meanings of 2S/2N are switched when the trump suit is hearts so that it's possible to have a help-suit try in spades.) In this case, I'd judge South's most appropriate try to be 3♥, a short suit try in hearts.

3) With the North hand, over a 3♦ help-suit try (or a 3♦ control-showing try), I'd bid 3♥, technically a retry but to be revealed as a control bid if partner doesn't accept.

[Zelandakh]

akwoo, on 2020-September-28, 10:17, said:

1) Playing weak NTs, I think North's rebid of 2♠ is right.

You must play a different kind of Weak NT system to the ones I am used to (Acol or Strong Club) as this hand is way too strong for just 2♠ in either.

akwoo, on 2020-September-28, 10:17, said:

2) Different people play different schemes for game trys. The most common expert scheme in the US is probably Kokish: new suits are a try showing a small singleton or void in the suit; 2N asks partner to bid the lowest suit they would accept a help-suit game try in.

Ironically the scheme I am used to after 1M-2M is the reverse of this, a new suit being a HSGT and 2M+1 asking partner which SSGT they would accept. It is also quite reasonable to play a similar structure in the 1m - 1M; 2M auction but it is possible to do considerably better, as has been shown in a number of BBF threads in the past years.

akwoo, on 2020-September-28, 10:17, said:

3) With the North hand, over a 3♦ help-suit try (or a 3♦ control-showing try), I'd bid 3♥, technically a retry but to be revealed as a control bid if partner doesn't accept.

So you would make a slam try over a hand declining a game try but just pass 4♠ opposite a hand that accepts it?

[undoubling]

The FIRST thing I note is that South is a PASSED HAND!!! Every piece of the discussion so far has IGNORED that!!!! Based on the auction, 2S by North is a reasonable effort to 1) identify the fit and
2) leave ALL options open for South to continue. It's up to SOUTH to better define the holding. NORTH, at THIS POINT, is the responder, ASKING for additional clarification------NOT "deciding" and jamming the auction. UNDER ANY SYSTEM!!!!

[miamijd]

OK, so let's look at the bidding here:

Pass: Fine. 1S is OK if you play a big club system, but a little much in standard in 1-2 seats.

1C: Obvious enough

2S: Underbid. North has a 6-loser hand with 14 prime HCP and a singleton in one of the opponents' strong suits. 3S seems rather obvious here.

3D: Fine at MPs, assuming you play standard (3+ cards) game tries. At IMPs, I would bid 4S, but not everyone would.

After 3D, 4S seems obvious for North here.

Cheers,
Mike

[akwoo]

Zelandakh, on 2020-September-28, 10:44, said:

You must play a different kind of Weak NT system to the ones I am used to (Acol or Strong Club) as this hand is way too strong for just 2♠ in either.

I'm thinking Kaplan-Sheinwold derivatives, where 2♠ shows up to a bad 4333 17 if balanced and a 1m promises at least a good 11. When you can't have (semi)balanced minimums because they would have opened 1N, it makes sense to divide up the raises differently, and because of the possibility of game tries, the 2♠ raise should have around twice as many hands as 3♠.

Quote

Ironically the scheme I am used to after 1M-2M is the reverse of this, a new suit being a HSGT and 2M+1 asking partner which SSGT they would accept. It is also quite reasonable to play a similar structure in the 1m - 1M; 2M auction but it is possible to do considerably better, as has been shown in a number of BBF threads in the past years.

I play the same structure because (1) memory reasons, and (2) I haven't played in partnerships that frequently raise on 3.

Quote

So you would make a slam try over a hand declining a game try but just pass 4♠ opposite a hand that accepts it?

Partner can always accept the retry with a control bid. Slam isn't that likely. I'm just bidding 4♠ over a hand declining the retry.

[Huibertus]

undoubling, on 2020-September-28, 11:06, said:

The FIRST thing I note is that South is a PASSED HAND!!! Every piece of the discussion so far has IGNORED that!!!! Based on the auction, 2S by North is a reasonable effort to 1) identify the fit and
2) leave ALL options open for South to continue. It's up to SOUTH to better define the holding. NORTH, at THIS POINT, is the responder, ASKING for additional clarification------NOT "deciding" and jamming the auction. UNDER ANY SYSTEM!!!!

Speaking for myself only.

There was a reason not to mention the passed hand. South still has a powerhouse, there is no way north should settle for anything less then game.

Ye,s hands can be constructed where North reponds 1♠ and 2 is the last makeable contract.

However, there are also hands that would pass 2♠ without a thought that would be enough for a very reasonable slam (♠AJXXX, ♥QXXX, ♦XXX, ♣X) . So leaving south the option to pass 2♠ is losing bridge.