[jeffford76]

Matchpoints

---

How much are east and west to blame for being in 4S instead of 3NT? What's the worst call?

[mike777]

50/50

blame 3c and 3s.

[ArtK78]

It appears that West was worried about the red suit situation. Clearly East has this covered, and, if East were on the same wavelength, he should bid 3NT.

However, from East's point of view, it appears that West is making a slam try by forcing to game and rebidding spades. In that case, I don't understand East's last call - surely his hand merits a 4♥ cue bid and not a 4♠ signoff.

As I don't know what the partnership agreement as to the meaning of 3♠ is, I can't properly answer the question. The practical call by West on his hand is 3NT, although it risks being off the entire heart suit (or having the sole stopper in one of the red suits attacked at trick one and having to lose the lead to establish nine tricks).

So, without further information, I will say that the 3♠ call is the worst call - West should bid 3NT. But knowledge of the partnership agreement might change my answer.

By the way, 4♠ could be the right contract at any form of scoring, depending on the lie of the cards. I take it that the diamonds were 3-3; otherwise a heart lead could limit 3NT to 4 spades, 2 hearts and 3 diamonds while 4♠ will make 10 tricks all of the time (barring a club ruff).

[gszes]

jeffford76, on 2012-June-20, 12:40, said:

Matchpoints

---

How much are east and west to blame for being in 4S instead of 3NT? What's the worst call?

4s is a very reasonable contract so I would not be overly upset. The main reason you ended up in 4s
is because of the 3c bid (i would bid 2n) which appears to cast doubt about the heart suit being stopped.
Once E bids 3c w (naturally preferring to avoid 5 of a minor) pretends they have 6 spades with their
very decent spade holding. E then raise to 4 very reasonably. Even using a natural bidding system the
priorities of major NT distant 3rd minors still exists. The 3c while natural fails to consider that nt is
highly preferable and we would be much better served saving our 4 card club suit as an alternative
slam if we get that high. Remember that p could have bid a natural 3c if they had a lot of clubs so
there is a very strong chance any club fit we have is 8 cards at best hardly worth stressing at this time.

[Phil]

I don't care for 3♣ at all. It sidetracked the auction. If partner has good clubs and a slam try he'll bid 3♣ over 2N.

West should understandably be worried about hearts, and I understand not bidding 3N over 3♣.

[jeffford76]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-20, 13:01, said:

However, from East's point of view, it appears that West is making a slam try by forcing to game and rebidding spades. In that case, I don't understand East's last call - surely his hand merits a 4♥ cue bid and not a 4♠ signoff.

Systemically a direct 3S over 1NT would have been a single-suited slam try. There's no special agreement about the difference between 3S and 4S over 3C.

[ArtK78]

jeffford76, on 2012-June-20, 13:12, said:

Systemically a direct 3S over 1NT would have been a single-suited slam try. There's no special agreement about the difference between 3S and 4S over 3C.

What does it mean when responder bids new minor forcing and then rebids his major?

(By the way, I was not asking about the difference between 3♠ and 4♠ over 3♣).

[jeffford76]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-20, 13:39, said:

What does it mean when responder bids new minor forcing and then rebids his major?

There's no special agreement except that it's not a single suited slam try, although I'm fairly certain both partners thought it was looking for the right game, not for slam. But part of the point of posting was to see what people thought it should be / would be taken as.

[jeffford76]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-20, 13:01, said:

By the way, 4♠ could be the right contract at any form of scoring, depending on the lie of the cards. I take it that the diamonds were 3-3; otherwise a heart lead could limit 3NT to 4 spades, 2 hearts and 3 diamonds while 4♠ will make 10 tricks all of the time (barring a club ruff).

Thanks for pointing this out, by the way. I'm amused neither of us noticed this during the discussion as the diamonds were in fact 3-3.

[Hanoi5]

70% to East. Why 1NT on a 5422? Why 3♣? And finally, why not 3NT over 3♠?

[Zelandakh]

This seems to be a recurring theme in these auctions - 3♣ over 2♦ causing problems. It really seems that the call needs to be restricted to something fairly specific. I wonder if using a Muppet-style switch (2♥ = nothing to show; 2NT = 4 hearts) would not provide a way of avoiding some issues, if for no other reason than Opener being less likely to want to bid 3♣ when the alternative is 2♥ rather than 2NT. I am increasingly certain that there are some theoretical gains to be made in many [2♦ = art GF] auctions.

[rhm]

Choosing between a major suit game and 3NT is a delicate issue and you can not expect to get it right all the time.
If I have to assign blame here I would assign all to East.
You could argue that West has "shown" a six card suit, but then you have to explain how you would reach spades if the hands were

---

If there is a rule I have found useful over the years it is: Do not bid bad suits in strong (game forcing) sequences.
While 3C describes this distribution, East club suit is far too weak to be introduced as a suit in a potentially slam interested sequence.
At matchpoints I would also have bid 3NT in preference to raising spades with the actual East hand. But this could have been wrong if West is short in clubs.

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

There is nothing wrong with a 4S contract. At MPs you may well do far better than 3NT

[perko90]

rhm, on 2012-June-21, 03:58, said:

If I have to assign blame here I would assign all to East.
...
If there is a rule I have found useful over the years it is: Do not bid bad suits in strong (game forcing) sequences.
While 3C describes this distribution, East club suit is far too weak to be introduced as a suit in a potentially slam interested sequence.

Rainer Herrmann

There's some good advice!
3♣ is definitely the culprit.