[mikl_plkcc]

Opponents silent throughout.

Board 20: W deals, all vulnerable
N: ♠AK6 ♥QJ54 ♦AKQ53 ♣10
S: ♠JT54 ♥K6 ♦9 ♣J97654

The bidding was
1♦-1♠
2♥-2NT
3♠-3NT

I was the responder and thought that 3♠ was to choose a game, but my partner thought it was non-forcing. Most tables either defended 2♣x (as an opponent had 5 ♣s) or stopped at 3♠ played by S.

Board 5: N deals, NS vulnerable
W: ♠JT ♥JT6 ♦AQJT8 ♣T54
E: ♠84 ♥AK5 ♦K95 ♣AK872

The bidding was
1♣-1♦
2NT-3NT

Every table was in 3NT by E, mostly -1 including us. The opponents could immediately get 5 ♠ tricks as we didn't have a stopper, but 2 tables ended up making anyway.

On both of the above a game wasn't available. How could we avoid bidding it?

[jillybean]

1S on a sub minimum may not have helped when you don't have leb available.


What is your 1nt opening, and 2nt rebid?
It's not surprising that everyone is in game with 17 opposite 9

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2025-June-27, 20:58, said:

1S on a sub minimum may not have helped when you don't have leb available.

What is your 1nt opening, and 2nt rebid?
It's not surprising that everyone is in game with 17 opposite 9

It's not sub minimum and it's a correct upgrade out of 15-17.

If you bid game with a combined 26 count, you'll be in good company

We just might be able to pinpoint the lack of a spade stop, but would have to pass 4♣ in a GF auction to go plus so not going to happen. We probably end up in 5m and require a stiff ♣9 with W

[apollo1201]

Hand 1 with a sg D, it was a good move to try to stay out of 1D.

I have scored at least 3 good boards being in the pass out seat after 1m pass pass (vul opening), by passing with an average hand and a good 4-5 m suit. The vul under tricks when the opening was on Jxx or 4 small scored better than us making 1NT +1.

It was unfortunate to catch partner with a good hand. Most people use 2NT artificially to try to stop low facing a min reverse, but even playing this moderative 2NT I cannot stop in 3C, and opener probably wants to GF anyway with a non-min reverse.

Hand 2 also looks like a reasonable decision to upgrade, nice 5-cd suit and 17 made with good honor structure. Note that 1NT 3NT if you just counted your HCP would likely have resulted in the same result.

Having 26 and balanced hands just bid 3NT when no major fit exists. Without worrying about stoppers.

It is the only game that can make, in 90+ % cases.

Sometimes they do not lead your weak spot (if you have one), sometimes that suit blocks, and sometimes it is 44 (N could have a S more and a H less) and you cash in the rest. Sometimes it fails but 5m would as well.

You also see that 5m does not make in these situations as you lose at least 2 tricks from the top and then need to cash in 11. A missing K or Q not necessary in 3NT proves now crucial.

It is exactly what happens here unless exotic C situation (9 tight in W that you need to guess, QJ tight…).

So it pays to bid these games without worrying about stoppers. And as you said every1 was in 3NT and most went down except some tables that did not lead S.

[mikl_plkcc]

My concern in board 20 was how the other tables stopped at 3♠. Was it possible without them overcalling 2♣?

If they overcalled 2♣ I could imagine
1♦-(2♣)-/-(/)
X-(/)-2♠-(/)
3♠ as a possible ending.

We lost more than 8 IMPs at that board not being able to stop short of game, while the best results were at those tables where the opponents overcalled 2♣ getting penalty passed.

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-27, 17:53, said:

I was the responder and thought that 3♠ was to choose a game, but my partner thought it was non-forcing.

<delete>

Looking at the wrong hand

[WasWinM]

You’ll go broke trying to avoid games you should be in.

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-June-27, 23:57, said:

It's not sub minimum and it's a correct upgrade out of 15-17.

K, Jx2 and stiff in partner's first suit isn't sub minimum? I'm way out of touch with modern bidding

[awm]

On the first hand, you need to have solid agreements with partner. If 3♠ is, in fact, non-forcing, then South can pass it and you avoid game. If 3♠ would be forcing in your methods (but North knows that South will respond very light on occasion) then perhaps North should have rebid 3♣ or 3♦ over 2nt. If your responses are supposed to be sound, perhaps South should have simply passed 1♦. There's not "one right answer" here since it depends a lot on partnership style. However, there's no system that will always avoid all games that don't make while always bidding all games that do make, so you may just have to accept the occasional bad result.

On the second hand, I wouldn't worry about "avoiding game" with 26 high card points. Yes, occasionally game does not make. But avoiding these games will cost you too much in missing good games and/or helping opponents find the right lead against your contracts. Note that everyone is in 3nt; if the whole field is in the same contract as you, I wouldn't worry too much about your bidding on the hand.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2025-June-28, 21:06, said:

K, Jx2 and stiff in partner's first suit isn't sub minimum? I'm way out of touch with modern bidding

6-4 5 count without a stiff honour Qx, Jxx.

Would be embarrassing to play in a 3-1 diamond fit with a 4-4 spade fit available

[jillybean]

64 only gains when I can convey the shape,which I can never do with this ratty club suit.
I'm not concerned with 1D being passed out,

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2025-June-29, 06:44, said:

64 only gains when I can convey the shape,which I can never do with this ratty club suit.
I'm not concerned with 1D being passed out,

You should be, if partner has a 4432 19 count, what do you think's going to happen ?

I don't know playing strong NT what 1♦-1♠-1N-3♣ is but in the odd strong NT partnerships I played in it was this hand (good hands bid 2♣ then 3♣)

[mike777]

Bd 20 is difficult
Definitely agree with 1S response.

Over 2NT North might rebid 3D NF but 3S is reasonable choice of games, difficult

South has difficult options and might pass,

I Would not worry too much about this one.

[WasWinM]

 jillybean, on 2025-June-28, 21:06, said:

K, Jx2 and stiff in partner's first suit isn't sub minimum? I'm way out of touch with modern bidding

I think what may be happening is normal, that you’re being influenced by knowing the opening hand. It is hard but necessary to forget that hand and imagine an auction where you don’t know partner’s diamond length, say a 4432 hand of any of the shapes where partner holds only 4 diamonds. You hand has a major where the 10 is working and a 9 helping prop up the J in your six card suit plus a Kx. How foolish I would feel to pass 1D w hen my partner’s next bid was going to be 3clubs.

[DavidKok]

I was going to stay out, but this is a bit much.

Over a 1♣ opening many strong partnerships play artificial methods to cater to, among other things, hands that want to run from clubs but don't want to show strength. My favourite two are T-Walsh and Dutch Doubleton.
Over 1♦ there is insufficient space for these methods. Some partnerships have gravitated towards the 'balanced club, unbalanced diamond' approach in part to put more emphasis on their stronger parts of their systems. In the Netherlands playing 1♦ '5+ or 4441' is common across all levels of play. A contributing factor is that, if your 1♦ can be some balanced hand, especially if it need not contain diamonds, partner may be stuck between a rock and a hard place with a weak hand with short diamonds. There's simply no safe way to proceed from there with standard methods: bid, and find partner enthusiastially bidding it up. Pass, and land in a possible misfit.

Cyberyeti, on 2025-June-27, 23:57, said:

It's not sub minimum

Cyberyeti, on 2025-June-29, 08:11, said:

You should be, if partner has a 4432 19 count, what do you think's going to happen?

WasWinM, on 2025-June-29, 11:02, said:

I think what may be happening is normal, that you’re being influenced by knowing the opening hand.

Several of the posts here are claiming that there is a clear answer to this system gap. I fully support suggesting that 1♠ is normal. At the same time though, I'd acknowledge that this is a weakness of the system, and strong partnerships have artificial solutions for this. They need these solutions because without them there is a significant risk. The last comment in particular reads to me as if saying that even acknowledging that 1♠ is risky means 'to be influenced by knowing the opening hand'.

As a curious little question, what do you think the odds are of 1♦ containing 3 diamonds in this style? Possibly conditional on us having this hand? Personally I'm very happy to not have all these balanced hands in my 1♦ opening, so I can play my good 1♣ system more, but even if you insist - how often do you think the opponents have a diamond fit here?
Some of the comments seem to not have taken stock of the lack of an overcall, and think that if we pass fourth seat will not balance. One commenter even suggested that we might have an undisclosed 10-card club fit and that we might miss this if we pass. My experience is that with a good fit and a weak hand, the opponents are frequently in the auction. After all, they also have a fit, likely have some shape, and have a good chunk of the points. I'm happy to accept 1♠ as standard, but I'd like to see more discussion on the percentages, especially at matchpoints and when the alternative is underdiscussed auctions the OP is presenting.

[WasWinM]

Unless otherwise disclosed I always assume a vanilla 2/1. It’s easy to get caught up discussing our favored gadgets and systems when they fit the hand but that doesn’t do much constructive to help build good foundational judgment. The issue is really basic, not how to show this hand in any particular pet method but is it worth a response to 1D and why, yes or no.

PS: If you haven’t had to make a jump shift into a 3-card club suit to create a game force you haven’t played much 2/1, not that I’m saying 2/1 is great or should be played. I’ve always endorsed strong club systems.

[Cyberyeti]

DavidKok, on 2025-June-29, 11:48, said:

I was going to stay out, but this is a bit much.

Over a 1♣ opening many strong partnerships play artificial methods to cater to, among other things, hands that want to run from clubs but don't want to show strength. My favourite two are T-Walsh and Dutch Doubleton.
Over 1♦ there is insufficient space for these methods. Some partnerships have gravitated towards the 'balanced club, unbalanced diamond' approach in part to put more emphasis on their stronger parts of their systems. In the Netherlands playing 1♦ '5+ or 4441' is common across all levels of play. A contributing factor is that, if your 1♦ can be some balanced hand, especially if it need not contain diamonds, partner may be stuck between a rock and a hard place with a weak hand with short diamonds. There's simply no safe way to proceed from there with standard methods: bid, and find partner enthusiastially bidding it up. Pass, and land in a possible misfit.

Several of the posts here are claiming that there is a clear answer to this system gap. I fully support suggesting that 1♠ is normal. At the same time though, I'd acknowledge that this is a weakness of the system, and strong partnerships have artificial solutions for this. They need these solutions because without them there is a significant risk. The last comment in particular reads to me as if saying that even acknowledging that 1♠ is risky means 'to be influenced by knowing the opening hand'.

As a curious little question, what do you think the odds are of 1♦ containing 3 diamonds in this style? Possibly conditional on us having this hand? Personally I'm very happy to not have all these balanced hands in my 1♦ opening, so I can play my good 1♣ system more, but even if you insist - how often do you think the opponents have a diamond fit here?
Some of the comments seem to not have taken stock of the lack of an overcall, and think that if we pass fourth seat will not balance. One commenter even suggested that we might have an undisclosed 10-card club fit and that we might miss this if we pass. My experience is that with a good fit and a weak hand, the opponents are frequently in the auction. After all, they also have a fit, likely have some shape, and have a good chunk of the points. I'm happy to accept 1♠ as standard, but I'd like to see more discussion on the percentages, especially at matchpoints and when the alternative is underdiscussed auctions the OP is presenting.

If partner has a 2N rebid, whether he has 3 or 4 diamonds and 2 clubs, it is very likely opps have no 5 card suit outside diamonds, and since you have 23-24 points, it's extremely likely 4th seat won't have enough to balance 1N or the right shape to double.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Your bidding was ok.

Obv. it matters if you play MP or IMP, but I would NOT start worring about stopping in 3♠ with only a 7 card fit,
and I would NOT assume, that a pair, that produced this, was a pair that knowes, what it was doing.

You could have passed the opening bid, this may be a wiser move, depending on your NT rebid structure,
if opener makes a 2NT rebid on 17-18, this wont end well, but responding is ok. (*)
What I have seen in the past, this is a board, you can chalk up under unlucky.

(*) If you play 12-14NT opening, using a wide range NT rebid works reasonably well, it is not too complex
and comes up ... i.e. you train it a lot. But keeping it simple is ok as well.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Having read the description: My reaction was, another one.
Just because game goes down on the actual layout, does not mean, that you should not give it a try.
There is a famous old English convention: Landy Game Try ... "First we bid it, than we try to make it."
Works really well.

[helene_t]

Agree with David and Adam.

Just wanted to add that I believe that 3♠ on the first hand should be forcing, regardless of the meaning of 2nt.

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-June-27, 17:53, said:

<snip>
Board 5: N deals, NS vulnerable
W: ♠JT ♥JT6 ♦AQJT8 ♣T54
E: ♠84 ♥AK5 ♦K95 ♣AK872

The bidding was
1♣-1♦
2NT-3NT

Every table was in 3NT by E, mostly -1 including us. The opponents could immediately get 5 ♠ tricks as we didn't have a stopper, but 2 tables ended up making anyway.

On both of the above a game wasn't available. How could we avoid bidding it?

As was said, ending up in game, holding 26HCP is ok.
A more interesting question is, could you detect the spade issue and trying to make 5m (also not making).
Keep in mind, that game contract in a inor suit is 3NT.
If you respond 1M with 4-4 in diamonds and a major, opener may be able to sense the spade issue, it will get
messy if he tries to find out, ... a psych spade value showing bid may help, but as I said, it will get messy,
and sometimes they dont attack spade.