| Board 24 West Deals None Vul |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NS 6♦; NS 6♣; NS 5N; Par +920
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | 1 ♣ | 1 ♠ | 2 ♠ |
| Pass | 3 ♣ | Pass | 3 NT |
| All pass |
| Lead: ♠ 8 |
2 ♠= invite+ raise in clubs
p p 1 ♠ x p 2 ♣ p p 2 ♠ 3 ♣ p 3nt ap. Lead= ♣ J
p p 1 ♠ x p 2 ♣ p p 2 ♠ 3 ♣ p 3nt ap. Lead= ♣ J
Odd bidding by NS at the other table. North fails to jump with a 10hcp, and 6 card suit opposite South's TOD. South passes 2♣ which is understandable, but when North competes with 3♣ South bids 3NT??
ReplyDeleteNorth should jump. The standard responses to a takeout double are limit bids. The higher you bid the stronger you are.
DeleteHowever when North freely bids again south's 3NT is reasonable. Imagine cAxxxx opposite and a spade lead now you have play for 3NT. Not a very good play but partner rates to have more than that - cAQxxx gives you close to a 50% chance on the assumption of a spade lead.
Hmmm, I agree, albeit I did reads somewhere that 'close to' meant ' not good enough at MPs'!. However I would have bid 1Nt over 1s on the 1st round and made the decision easy for partner.
ReplyDeleteI think "close to" applies to a rigid rule like 16+ for a reverse (without extra distribution). Here "close to" is expressing a judgement. Partner might easily have a little more than the dead minimum hand I used as an example.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed it does look more like a 1NT overcall than a takeout double.