Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:10:53 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
: In article <1736@idacrd.UUCP> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
: :Karel Strasters <karel@ph.tn.tudelft.nl> writes:
: :>>   A8xxx      QJx
: :>>   JTxx       Axx
: :>>   AKxx       Qxx
: :>>   -          xxxx
: :
: :>>   1s         1NT
: :>>   2h         3s
: :>>   4s         all pass
: :
: :> Matter of style. After the 3S bid south knows the north hand.
: :
: :I have to strongly disagree with this analysis.  Bidding 1NT followed by
: :3S with the North hand is not a question of style, it is a question of
: :evaluation (or misevaluation, in this case).  This 3334 nine-count is
: :simply not a limit raise, and you would have a very hard time finding
: :any strong player to say that it is.
: :
: :North was dealt a single raise and North should have made a single raise.
:
: Let me second this opinion.
:
: I am also of the opinion that South does not have an accept of a 3 card
: limit raise. One normally accepts a 4 card limit raise with a 6-loser
: hand. South has a 6 loser hand. However, South also has to worry about
:
: (a) The 4th card in each of the round suits. Partner not having 4 trumps
:     may make it difficult to handle these 2 cards.
:
: (b) Duplication in clubs. Partner is likely to have at least one wasted
:     card in clubs.  Note that partner showed up with ABSOLUTELY no
:     wastage whatsoever. Every card in the North hand was working, and
:     still 4S was only a marginal game.
:
: Note that even if you may North slightly stronger, [add say Q or K
: of clubs] giving him a legitimate 11 count or so, game is STILL
: marginal.
:
: North could even have:  Kxx  Axx xxx KQxx  and game is HOPELESS.
:
: So:
:
: (1) North should only raise to 2S.
: (2) SOuth should not accept the 3S call.
:
I have a feeling that both Bob and David think that the sequence 1S-1NT;
2h-3S is the equivalent of a limit raise with only 3 trumps, as it
would be if one were playing 1NT forcing. If NS were playing 1nt forcing, I
would agree with their comments.

NS were playing Acol, however (be it dutch or otherrwise).  In Acol this
bidding sequence shows a maximum 1NT (6-9) response that was greatly improved
by the 2H bid. So that now N expects to cover 3+ losers in South hand.
Possible holdings are QJx, KQx, Jxx,xxxx. or Qjx,Qxx,Axx,xxxx.

In fact, on the given hand, had S bid 2D in lieu of 2H, North's jump to 3S
would have been entirely justified (in Acol) since all north's card are now
working. Over 2H, the value of the diamond Q is dubious, and so 2S is enough.

The issue of club wasteage does not arise, since North's jump gurantees no
wasted cards (other than the A). Therefore, South may accept the invitation,
certainly vulnerable at IMPS. South has a six loser hand, and the bidding
promises to cover 3 of those.

Bob makes an excellent point about the problem of the 4th card in the side
suit. This is precisely why I dislike the roman 2d var. However, in this case
S should expect two heart honors, and since he has the JT himself, game is
certainly close. I agree that since North is marked with 3334 or 3343
distribution, (or he would raise immediately) , South should not accept at MP
or nonvul at imps . South should accept when vulnerable, since from his point,
game will at worst depend on  3-3 break in diamonds.

Avi