MickyB

Seems to be a fairly marginal slam to be in!

There may not be a later. What hand do you expect for pulling the double of 3♦ to 3♠?

Passing then bidding 4♠ isn't any more dangerous than bidding 4♠ straight away, there's still only one hand trying to make the decision, and if they use a forcing enquiry of some sort then you can get a 3♠ bid in. The auction I fear is 2♥-P-P-P, particularly as my preference is not to reduce requirements greatly for balancing actions over preempts. I would have bid it the same way you did, and I disagree with your pards 2nd double - he shouldn't be expecting both hearts to cash on this auction.

If 2♣ is passed out then the opps have a combined 30 count, I think you should be perfectly happy if it is passed out ;) I'm opening 4♦ then shutting up.

Sorry - East played the J♦.

[hv=d=s&n=s94hkq5da763ckjt5&s=sqt5ha2dk954ca962]133|200|1N:3N West leads the 2♦, which you can assume is 4th highest. Who is more likely to have the Q♣, and how much more likely are they to have it?[/hv]

Obvious to rebid in NT IMO, with flat 15 and 4 card support you will bid 4H over 2H so an auction like 1S:2H, 2N:3N, 4H would show extras. Over 2N responder will bid 3H, then there should be no problems reaching slam.

He isn't able to exercise judgement because his partner has taken a decision that he believes will lead to the best result. This is completely different from not being able to exercise judgement because you are worried that partner won't approve of it.

Just realised I've never discussed with pard what 2♣-P-P-3♣ and 2♣-P-P-2N mean. I wonder if they should be the same by a passed hand...

They know that my pard only opens 2♣ when he actually has game in hand? Wish they had told me this <_< Balancing certainly could work, but I'm unlikely to do it without a shapely hand with spades. The exception would be if I knew LHO well enough to know that he was going to punt game on his random 22 count, in which case I'll balance and then double him in game!

*Slowly raises hand*

Wouldn't you prefer to be in a partnership where you trust each other to exercise judgement and to do the best thing on the hand in question, with no recriminations for doing so? Where you are thinking about the current board, instead of what you or pard could have done better on the last one? In how many other situations do you do something to keep partner happy instead of trying to do your best on the board? You have enough things to be worrying about at the table as it is. It cannot be desireable for you to have to avoid a call that will be right 80% of the time.

Opening anything other than 2♣ is ridiculous on this hand, whatever has happened on the previous board. Even the keenest passer of forcing bids won't pass 2♣ anything approaching 1% of the time, whereas opening 4♠ will miss slam maybe 30% of the time. If a partner is that temperamental then of course I wouldn't do it...if he is my partner and is that temperamental then he must be paying me, and I need the cash :P Passing 2♣ is laughing in noones face...it isn't saying that you don't trust pard...it's saying that you believe that it is more likely than not that game won't make opposite your meager collection so you'll try to do well by passing.

It is neither. It is simply because there is no way (short of mysticism) to know what the winning action on this auction might be. If you don't know, you can't make a decision for the partnership. It's really that simple. WinstonM There are all sorts of situations where you can't know what the winning action is. In the rest of them, you make your best guess.

Suitplay says to lead the 8 and cover if LHO beats it, which is equivalent to your line I think. It agrees with finessing the 2nd round.

4♦ will make both sides guess. Your opps now have no room, and your pard will sometimes overbid (particularly when he is short in diamonds and plays you for KQJ to 8 or similar). 1st green its certainly worth making both sides guess IMO, 1st both vul it isn't unreasonable. 2nd seat it would be a clear pass.

Why would I try to imagine impossible things? Just imagine that opening 1M on a singleton in a 2/1 system wins 1 imp on average, what would you do next time? Imagine opening 4NT on a 0HCP hand wins at MP's. Come on, get real plz. Yes, of course I would do it if it was likely to gain IMPs or MPs. I like to win at this game (no comments Mark B) ) so if something is likely to gain IMPs, I'll do it! Of course, your two scenarios are quite clearly likely to lose IMPs, whereas my scenario isn't clearcut at all! I probably could have phrased my post better. I am just trying to understand the majority's reasons for being so against passing a 2♣ opener - I'm not sure whether it is because they don't want to go against their agreements, or just because it is their belief that passing is unlikely to be the winning action.

Most will open 2♣ on hands that require a little something from partner. Some say that you should open 2♣ if you can make game opposite two queens. I suspect that the majority (at a guess, 80%) of 2♣ openers don't have good play for game opposite a misfitting yarborough. If your hand suggests that 2♣ is safe and that you are unlikely to have game on opposite most 2♣ openers, then it is a gamble to bid.

Yes, I know it is (currently) impossible for such a proof to exist. Just imagine that there is one B) Imagine that computer analysis shows that you will gain an average of one IMP by passing here over someone who makes a negative response. Yes it is a complete gamble, but so is choosing not to pass!

The opps are unlikely to find a double here unless they belong in game, your trumps are too good. Bidding on this hand is unlikely to be a disaster at IMPs, if pard is short in clubs 3NT will be rolling in due to your lack of entry, and if pard isn't short in clubs then you are happy to play there. If a risk doesn't work out at MPs, yes it is only one board. If the risk does work out, it is still only one board B) Actually, my arguments in my last post apply more to making close bids of 2♥ or above - they can double 2m contracts without the risk of it being game if it makes. The most common situation I see is people saying they would balance vul at MPs but not if they were vul at IMPs - turning -110 into +110 is worth almost as much as a NV game swing, and you are much less likely to have a disaster than at MPs.

If it could be proven that there are hands for which it is "right" to pass a GF 2♣, ie your expected IMPs/MPs score on this one hand is maximised by you choosing to pass, would you still believe it is wrong to do so should this hand be dealt at the table? Yes it would be nice to describe your hand and leave pard in a position to choose to play 3♣, but that isn't possible. You have to decide now.

Agree with Luke and Double, except I'm not quite sure why it is relevant that we are playing IMPs. Many seem to think that you should bid like crazy at MPs and pass like crazy at IMPs, but vulnerable it's often right to be more aggressive at IMPs than at MPs. Opps will happily double for one off at MPs, whereas at IMPs they will need more to make it worth trying to penalise you.

Needless to say, I agree totally with Luis. All this stuff about partnership trust is rubbish IMO. I'm not exactly world class but from what I've heard having an even temperament and concentrating on the matter at hand is vital at that level, if partner is forever judging your actions at the table then he can't be totally focused on his own game, and if you are aware that he is judging you it will affect your play - probably trying to appease pard by trying to take the action that he would, leading his suit when another lead might be better, etc. Good thread, Sceptic :unsure:

My feeling is that you are best off as you are. Just doesn't seem right to clean up your 2♣ opener when the resulting clean bid will be many times less frequent than your dirty 1NT opener. I'd much sooner open (43)15s 1♥ and 1♠ than chuck them randomly into an otherwise natural 1♦ opener. It could work to make 1♦ 3+ cards and have 2♥ as a Precision 2♦ opener - with 4M5♣, you open 1♦ with three of them, 1NT with two, 2♥ with one or zero. Haven't thought at all about the continuations after the 1♦ opening, could get a bit messy working out which minor opener really has. I do have one problem with a 2♣ opener promising 6 cards. If you have to open 2♣ on 4M6♣ hands there is a fair chance of missing a game in your major suit, whereas if you opened these hands with a standard Precision 2♣ then responder will be more inclined to look for a major fit.

You were both 7-6? :unsure: