Defence bidding (2)

[adhoc3]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=saj972hkq9dt832c3]133|100|Scoring: IMP

pass----1NT--pass--2♠

Pass#--3♣--3♦--pass

???

1NT 15-17, 2♠ trans to ♣

 

Your PD is a real expert. DONT against 1NT opening is agreed. [/hv]

 

What do you bid now? If you pass, LHO will bid 4♣.

 

Full hand hidden below.

 

 

. North: 86, AT85, AQJTxx, x

 

 

West: KQT,J7xx,K9,AKQJ, East: xxx, xx, x, T987654

 

 

. South: AJ972,KQ9, T832,3

 

[P_Marlowe]

Partners Pass denied a 6 card diamond suit, but he bid 3D

For all partner knows, responder may hold the missing

points, i.e. he may go for numbers, i.e. partners bid make

no sense, he is playing games.

 

Leave him alone.

 

Marlowe

[Chamaco]

IMO, playing DONT, pard's pass denies a destructive hand, not necessarily an unbalanced shape.

The way I learned DONT, the phylosophy of the immediate bid is: "pard, forget any hope for game unless you have a very strong hand, o, at least a very good hand + fit, we are here ONLY to disturb".

Usually, at least the way I play it, the immediate bid denies a reverse, and might go up to minimum opening strength.

 

With a very good hand that has chances for game, one might choose between 2NT or pass 1st round and bid second round (if the hand is shapely, responder will often transfer).

A hand so strong that it cannot stand a passout is supposed to bid 2NT

 

Apparently, by bidding freely at the 3 level, pard is showing diamonds with a VERY good hand, say in the 16/17 range with shape.

 

I would cue 4C here, slam is not out of the picture.

 

=========

 

EDIT: I have see the hidden hand, I wonder why pard did not bid at the previous round...

[HeartA]

Partners Pass denied a 6 card diamond suit, but he bid 3D

For all partner knows, responder may hold the missing

points, i.e. he may go for numbers, i.e. partners bid make

no sense, he is playing games.

 

Leave him alone.

 

Marlowe

This is too pessimistic. I would bid 3S to invite game.

[han]

I am not yet convinced that partner is a "real expert" whatever that means.

[Guest Jlall]

This auction is not possible. Partner is forcing to the 3 level so I'd try 3S and hope for the best.

[mikeh]

I assume that I doubled 2♠: the notation was unclear: I either passed or doubled, and the hand suggests the latter.

 

I would expect my expert partner to have a ♠ fit and a good side ♦ suit that he did not want to introduce via double (if 3=1=6=3 for example) or 2♦ (if 4=2=5=2 or the like for example).

 

I have a great hand in context and my choices seem to be to bid 4♠ or offer a probe with 4♦. 4♠ may be in jeopardy on some holdings, especially if ♠ break badly and he is minimum. 4♦ seems best: he already knows of my 5+♠ suit and now he can assess his hand (I hope).

 

I would expect something like Kxx xx AQxxxx xx: maybe I should just bid game, but if he has Kxx xx KQxxxx xx, I'll be happier in 4♦.

 

Edit: i have just seen partner's hand: he is not an expert. Or if he is, he had a brain-fart.

[Kalvan14]

Cherdano has correctly explained DONT approach. An overcall after the pass at 1st round is STRONGER. Why pard passed is anyone guess: this is certainly a maximum for a DONT intervention, but it is not strong enough to wait one round (it might have to bid over 4♠, btw :ph34r: )

Assuming that I doubled 2♠, my bid would be 4♣.

 

Even if pard has misbid, 5♦ is a very good contract

[Gerben42]

Opp will not be 4♣ as I will before he does. Try for 5♦.

[cherdano]

I expect partner has a reasonable hand that suddenly has some useful shape. I would bet on 4 small clubs, and five reasonably good diamonds, and some useful highcards elsewhere -- such a hand might prefer defending 1NT to declaring 2♦ (or push the opponents into 2M). I would invite with 4♦.

 

Arend

[Robert]

Hello everyone

 

If partner is a decent player, I will trust parnter and bid 4C to show my great hand.

 

I assume that I did not double 2S on my last turn.

 

Did someone leave out an alert bid by the 2S* call? Was it really supposed to be a transfer to clubs?

 

That explanation would change the auction quite a bit. Partner could be 'pre balancing' rather than showing a pretty decent hand.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Finch]

I'm not used to a method where you pass over 1NT with a good hand.

 

I don't play any methods in any auction (not just over 1NT) which involve passing on a good distributional hand.

 

Anyway,

 

i) I would have doubled 2S. Had I done so, I assume partner's 3D is showing spade support and I bid 4S.

 

ii) If I passed over 2S, I now bid 3S which should show diamonds and spades, but will pass 4D because partner could be pre-balancing.

[pigpenz]

i would just bid 4♦ since partner knows what he is doing

[Al_U_Card]

I'm not used to a method where you pass over 1NT with a good hand.

 

I don't play any methods in any auction (not just over 1NT) which involve passing on a good distributional hand.

 

Anyway,

 

i) I would have doubled 2S.  Had I done so, I assume partner's 3D is showing spade support and I bid 4S.

 

ii) If I passed over 2S, I now bid 3S which should show diamonds and spades, but will pass 4D because partner could be pre-balancing.

Have to agree totally. I would have doubled 2S and now the D bid makes sense. (more than the 2 D tens shared by N/S) :rolleyes:

[mikeh]

I'm not used to a method where you pass over 1NT with a good hand.

 

I don't play any methods in any auction (not just over 1NT) which involve passing on a good distributional hand.

 

Anyway,

 

i) I would have doubled 2S.  Had I done so, I assume partner's 3D is showing spade support and I bid 4S.

 

ii) If I passed over 2S, I now bid 3S which should show diamonds and spades, but will pass 4D because partner could be pre-balancing.

I agree as well: in fact I think that the statement that DONT calls for passing with a strong hand is incorrect: I dont believe it to be mainstream: I have played dont a number of times with varying partners, and have not heard of this interpretation.

 

Logic suggests it is wrong. Just because the opps open a 15-17 NT does not mean we have no game nor that we cannot reach it. Admittedly, DONT is geared towards disruption but nothing prevents advancer from making a positive move with a good fitting hand.

 

Furthermore, it is fundamentally unsound to wait for responder to transfer (let's say) and opener to accept the transfer before bidding. Responder's hand will be unlimited, hence potentially a zero count or about to look for slam, and now we have to begin bidding??? Not for me, thanks.

 

I think that this idea is a corruption of a more common approach to the defence to strong ♣ openings, where some defensive methods involve passing with strong balanced hands to see if responder has a negative bid (come back in) or a positive (be glad you stayed out and have hidden your strength from declarer).

[Winstonm]

The only thing that makes sense to me is that partner has a hand he thought had reasonable chances to defeat 1N if he was on lead - hence, no reason to butt into the bidding over 1N - but now that the opponents have moved out of 1N he must feel the best chances for a plus score is bidding. What hand fits this concept?

 

Maybe hands like this:

 

xx, Ax, AQJxxxx, xx.

x, Axx, AKJ9xxx, xxx

xx, Ax, KQJxxxx, xx

 

As this is the only thing that makes sense to me and the prospects for slam are somewhat remote, I think I'll take all the pressure off partner and bid a simple and direct 5D.

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

On the subject of DONT, once again I point out that it is severely flawed as an immediate seat convention with good hands. With 2-suited hands, the only time you can move is when partner has no fit for your first suit. With a fit he will pass, and I've found it very difficult to invite or bid game when partner passes. The other option with good hands is to pass - again, I've found it almost impossible to bid a game or good partscore when it goes: 1N-P-P-P. So with a strong hand playing DONT, you have a 1 chance in 3 of being able to invite or bid game - when partner doesn't fit your first suit - which then reduces the likelihood of game - go figure. A possible solution is to use 3-level DONT bids for strong hands, which would be OK if you found a fit but would really suck if you didn't.

 

I used to play DONT and abandoned it for these reasons; however, I am still convinced it has merit as a passout seat option, especially at matchpoints.

 

Winston

[Kalvan14]

In Dont, you still have 2NT to show a strong 2-suiter.

If you have a 1-suiter, double and then 3-level.

Frankly, how many times did you play game after a strong 1NT opening?

[Fluffy]

3♠ could do the trick, but partner might suspect we didn't double ebcause we were being just fishy. Althou that looks stupid. I think 3♠ is the best bid.

[ArcLight]

Winston,

Mike Lawrence has a booklet (56 pages) explaining DONT. The 2NT bid shows the "BIG" hand.

 

But its very rare that it comes up, and probably most people even know about it.

 

 

People have posted they dont like DONT because it might not "disturb" that much. But it doesn't expose you to horrible penalties like some of the other conventions becaus eit keeps you lower and allows the opps to compete in a suit part score.

Bidding to the 3 level in a minor can result in some severe penalties on occasion.

 

In his CD on conventions, Mike Lawrence wrote something to the effect of "it doesn't matter that much which convention you use, as long as you use some convention against the opponents No Trump". He rated DONT 2.5 out of 5, and didn't present any other, he may have liked its simplicity.

[Winstonm]

Winston,

Mike Lawrence has a booklet (56 pages) explaining DONT.  The 2NT bid shows the "BIG" hand.

 

But its very rare that it comes up, and probably most people even know about it.

 

 

People have posted they dont like DONT because it might not "disturb" that much.  But it doesn't expose you to horrible penalties like some of the other conventions becaus eit keeps you lower and allows the opps to compete in a suit part score.

Bidding to the 3 level in a minor can result in some severe penalties on occasion.

 

In his CD on conventions, Mike Lawrence wrote something to the effect of "it doesn't matter that much which convention you use, as long as you use some convention against the opponents No Trump".  He rated DONT 2.5 out of 5, and didn't present any other, he may have liked its simplicity.

I used to play DONT and abondoned it because the results did not justify its usage, although I admit I did not use 2N to show big 2-suiters as in my opinion that is just too high to be when RHO has a good hand and you have no guarantee of a fit.

 

I assume Lawrence rated DONT as a 2.5 because of its second seat flaws. One huge drawback of DONT is the 1-suited double: this removes exactly zero room from the opponents bidding space. Playing DONT, any time you find yourself with a holding such as KQJxxx, AKJ10xx, QJ109xx or the like in any suit (except a weak spade hand), you neither can bid the suit to compete nor displace bidding room from the opponents - in fact, with the 1-suited double you have actually increased the number of bids for your oppenents; now they can assign a meaning to redouble and to pass, while still retaining the integrity of their entire bidding structure.

 

I know, before anyone hoots, you get to bid 2S naturally - but only with weakish hands. Good spade hands still have to double first.

 

I stand by my convictions: DONT should be DONT-C. Disturn Opponents No Trump Contract - pass out seat. If I remember correctly, and although he didn't say so precisely, Larry Cohen implied this as well in his LOTT book by talking about disturbing the opponents when the auction was 1N-P-P-?, because too often they were happy with their contract.

 

Winston

[ArcLight]

Winston,

What defense against NT would you suggest? (one that pick up pards will be familiar with and can be used in most venues)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what Mike Lawrence wrote on his Conventions CDs

 

"I am not saying DONT is a wonderful convention.

I am saying you should be prepared to bid when the opponents open 1NT.

If you dont like DONT try something else"

 

His primary advice is that you use somthing other than natural bidding over a strong NT.

 

He cautions that it should not be used against weak NTs.

 

And that its purpose is to interfere, not reach the best contract.

"the main goal is to hinder their bidding"

 

Soem have posted they don't think that it doesnt do that well, via 2 Clubs or Dbl, which will be the most common bids.

[Winstonm]

Winston,

What defense against NT would you suggest?  (one that pick up pards will be familiar with and can be used in most venues)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what Mike Lawrence wrote on his Conventions CDs

 

"I am not saying DONT is a wonderful convention.

I am saying you should be prepared to bid when the opponents open 1NT.

If you dont like DONT try something else"

 

His primary advice is that you use somthing other than natural bidding over a strong NT.

 

He cautions that it should not be used against weak NTs.

 

And that its purpose is to interfere, not reach the best contract.

"the main goal is to hinder their bidding"

 

Soem have posted they don't think that it doesnt do that well, via 2 Clubs or Dbl, which will be the most common bids.

The primary purpose of bidding against NT in direct seat is to interfere with the opponents' machinery - their bidding tools - but you have to do this with some degree of sanity and safety.

 

I would work backwards: 2S takes most room and removes 2-level Stayman and Jacoby. 2H is next and takes away 2-level Stayman and Jacoby unless Stolen Bid is used. 2D then removes 2-level Stayman but may not remove Jacoby if opps use Stolen Bid.

2C and double remove nothing.

 

So it would seem that whatever you use, make sure you can bid 2H and 2S a lot of the time - this means no system that requires double or 2C as a 1-suiter if the suit is hearts/spades.

 

Maybe a modified DONT would work...never thought about it.

 

Against Strong NTs, Immediate seat.

 

Dble=Clubs and another, emphasis on clubs 45 or 46 (you aren't interfering here so the reason to bid is to indicate a lead or to compete with a prettty good hand.)

2C=diamonds and another, emphasis on diamonds, 45 or 46. (Same reasoning as above.)

2D=Majors (Takes away Stayman. Remember, 2C is necessary in 4-suit trx to invite NT, so removing Stayman when holding majors has value.)

2H/2S=natural. (Most effective destructive bids.)

 

This may already by some convetion I don't know of - just seems to me a logical way to attack this problem. Shouldn't be hard for a pick-up pard to grasp, although I can't put a name tag on it.

 

You give up the 1-suited minors, which do not create much of a problem for opps anyway, and gain by being able to compete 2 suited in the minors while still blocking the opps with 2H and 2S.

 

Another loss - which is not much loss IMO if at all - is that 54 major minor hands have to be bid as 1-suiters: these hands, unless real strong, really don't need to be poking thier noses into a 1N auction anyway.

 

I would still use DONT as originally proposed in pass out seat - I think it is an excellent "scramble" tool to get opps out of precisely a 1N passed out contract.

 

Winston

[P_Marlowe]

Winston,

What defense against NT would you suggest?  (one that pick up pards will be familiar with and can be used in most venues)

Hi,

 

with pick up partners, either you use a popular

convention or you bid natural or PASS.

 

The point is, what ever Mike Lawrence writes,

it's main focus are regular partnerships.

 

So use DONT, Landy or

Cappelletti (Multi Landy, Hamilton)

Using the last one, just ask, what 2C

shows, mayor or single suiter.

 

And be content, if you cant reach your optimal

contract.

 

Marlowe

 

PS: Against strong NT I play a destrutive version of Lionel,

similar to DONT, but Lionel focuses on the mayors.

Against weak NT I play a contructive version of LIonel.

[hrothgar]

Against Strong NTs, Immediate seat.

 

Dble=Clubs and another, emphasis on clubs 45 or 46 (you aren't interfering here so the reason to bid is to indicate a lead or to compete with a prettty good hand.)

2C=diamonds and another, emphasis on diamonds, 45 or 46. (Same reasoning as above.)

2D=Majors (Takes away Stayman. Remember, 2C is necessary in 4-suit trx to invite NT, so removing Stayman when holding majors has value.)

2H/2S=natural. (Most effective destructive bids.)

This structure looks terrible...

 

Comment 1: You are competing against a strong NT. Accordingly, you want to priortize jamming their auctions above your own constructive bidding. This leads to

 

Comment 2: Your low level bids are transfers:

 

Double = Clubs

Clubs = Diamonds

Diamonds = Majors

 

Transfers are all fine and dandy during constructive bidding sequences. They are very helpful in sorting out ranges and the like. Transfers are miserable in contested auctions because they give the opponents three bites at the apple... Your defensive system significantly increases the bidding space available to the opponents. Good opponents will be able to penalty double you when its right and still be able to describe their hands.