It is your turn, pd

[flytoox]

Vul. vs not, holding

S: J9XX

H: TXX

D: AXX

C: XXX

 

sitting south, you heard west, as dealer, opened 1H and pd overcalled 1S. East passed and you raised to 2S. West passed and pd made a game trial with 3c. Now, east came in with 3d.

1) What do you do?

2) Suppose you pass, pd dbl, what do you do now?

[luis]

Objection :-)

I'm not in this problem because I'd have passed 1s :-) as far as I know 1 level overcalls are not forcing and I'm very happy to play 1s 4333 pattern with one ace and no values, argh. The 9th trump is an illusion without a ruffing feature in my hand.

 

Had I bid 2s, which I don't like over a 3c game trial I'd have bid 3s inmediately. Hope 3s means "I should have passed 1s pd"

Once pd reopens with a double I bid 3s. "Why did I bid 2s, why why...."

 

I guess that the 1s overcall is wrong and pd should have doubled 1h.

 

Luis

[flytoox]

hehe, I raised to 2s coz i think 4 trumps and a side ace is not bad asset. Surely if east passed pd's 3c i would bid 3s without doubt. but since there is a 3d, you dont need to bid compulsory. What is the diff between pass and correct to 3s then?

secondly, if pd dbl 3d, would u leave it or move to 3s?

[inquiry]

Vul. vs not, holding

S: J9XX

H: TXX

D: AXX

C: XXX

 

sitting south, you heard west, as dealer, opened 1H and pd overcalled 1S. East passed and you raised to 2S. West passed and pd made a game trial with 3c. Now, east came in with 3d.

1) What do you do?

2) Suppose you pass, pd dbl, what do you do now?

 

I join Luis is objecting to the auction. I have been known to jump to 3S with a lot less, but with 4333 and being vul, 3S immediately is out of the question. Also, I don't want to encourage partner to lead a spade so raising spades is a little iffy.

 

However, I do have SEVERAL ways to raise spades on this auction (the way I play). I could use fit jumps, or 2NT useful four card raise or better (just less than limit raise to game force), 3H as mixed raise fpir card raise, and 2H as constructive 3 card raise or better, so the way I play, this 2S bid promises not very much more than I actually hold. Still, I would not bid 2S, but primarily because I do not want to encouraging partner to bid on or to lead a spade. If you force me into this auction, I would bid 3S over the optional double at IMPS, as I can't risk them making for game. At matchpoints, I will go with the LOTT and pass. I expect partner to have 3 diamonds for his double, so they are in a seven card fit. East likely has six, maybe seven. But the risk of them making for a game swing, with East likley having six... what the heck, it is only matchpoints. Partner will be happy I have a trump trick and three trumps.

 

And finally, of course, I do not PASS over 3DIAMONDS, as pass and then bid is strong than pass and pull. So the second assumption is wrong too... So in reality, over 3D I bid 3S at both imps and matchpoints.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Personally, I like the 2S direct raise. Bridge is a bidders game and giving the opponents the 2 level to explore for there best fit seems silly. As many people have pointed out, this 4333 hand does not have sufficient offensive strength for a direct 3S bid. Add in the danger thant partner could have overcalled 1S on a 4 card suit, and 3S looks problematic.

 

I recognize the danger that a 2S raise might encourage partner to lead a spade. However, I am more worried that passing will lead partner to expect that I have a doubleton in Spades rather than guess that I chose to supress 4 card support.

 

I'm not sure whether I agree with Ben that passing over 3D and then pulling a reopening double to 3S shows a strong hand. Logically this would apply if a forcing pass had been established, however, it doesn't seem to make sense on this hand.

[inquiry]

I'm not sure whether I agree with Ben that passing over 3D and then pulling a reopening double to 3S shows a strong hand. Logically this would apply if a forcing pass had been established, however, it doesn't seem to make sense on this hand.

 

This really is not a fine point. This is generally accepted methods, when you have found a fit, and when your partner has FORCED you to a specific level (say 2 or 3 level), then the weakest bid is to complete the bidding to the three level. Let me give a couple of example auction (other than the one in this thread).

 

1H-P-3C (bergen)-X

3H <<-- weaker than any other bid

 

1H-P-3C-3D; (?) -- we all play maximal dbl, I am sure, but pass is stronger than 3H

 

(1H)-1S-(2H)-3H 3H = limit raise or mixed raise

DBL-P <<--- game try, again bidding 3S

 

Again, I don't think this rule is unusual... so that, on any of these auctions, if partner now makes an optional double back in, to bid your suit again is BETTER than if you bid it immeidately... or at least the way I play. This is also right out of a variety of books, including my "bridge bible" partnership bidding by R/S.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Hi Ben

 

I understand that point that you are trying to make, however, I am not sure whether I accept it as an optimal treatment.

 

Case in point.

 

Suppose that the auction has started

 

1S - 2S

3C

 

I agree with your assertion that the 3C response forces us to 3S.

 

However, lets contrast this with the auction

 

(1H) - 1S - (P) - 2S

(P) - 3C - (3D) - ???

 

I fail to understand why I am now "FORCED" to bid in this auction.

Yes, partner has made a game try.

Yes, if RHO had passed over 3C, I would be obligated to bid.

 

However, RHO's 3D now permits me to pass.

I fail to see why I am obliged to bid an immediate 3S with some crappy hand.

This seems like a wonderful way to turn +100 from defending 3D into -50 declaring 3S.

[hrothgar]

Ben your examples seem to fall into two main "camps"

 

First, consider the auction

 

1H - (P) - 3C - (X), where 3C is an artifical bid showing 4+ card trump support and a constructive raise. In this auction, defining a Pass by Opener as

"I want to play 3CX" seems to be of limited utility.

 

In this case, it is certainly reasonable to say that pass followed by pull is stronger than an immediate pull.

 

Equivalently, in an auction like

 

(1H) - 1S - (2H) - 3H

(X) - Pass

 

it would be ridiculous to define a pass as showing a hand that wants to declare 3HX.

 

However, this situation is very different from the case in which RHO has made a natural 3 level overcall. its been a while since I read Robson and Segal, however, I seem to recall that most of their discussions of forcing pass establishment had to do with 5 level auctions rather than 3 level auctions. I agree completely that there are auctions at the 3 level in which a forcing pass can be established, however, the original example really doesn't seem like it should be one.

[the hog]

Vul. vs not, holding

S: J9XX

H: TXX

D: AXX

C: XXX

 

sitting south, you heard west, as dealer, opened 1H and pd overcalled 1S. East passed and you raised to 2S. West passed and pd made a game trial with 3c. Now, east came in with 3d.

1) What do you do?

2) Suppose you pass, pd dbl, what do you do now?

 

Quite frankly I cannot imagine passing with 4 trumps and an Ace, so 2S is clear cut for me. As Richard points out, "bridge is a bidder's game".

 

The shape is poor but so what? In the presented auction I pass 3D and after pd's X I bid 3S.

[luke warm]

i'm not sure about this auction.. i agree with the hog and ben up to partner's double of 3D... my understanding is, after a fit is found doubles are for penalty... does this fall into that category?

[the hog]

We play that pd's X here shows a very good hand for the bidding to date and is, as my partner puts it, a "proposition". So I can pass or bid 3S depending on my hand. With 4 trumps and only one fast trick 3S is pretty clear now for me.

[inquiry]

This response is mostly for Richard, but also to anyone else wanting a little more info on the point I was making.

 

In a section of R/S Partnership Bidding at Bridge (entitled “Passing to show strength”), (page 149+) they said (remainder quoted from their book in green)….

 

“You may be surprised to learn that there is another sort of forcing pass in fit auctions that lays no claim to the hand. Often, in fact, it will be clear that the hand belongs to your opponents….

 

Using an ‘idle’ bid: We will start with a fairly simple auction: 1S – (P) – 3C – (3D); P – (P) – ? Your 3C bid showed a fit-raise to the three level; so should you now bid 3S automatically and go back to sleep? Would you ever pass?....

 

Obviously it would be a strange state of affairs if you allowed the opposition to play 3D undoubled on this sequence. After all, you’ve already announced an offensive raise to 3S. Therefore the auction :

1S – (P) – 3C – (3D); P – (P) – P

 

should not exist. Does that mean partner’s pass is an ‘idle’ bid - simply a ‘transfer’ to 3S? No. Clearly opener should be able to invite 4S - either by bidding 3S or by passing. (On this sequence opener could bid 3H but why shouldn’t that guarantee a heart suit?)

 

You might think it is more ‘natural’ for pass to show the weaker hand. But there are good reasons for playing the bids the other way round - that is, 3S showing a hand unwilling to progress further; with pass indicatinga stronger hand. First, pass is more flexible. It can be used to keep the bidding low on strong hands - it is forcing, and therefore unlimited. It allows partner to make a return game try in many auctions - in the sequence above, for example, responder can bid 3S to show interest, without committing the partnership to game. Also, it gives partner the chance to double with a maximum defensive hand in the context of the auction - which could be just what the doctor ordered. Secondly, 3S denies the opponents flexibility when they are most likely to require it.

 

If this concept (A kind of Principle of Fast Arrival) appeals to you, or if you want to know more, get the Book by Robson and Segal and read it for yourself.

 

Ben

[inquiry]

i'm not sure about this auction.. i agree with the hog and ben up to partner's double of 3D... my understanding is, after a fit is found doubles are for penalty... does this fall into that category?

 

I play all doubles that are not conventional for takeout before a fit is found (a transfer after 1NT or 2NT, and any preempt by us I assume we have a fit). Once a fit is found, DBLS become as Ron said, good defense for the auction to date kind of thing.

[Free]

Vul. vs not, holding

S: J9XX

H: TXX

D: AXX

C: XXX

 

sitting south, you heard west, as dealer, opened 1H and pd overcalled 1S. East passed and you raised to 2S. West passed and pd made a game trial with 3c. Now, east came in with 3d.

1) What do you do?

2) Suppose you pass, pd dbl, what do you do now?

1) be very angry at partner and pass

2) be very angry at partner again/still, and bid 3S...

 

The way I play it, if I have an invitational hand or better I make a cuebid. Now I can have 0 HCP and 3-3-3-4. Your partner described his hand well enough, and if you raise to 2- or 3- or even 4-level, he should count his cards and bid on with 14 cards and pass with only 13 cards (I heard that line somewhere on this forum and I think it's great). That means I have NO GAME INTEREST, so he shouldn't even try!

[luke warm]

ok, i know that the double of 3D can be left in, as a penalty double can be taken out, i just wanted to be sure that partner wouldn't have a cow if i passed...

 

and i agree with the pass showing a stronger hand than a direct 3S (after 1S/p/3C/3D/p/p)... makes sense to me

[flytoox]

I think perhaps it is time for me to show my pd's hand. He overcalled 1S with:

S; AKQX

H: AJX

D: X

C: KXXXX

 

West holds:

S; TX

H: KQ9XX

D: JTXX

C: AX

 

3dx-1. 4s should be made easily.

[Codo]

Hi all,

 

1. I play raptor with any strength, so after 1 Heart, I had an easy 1 NT bid. If that had get me into the "cold" game? Don`t think so.

2. I surely had bid 2 Spade with responders hand.

3. I have no idea, if pass and later bidding is stronger or vice versa. But I had believed, that passing and pulling is very weak.

4. That is why I had passed first and bid 3 Spade later.

5. I dislike the X from your pd. Does he really prefer to play 3 D X to 3 Spade? But I must admit, that I had seen no better bid avaiable. Maybe 3 Heart to get you to 3 NT with a 3343 hand :-)

But ihmo this is the price for the 1 Spade bid with just 4 Spades.

6. I doubt, that 4 Spade is a good contract:

You need trumps 3-2 (68%), a heart finesse (about 90% cause of the bidding), the ace of club onside and you must develop your club suit without letting them ruff.

Should be wrong to bid game here.

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[inquiry]

Like Roland, I prefer Raptor 1NT overcalls, so that is what I would have bid with this hand. But for the sake of argument, raptor was not available.

 

Like Roland, I don't believe the North hand has a double REGARDLESS if you play pass by south show minimum hand or more than minimum (which I play). If you play it shows more than a minimum, the correct bid with north is probably 4S over (3D)-P-(P)-?. If you play it as a minimum, double is STILL WRONG. This is not a place where takeout doubles apply. Playing if passing over 3D shows weakness, with the north hand I would bid 3H. In this situaion, over 3D, a 3S bid would be to play, so 3H is a "re-game try." IT is NOT trying to get into 3NT (although you may end up there). The reason being it is the only bid left open to you below 3S. Therefore it is a general game try.

 

Now, back to RAPTOR for a minute. With the north hand over 1H, I would bid 1NT showing spades and a longer minor. South would bid 2S (a signoff), but north with 5 loser hand will make a game try over this by bidding 3S. (The rare 4 loser hand would make someother game try or simply bid game). As south, with only one cover card (diamond ACE) and 4333 distribution, I have an easy pass of the pass the game try at all forms of the game except at IMPS when vulnerable. At imps vulnerable, I will at least consider bidding game as I really hate missing vulnerable games at imps.

 

Ben

[flytoox]

pd's problem after east's 3d is really how many trumps i have for the raise. if he knows i have 4, then i think he will bid 3s even my pass should show a min hand. But I think he really doesnt have any better bid other than dbl here. He couldnt bid 3s coz i may raise with 3card. This is even more important after opp find diamond fit.

4s is not that bad i think. c ace is marked onside with a passed east who bid 3d later. the only problem is you may encounter a forcing defense with d lead.

One more question, would my pass after 3d show 3card raise and 3s show a 4card raise?

Raising to 2s is correct i think no matter what pd have. It should be a two way shot. It is very effective if west has a good hand.

2s should not encourage pd too much. if i have a good hand, i will start with a cuebid. 2s should show a min hand like what i have here to a max hand with 8/9 points.

[hrothgar]

If you are playing Raptor (which I prefer to standard 1NT overcalls), then the auction is going to start

 

(1H) - 1NT - (P) - 2S

(P) -

 

At this point in time, if the 1NT bidder choses to make a game try, he should do so by bidding 3C and showing his suit rather than 3S.

[luis]

If you are playing Raptor (which I prefer to standard 1NT overcalls), then the auction is going to start

 

(1H) - 1NT - (P) - 2S

(P) -

 

At this point in time, if the 1NT bidder choses to make a game try, he should do so by bidding 3C and showing his suit rather than 3S.

 

This is an interesting sequence for Raptor players.

First of all if the 1NT overcall is normal in strength then overcaller passes 2s so when he makes a game-try he's showing extra-values.

I think that the best approach here is:

2N = 5431 good hand, stopper in h and 5m. This allows a flexible continuation:

3c = Value in clubs, accept 4s inv if suit is clubs if suit is not clubs advancer can correct to 3NT.

3d = Value in diamonds, accept 4s inv if suit is diamonds if suit is not diamonds advancer can correct to 3NT

3h = General acceptation, now 3s=slam try, 3N=choice of games, 4m=suit and Slamish.

3s = Signoff, not interested in game.

3N = To play

3c = 5431, with 5c and SPL in diamonds, no stopper in h

3d = 5431 with 5d and SPL in clubs, no stopper in h

3s = INV with 5422 hand

Because overcaller cannot have a singleton in hearts and a good 5431 hand or he would have doubled 1h instead of bidding 1NT.

 

Just an idea....

 

Luis

[hrothgar]

In a previous posting Ben provided the following quote from Robson and Segal:

 

“You may be surprised to learn that there is another sort of forcing pass in fit auctions that lays no claim to the hand. Often, in fact, it will be clear that the hand belongs to your opponents….

 

Using an ‘idle’ bid: We will start with a fairly simple auction: 1S – (P) – 3C – (3D); P – (P) – ? Your 3C bid showed a fit-raise to the three level; so should you now bid 3S automatically and go back to sleep? Would you ever pass?....

 

Obviously it would be a strange state of affairs if you allowed the opposition to play 3D undoubled on this sequence. After all, you’ve already announced an offensive raise to 3S.”

 

I have enormous respect for Robson and Segal as bidding theorists, however, I think that they are making a fundamental analytic error during their analysis. Maybe this is a result of my training as an economist, however, R+S appear to be guilty of the “sunk cost” fallacy. One of the cardinal sins of economics is allowing emotion to sway analytic logic. Consider the following example:

 

I have an investment opportunity. The opportunity has a 50% chance to pay $2000 and a 50% chance to pay $1000. The expected value of this investment opportunity is $1500. Suppose that the total cost of this investment opportunity is $1600. In this case, I should reject this opportunity in favor of some alternative investment since the expected return is -$100.

 

Now consider the following extension: The investment opportunity is actually the last stage of a long and expensive process. I have already spent $500 bringing this project towards fruition. I am now debating whether or not to invest in the final stage of the project or walk away completely. Here, once again, I am presented with the same investment opportunity. Economic logic states that here, once again, I should walk away from the investment. However, many individuals become emotionally involved with the fixed cost of the investment. They feel that they need to follow through with the project to “redeem” the $500 that they originally invested. Individuals “throw good money after bad”. I would argue that this hypothetical example is very much analogous to the bidding situation that we are examining.

 

At this point in time, I would like to focus on one particular point that R+S raise: “Obviously it would be a strange state of affairs if you allowed the opposition to play 3D undoubled on this sequence. After all, you’ve already announced an offensive raise to 3S”. This phrase embodies the sunk-cost fallacy. Responder’s 3C fit jump is a calculated gamble. The 3C fit jump serves a number of crucial purposes:

 

1.   The fit jump immediately informs opener whether there is a double fit

2.   The fit jump deprives the opponents of bidding space to describe their hand

 

However, the fit jump does not guarantee sufficient strength that opener is guaranteed to make 3S. [if your partner is able to make 3S 100% of the time, even opposite a club misfit, then you probably aren’t making fit jumps nearly often enough]

 

In short, the 3C bid is best modeled as a gamble. I am willing to “invest” in a fit jump because I believe that this action is my best investment opportunity. However, once the opponents interfere in the auction, my original decision to force the auction to 3S should not have any impact on my optimal bidding strategy.

 

Obviously, having a partnership agreement that pass is forcing and the auction can not die below 3S has the advantage of simplicity, however, it is very unclear whether this is in any way “optimal” from a theoretical perspective.

[Free]

I have an investment opportunity. The opportunity has a 50% chance to pay $2000 and a 50% chance to pay $1000. The expected value of this investment opportunity is $1500. Suppose that the total cost of this investment opportunity is $160. In this case, I should reject the opportunity in favor of some alternative investment.

 

Now consider the following extension: The investment opportunity is actually the last stage of a long and expensive process. I have already spent $500 bringing this project towards fruition. I am now debating whether or not to invest in the final stage of the project or walk away completely. Here, once again, I am presented with the same investment opportunity. Economic logic states that here, once again, I should walk away from the investment. However, many individuals become emotionally involved with the fixed cost of the investment. They feel that they need to follow through with the project to “redeem” the $500 that they originally invested and “throw good money after bad”. I would argue that this hypothetical example is very much analogous to the bidding situation that we are examining.

 

Euhm, I could be wrong, but I think you made a mistake in your logic here. If you allready payed $500, you actually should invest the other 1100. If you get the $1500 back, you'll only lose $100 and if you don't invest you lose $500... Correct me if I'm wrong plz.

[hrothgar]

Opps

 

BAD typo here

Change the cost of the investment opportunity to $1600, NOT $160

[inquiry]

To Richard, RE: Financial calculations and bridge

 

I am just a poor bridge player, in more ways than one. So mixing financial models into discussion of bidding auctions confuses me both from a bridge standpoint and from a money laundrying view.

 

Let me say what I realize. I realize that using PFA (principle of fast arrival) here is not standard treatment. I realize that many people will never accept this treatment, and I am certainly fine with that (more imps for me). And finally, I realize that your model is flawed, in addition to typo you admitted.

 

Here is the situation. When you pass with a good hand (rather than bidding on), you open the door for a reopening double by your partner which turns your initial investment at the three level into a huge windfall. If you have to BID with all good hands (excluding a double when you are well heeled in their suit), you will miss the opporuntity for many great scores when your partner reopens with a double. The PASS keeps you flexible right when you need you, when you have a good hand.

 

Second model flaw, is that if you bid with the bad hands, you actually hinder the opponents right when you need to do so... when it may actually be their hand rather than yours. And you do so when you have a fit that is presumably "LAWFUL". So even if you are going down, and that can not be certain, you are "protected" as it was by LOTT. Third, the forcing pass allows a reopen double or maybe redouble which can REALLY come in handy on exploring for slam below game, while bidding 3 of the major or 4 of the major gets the bidding high without much real help in evaluating what is going.

 

So, I suspect the flaw in your investment analysis is to cconsider this a two option situation: after 3C you will make 3S or you will not. In fact, after 3C if they bid you might make 7S, 6S, 4S, 3S, 3Dx down tons, or go down in 3S yourself. If your 3S make is 2000 and your 3S down is only 1000, what value do you give to 3Dx down three or 4S or 6S or 7S, all made easier by the pass to show a better hand. And the 3Dx is not reachable if you bid with goodish hands.

 

Now, is the R/S way the only way? Of course not. But it is a bidding philosophy that has been very effective for me and which fits my personal style very well. It clearly is not for everyone.

 

Ben