What kind of hand does partner have?

[jdeegan]

:unsure:

Red vs White, MP scoring. The auction goes: P on your left, 1♣ by partner, dbl by RHO, 2♣ by you, 2♦ on your left, dbl by pard. What is going on? What kind of hand does partner have? What do I bid now?[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sq9h7632dj74ckq98]133|100|Scoring: MP

P-1♣-dbl-2♣-

2♦-dbl-P-??[/hv]

[mr1303]

I presume you play a strong NT and 5 card majors. If so, partner's double should be for take-out (since they have a fit), probably some 3415 or similar. I would bid 2H at this point.

 

(If you play a weak NT then partner is probably making a strong NT double)

[Gerben42]

Partner's double is not for take out since we have established a fit. Pass.

[Wiste1]

Agree with Gerben here, Pass

If partner is strong unbalanced with a 4card major he bid his suit

Btw i would bid 1♥the first time, not 2♣

[Guest Jlall]

I see so we're playing partner for a trump stack, we have Jxx of diamonds... I guess RHO overcalled on a 4 card suit and lho bid 2D on a 2 card suit :P I would not pass, I don't know what he has but I suspect it's something liek 18-19 with no diamond stopper. Maybe he even is 4423. I would try 2H.

[Finch]

It depends on partner and opponents.

 

Playing with one of my regular partners, this is a penalty double. So I've got Jxx diamonds? So the opponents can't bid. (Perhaps RHO is an emphasis-on-the-majors doubler with a 4414 and LHO isn't.)

 

Playing with an irregular partner, I would suspect as Justin does that partner thinks double is game try, or take-out or something and I would bid. This is doing something I hate: trusting the opponents' bidding more than partner's.

[Guest Jlall]

This is doing something I hate: trusting the opponents' bidding more than partner's.

I don't agree with this. Why not use all the information you have available. The opponents will rarely out and out psyche in most auctions, and the times where it is possible are easily identifiable.

 

I think if the auction goes 1S 1N X p p 2C p to you and you have an 11 count you might not bid 3N. You are judging that partner has psyched because you "trust" the opponents bidding. Partner might have run with a 15 count and 5 clubs, but we trust that that is not possible because of the bidding by the opponents.

 

Perhaps the auction goes 1C 1S 2H (forcing) and you have a balanced 13 count. Everyone is red, so pard should have a decent hand right? But we can deduce he had some kind of light/shapely/lead directing overcall and are not going to stick our noses in. Why? We are trusting the opponents bidding.

 

Or perhaps we know a X should be penalty (ie trump stack), but we have 4 trumps and the opponents have bid and raised the suit. In this case do we really punish partner for misbidding when we KNOW what's happening?

 

Or in the cardplay we "know" from the play that partner has signalled incorrectly and failed to give us some subtle suit preference. Do we really punish him for that?

 

I think your philosophy of always trusting partner's bidding/play over the opponents will never lose you a post mortem, but it might lose you imps when partner has screwed up. Maybe it's not our problem, but if we can save him I think we should. I think this is the difference between theoretical bridge and practical bridge.

[Finch]

We aren't talking about quite the same thing here.

 

I am talking about two alternative cases: one is where I know what my agreement with partner is about an auction, in which case I will always trust partner even if it means the opponents have been silly. The other is when I am dubious over what partner thinks a call ought to mean. Then I will look at my hand and listen to the bidding, and it might mean I have to trust the opponents. But I hate being in such a position (maybe that's why I play very rarely in unfamiliar partnerships).

 

I still stick with the basic premise: if I know I have a solid agreement with partner about something then I trust him to stick with that agreement - at the point when I decide I have to trust partner or the opponents, I trust partner until the evidence is overwhelming (which it isn't on the hand that started this debate).

 

Revealing a pscyhe or similar is the same, although the outcome can be totally different. I still trust partner to have done whatever he has done deliberately and according to our agreements. If he breaks an agreement, I assume that is also deliberate. If he passes a forcing bid I don't assume he doesn't know the agreement, I assume he did it for a reason (the most likely is he psyched). If he passes my transfer, I don't assume he's forgotten we play transfers, I assume he's decided that, given his hand, it's the best thing to do and I readjust my expectations accordingly. If the auction goes (1S) 2NT (P) 3H (P) 4D, where we play 2NT as showing hearts and clubs, I don't assume he's actually got the minors, I assume he has a huge hand with a diamond control.

 

So, to take your examples, and show how I end up coming to the same end position as you for a different reason:

 

1S 1NT x P P 2C P. Well, my agreement is that partner is NOT ALLOWED to run. He can redouble to show a hand interested in running if he wants. So 2C reveals a psyche (or a least a way-offcentre 1NT bid).

 

1C 1S 2H and we have a 13-count. Well, if I have the agreement that 1S can be quite light I will always make allowances. But I've seen 'forcing' 2H bids made on 5-counts in this auction, so I'm not going to assume partner has nothing.

 

We know double 'should be' penalty. Well, what do you mean by 'should be'? If it is a clear partnership agreement that double is penalty, then I pass. I trust partner to know this. If I think double ought to be penalty, but I haven't really discussed it with partner, then I look at my hand, I look at the opponents' bidding... I'm back to the case of this thread.

 

Defensive signalling is a slightly different case. I agree that if you know the only chance to beat the contract is that partner has mis-signalled in a subtle way then of course you play for it. But it's not uncommon (particularly against weaker players) to find yourself in a position where either partner has deliberately mis-signalled, or declarer has misplayed the hand. In the majority of cases I go for the latter.

[Finch]

I think your philosophy of always trusting partner's bidding/play over the opponents will never lose you a post mortem, but it might lose you imps when partner has screwed up.

p.s. of course, my partners never screw up... :P

[Finch]

I seem to be banging on about an important meta-agreement to have with your partner:

 

It's vital to know what agreements you actually have, and when something is undiscussed.

 

The biggest screw-ups come when one of you is certain about a meaning, and the other is unsure. When you both know it's unclear, you make allowances.

[Guest Jlall]

I think your philosophy of always trusting partner's bidding/play over the opponents will never lose you a post mortem, but it might lose you imps when partner has screwed up.

p.s. of course, my partners never screw up... :P

Of course :)

[mikeh]

I am with Justin, altho I also agree with Frances to the extent that IF we have the agreement that this is penalty, then it is penalty. I would never have that agreement, and if I did, my hand and the auction tells me that something very, very strange is going on.

 

1stly, how can partner have a 2-level penalty double without 4 decent trump?

 

If partner has 4 trump, then he has either 4 or 5♣ (I would have 5, but a lot of unenlightened players persist in opening 1♣ with 4=4 in the minors, but that is another, and older, thread). So he cannot have much length in the majors. He has at most 5 major suit cards if double is penalty,and probably fewer.

 

Yet LHO bid 2♦, not 2 of a major and not double. LHO has to have at least 4 ♦ and usually 5: no 4 card major and probably not 3343 (many would double with that shape, and no-one would bid 2♦ on a 4-bagger while holding a 4 card major). Thus LHO probably holds no more than 6 major suit cards and usually fewer. I hold 6 myself. That means that if all other players hold their maximum number of major suit cards (17), RHO logically must have 9 major suit cards. And clearly he does not hold a big hand, since I hold some cards, and LHO has the values to introduce a shortish suit and partner isn't doubling with a minimum, no matter how many trump he has.

 

So why did RHO double rather than overcall when we know he has at least a 5 card major and a poorish hand?

 

No, bridge logic tells me that the double is either takeout or a big balanced hand: an 18 count with, say, 3=3=2=5. If it is pure takeout, it is probably some 5431 or 4441 with short ♦ and significant extra values: say 15+ hcp.

 

It really doesn't matter to me which, on this had I have an easy 2♥

[Echognome]

...but a lot of unenlightened players persist in opening 1♣ with 4=4 in the minors, but that is another, and older, thread.

Not to start that debate, but after just finishing Michael Rosenberg's book, one would have to say that Rosenberg is one of the "unenlightened" players then. His argument is that opening bids can be made for many reasons such as: contructive auction, lead directing, or lead inhibiting. He disagrees with systems that have to open 1♦ with 4=4 in the minors. I personally understand both sides of the argument. I'm sure we could debate weak/strong NT, 4 or 5 card majors, strong club or natural etc. I'm just checking that your phrasing was tongue-in-cheek. :rolleyes:

[Finch]

Bridge logic actually tells me that my partner and I haven't discussed this sequence...

 

I have seen a take-out double of 1C being made on a 5512 9-count by a not completely clueless player (i totally misdefended the final contract as a result), but I can't see RHO passing 2Dx if that's what he's got.

[mikeh]

...but a lot of unenlightened players persist in opening 1♣ with 4=4 in the minors, but that is another, and older, thread.

Not to start that debate, but after just finishing Michael Rosenberg's book, one would have to say that Rosenberg is one of the "unenlightened" players then. His argument is that opening bids can be made for many reasons such as: contructive auction, lead directing, or lead inhibiting. He disagrees with systems that have to open 1♦ with 4=4 in the minors. I personally understand both sides of the argument. I'm sure we could debate weak/strong NT, 4 or 5 card majors, strong club or natural etc. I'm just checking that your phrasing was tongue-in-cheek. :rolleyes:

My comment was intended in jest: I respect many of the players who open 1♣: I don't agree with them, but I respect them. My recollection of Rosenberg's comments is that he says that he has not even told Zia the thought processes that determine when he opens 1♣ or 1♦ with 4=4: he will do either depending upon his view of the hand.

[Al_U_Card]

This is like Hxx Hx KJ9x QJTx where I will open 1C because if I end up declaring in NT they might not be leading a D if I open 1D.....