Response with strong 2 suiters vs RHO preemptive

[bid_better]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sa763h84dak1095c73&s=sqhakq52d43cakq96]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

After North opens 1♦, East makes a preemptive bid 3♠, you are sitting South with such a strong 2 suits hand, what is your proper response?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Dbl.

 

This will give partner a hard time,

but do I know that before hand?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Free]

Does anyone still play leaping michael's (or some variant) here?

[bid_em_up]

Does anyone still play leaping michael's (or some variant) here?

Hard to play Leaping Michaels over a 3♠ bid.

[SoTired]

I know you are upset. The hand probably makes 6 in 3 different suits. If you make a negative dbl, Opener will probably pass for penalty and your side will get 500 - 800.

 

I would bid 4S, and then bid 6 of whatever suit opener bids next. I expect that to be 6H.

[jdonn]

I know you are upset. The hand probably makes 6 in 3 different suits. If you make a negative dbl, Opener will probably pass for penalty and your side will get 500 - 800.

 

I would bid 4S, and then bid 6 of whatever suit opener bids next. I expect that to be 6H.

Isn't 4♠ a very strong diamond raise? Or is this another thing that differs from country to country. Where I'm from it's a diamond raise, and I think his next bid over that will be 5♠ or 6♦ or something.

 

I would bid 5NT, passing whatever partner does. I presume on this hand it would be 6♦, getting me to very much the wrong contract. Hopefully if they lead a spade it at least won't be the king, and my odds will be very much improved.

[mike777]

X

 

I hope we can end up plus with my 20 hcp.

[han]

With Arend and Ben I play that 4♣ shows hearts and 4♥ shows clubs. That obviously works very well here.

 

Without that gadget I would also double. The only alternative that I see is 5NT pick a slam, and I don't think that I play that in this auction.

[Al_U_Card]

This hand has so much going for it (3 losers, 2 decent suits to offer for trump, preference support for pard's suit). It only has the S Q to make it less than ideal. I would put 5S on the table and then live with the 5NT or 6 level response of pard. I expect that he will shoose C over H and they are more likely to split better than H anyway.....

[mikeh]

I like that switch that Hannie plays... sure makes this kind of hand easier :unsure:

 

Unfortunately neither I nor the poster (I assume) play it.

 

If ever there was a bad 3-loser 20 hcp hand, this is it: the stiff ♠ is not worth much, we have no texture in our suits, and we hold just about the worst holding in partner's suit: but we hold 20 hcp and two AKQ suits!

 

The problem with double is that you could be lay down for 7N and be on lead.... A109x Jx AKxx Jxx... should he pass or bid 3N?

 

The problem with 4♥ is that it is an astounding underbid, and will be passed 95% of the time, even when cold for grand: see above hand

 

The problem with 4♠ is that followups are uncertain... no matter what partner has and no matter how he reads 4♠ (agreeing ♦ or just a very good hand unable to risk any other call)

 

The problem with 5N, intended as pick a slam, is that it may not mean that: it might be grand slam force..altho I don't think that is the logical meaning... and, of course, the answer does absolutely nothing in terms of finding the best contract: see either the actual hand or my 4=2=4=3 hand... in the actual hand, we reach a bad 6♦ and on the posited hand we reach...? Not 7N nor 6 or 7♥.

 

Okay... here is an oddball idea... which may be horrible... I can already think of problems.... 4♣

 

4♣ is right on the ♣ suit, and 'right' on values, so far, in that it is forcing.

 

If partner were to raise ♣, we'd cue 5♥ and see what happens

 

If partner were to bid 4♥ (he won't, but I can dream), we'd bid 4♠ and see what happens.. we'd certainly reach 6♥

 

If partner retreats to 4♦, the most likely call, we can bid 4♥... which should alert him to the fact that we did not negative double.... but the odds are that he will pass 4♥ with almost all hands with ♥ length.... plus he may get confused... I'd know that I am already confused so why shouldn't he be?

 

If I had to make a bid, and if I could not bring myself to bid 4♣ (a call easier to make here than at the table), I'd double and pray.

 

On the actual hand, I suspect after 4♣ we'd hear 4♦ and over my 4♥ we'd get 5♣ and I'd bid 6♣.. I would not bid 6♥, since that would be 5=6 or better... I'd be x AKQxx x AKQxxx for that sequence (maybe AKJxxx in ♣)

[bid_better]

Thanks, I do appreciate all comments above. This was a real hand happend at my bridge club's team league two monthes ago. I assume that it is rare to hold such a hand at South's seat in such an auction so that the response would be a real challenge even for regular partnership at expert level.

 

At the open table, the south(our opponent) bided 4♠ to show a strong hand and probably implied other 2 suits, but the north believed it was strong raise to ♦ suit and they finally reached 7♦ which was 3 down as ♦ break was 5-1. Trust me, North/South were expert players and regualr partners.

 

I am wondering that is there anyone playing 4NT as a sort of convention which could show such a hand here? As 4♠ cuebid is always available to show a strong hand with ♦ support, why do we need to keep 4NT as ♦ RKC Blackwood here?

[jdonn]

I agree with the interpretation of 4♠ as a diamond raise and consider it standard and normal, though I wouldn't go so far as to say people who disagree are wrong. Like I said, to some extent it may be a regional thing that is different in different places.

 

I am surprised at anyone who stated doubts that 5NT could be anything but pick a slam. Maybe there was a time it was grand slam force, but times have changed. GSF should only apply when either, we have set a definite trump suit already, or it's a wild jump where we would never need 5NT as pick a slam, like 1♥ (2♠) 5NT we would just start bidding suits if we had them.

 

Even if 4♠ is a diamond raise I would still keep 4NT as keycard. 4♠ is (potentially) a hand that may not even be good enough to commit to slam. 4NT is a hand that wants to bid slam and just doesn't want to be off two aces, or might even want to be in a grand slam. Those are completely different hands. Plus you might use 4NT even on hands where you don't intend to go to diamonds in the end. The other problem with making 4NT show the other suits is that if you belong in hearts you are in 5♥ instead of 4♥. If I had this sort of hand but not good enough to force to slam I would probably just double. Another option if I held good hearts would be to bid 4♥ and simply hope for the best.

 

The switch convention people have been mentioning, where in this case 4♣ shows hearts and 4♥ shows clubs, has merit and would have worked well on this hand, but be careful it is not without it's costs.

1) Whatever you make better when you have one suit, hearts in this case, you make worse when you have the other suit. For example now when you have clubs, partner doesn't have a cheap diamond (or heart!) rebid available, and you have preempted partner out of doing anything intelligent.

2) It is always a negative to give the opponents more artficial bids to double.

[Free]

With Arend and Ben I play that 4♣ shows hearts and 4♥ shows clubs. That obviously works very well here.

 

Without that gadget I would also double. The only alternative that I see is 5NT pick a slam, and I don't think that I play that in this auction.

Do you play something similar after every 1X-(3Y) auction?

[helene_t]

With Arend and Ben I play that 4♣ shows hearts and 4♥ shows clubs. That obviously works very well here.

 

Without that gadget I would also double. The only alternative that I see is 5NT pick a slam, and I don't think that I play that in this auction.

Wow, amazing! I was just about to make up something like

4♣: Ostensibly clubs+♦ tolerance

4♠: Two places to play (not both minors)

 

but your gadget is obviously much better.

[han]

Of course Josh is right that switch does have disadvantages too. I just said that on this hand it would work out wonderfully. It's not my gadget of course, I think that Bergen had the original idea to switch 2C and 2H after 1D-(1S), and the grannovetters have written about extensions to higher levels.

 

We play it when they overcall in a black suit up to 4C, and there is exactly one unbid major. Email me if you'd like to see my write-up.

[jdonn]

I forgot, Rodwell talked about it in that interview. Just food for thought.

 

 

BridgeMatters: What about Marty Bergen’s switch idea, where after you open and they overcall a suit, you flip the meanings of the other two suits?

 

Eric Rodwell: So if we open 1D and they bid 1S, we bid 2C to show hearts and 2H to show clubs?

 

BridgeMatters: That’s right. The idea is that there are two potential advantages—one it gets the overcaller on lead and, second, when there is a spade overcall, it gets hearts into the auction a bit easier.

 

Eric Rodwell: You are saying that 1D-1S-2C could be like a hand that would make a negative double and then bid hearts?

 

BridgeMatters: Right.

 

Eric Rodwell: I have considered such ideas independently and have decided not to use them in that sort of an auction. In general, there is a problem with using transfer type bids when neither hand is limited and neither hand is known to be balanced. For example, what does opener do if I have stiff heart and 11 high, so 4-1-4-4? Or the same hand with 14? It is just very hard—we are losing the standards for a free bid at the two level. So if 2C showed the same thing that 2H showed that would probably be OK. Of course anytime you are switching hearts and clubs—like clubs to show hearts and hearts to show clubs—you are going to do better when the other guy has hearts and do worse when you have clubs. Like I can’t rebid 2D anymore over the bid that shows clubs.

 

BridgeMatters: Part of the theory after a 1S overcall is that if partner has five hearts he still can have four clubs, but if he has four hearts and five clubs he would likely make a negative double instead.

 

Eric Rodwell: Let me think about that one. If I have five hearts, four clubs and an 8 count, I don’t see anything wrong with starting with a negative double. On most of these hands, I don’t really want to play hearts at the three level or higher unless opener has a good hand—I just want to invite a natural description from opener’s hand. If I am starting with 2C, I am preventing opener from showing his clubs. Let’s say it goes 1D-1S-2C showing hearts, and it now goes 2S-Pass-Pass. If I now balance with 3C, is that a 5-4 8 count or is that forcing with a better hand? You really open a Pandora’s Box full of these kinds of questions every time you adopt a new convention. I am not saying it can’t be done, I’m just saying that as someone who has being designing systems for 20+ years, it’s not as easy as it seems to be sometimes. I had to scrap a lot of these ideas just because they were too complicated, too difficult to play

[cherdano]

Of course I won't argue with Rodwell. I will just say that after, say, 1♦-(1♠) I would expect a tad more than an average 8 count with 5 hearts for a 2♣ bid - I think of it more like a maximum NFB or better. A good 8 count with 6 hearts would do, of course.

 

With Han I play it as forcing to 2♥.

 

Arend

[ArcLight]

>I had to scrap a lot of these ideas just because they were too complicated, too difficult to play

 

This coming from a man with 800+ pages of system notes! Frightening. B)