BPO 8 Hand 3

[mikeh]

We hold A3 AJ8763 K86 43, red v white at mps. Partner opens 1♣, we bid 1♥, LHO doubles and RHO bids 2♠ over partner's 2♣ bid. Partner strongly implies fewer than 3♥s, else he would redouble or raise.

 

We have a nice opening hand, with 5 controls and a decent but not great ♥ suit. Absent interference, we'd not even consider playing in a partscore. Does the opposition action change our minds on that? If not, where are we going and how do we get there?

 

Not surprisingly, this hand generated a lot of different opinions.

 

The most popular choice was 3♥. Phil probably summarized the thoughts of many when he asked 'how high do you want to get opposite xx xx AQx KQJxxx?', while adding that he doesn't think that his opening bid across from partner's is worth game. Ng was not as analytivcal: 3♥, what else? but that comment probably came from the same thinking. Double expressly downgraded to 'game-invitational' values, which seems right to me: the downgrading, that is. I remain in doubt as to the best call.

 

The consensus panel choice was the overall second-most popular call: double. I think this reflects a trend in expert practice that has been growing for at least the past 20 years or so. Eric Kokish, a fellow Canadian, has been one of the forces behind this trend, at least in NA. Doubles of low-level contracts are increasingly played as 'action' or 'card-showing' doubles. In one of my partnerships, we used the term: 'Do something intelligent'... only to find that sometimes we didn't...

 

And that is the problem with the double, as I see it. These doubles are often left in.

 

There is a world of difference between Axx AJxxx Kxx xx and Ax AJxxxx Kxx xx, in terms of one's ability to defend a low-level partscore.... yet if we'd double with the current hand, surely we'd double with the first as well? How is partner to act 'intelligently' when our defensive, and offensive, potentials are so radically different. For one thing, a holding of Qx in ♥ makes 4♥ a good proposition opposite our actual hand, even if partner has, say, Jx or Qx in ♠... but if we were 3=5=3=2, we'd probably want to defend, especially opposite Qx... we lead a trump and we likely get to pull 3 rounds immediately since LHO rates to hold the K.

 

Does this mean that double is 'wrong'? I'm not brave enough to make any positive statement on that. See if the doublers can convince you of their case:

 

Fred: double; for me this just means that I have a good hand with no clear bid. Most likely I will rebid a (forcing) 3♥ next.

 

Justin used almost identical language as did other doublers such as keylime. Ritong was less expansive: double followed by 3♥ or 4♥ if needed.

 

Temp3600 added that his double showed values that couldn't be shown any other way: which is a good paraphrase of 'card-showing'

 

My worry about double is that it may end the auction. It would (almost assuredly) with Frances, whose view was that BPO methods do not define the double so she and Jeffrey revert to their agreement which is that this is a penalty double (which she understandably did not use)

 

My worry was not mitigated by any comments from the doublers, all of whom seem to assume that partner WILL bid... even tho I have never seen any expert define 'card-showing' as meaning 'takeout': yes, most card showing low level doubles are taken out, but most is not all, and partner will be passing with most 3 card ♠ holdings. Maybe we can survive that, and maybe +300 or even +100 will be a good score compared to a sea of -50's our way. But are we so sure of ourselves that we want to roll the dice?

 

For those unprepared to double, the majority choice was the self-explanatory 3♥ underbid... well, perhaps not an underbid at all given the auction. Frances chose 2N, on the basis that if partner holds Qx, we probably need to declare: she felt that all other bids were non-descriptive and that this hand is not worth a game force.

 

 

Another school of thought refused to accept that this hand was no longer game force strength. One of them doubled anyway: Ben felt that double was better than his alternative choice of 3♠ since double made it easier to get back to ♥s.

 

But most of the game going group chose the cue-bid... in the hope, usually, of getting partner to bid 3N. We have seen that this is probably worng if he bids it on Qx, altho he might well choose not to. And where do we go if he can't bid 3N? This is hardly the trump suit to commit to 4♥ opposite a possible singleton or xx.

 

Dwingo suggests he is passing 4♣ if partner can't bid 3N: I'm not at all sure that this approach would gain a lot of expert support (the cue is ostensibly gf, and then we pass) but there is no doubt that 4♣ may be the limit on the hand. Other 3♠ bidders did not comment. so their intentions over 4♣ remain unknown...perhaps even to themselves.

 

Even after the advantage of reading all the answers, and the various comments, I am still uncertain of the best action... which is a sign either of a failing mind or of a good problem (or both). Double was predictably the expert choice, but experts do sometimes fall too much in love with 'flexible' bids.. thank god no-one called their double 'flexible'. Sometimes one has to make a decision even tho one would prefer to duck it around to partner. I am a big one for allowing partner input, but I am inclined to go against the expert panel here and vote for 3♥.

 

Having said that, as moderator, I think I am bound to give the double 100, since it was the consensus expert choice. We 3♥ wimps have to be satisfied with 90. I am disappointed by this, because my primary goal in offering to moderate was to score 100 on each problem :)

 

The scores:

 

double 100

3♥ 90... sometimes coming second is ok

3♠ 70 demoted because it is a uni-directional call sans followup

2N 70 upgraded despite being a solo effort

3♦ 60 not bad if partner can bid 3♥ or 3N, awful otherwise

[pclayton]

Heh; Glad to see I have some good company with my 3♥ call.

 

You paraphrased most of my comments, however, I also added that I think I have a perfect double of THREE spades, after my 3♥.

 

I echo your thoughts about a double; more likely a 3=5=3=2 with the same honor dispersion. 2=6=3=2 is just too rich for me; the ODR is substantially different I think.

[inquiry]

I dismiss the immediate 3♥ bid because, to be honest, it sounds too "competitive" to me. We know that we don't want to let them play a 2♠ at matchpoints when that is what they want to do. So we would bid 3♥ on a lot of hands. Of course, we have to temper this competitive bid against the fact that we are red and can't stand down one doubled.

 

I also dismiss it, because the opponents are not VUL and in all likelyhood are just jerking around with our auction (maybe that is why i lose at mp)... I suspect both opponents have stretched. And unlike Mikeh, i am not all that worried if partner passes the do something intellegent partner double (DSIP). I have the Ax in their suit, a great opening lead, and values in diamonds. I think 2♠x, if partner leaves it in, is probably a top. I also have a chance to reflect on the auction and consider passing 3♣ should partner retreat to that contract, or bidding 3♥ over 3♣ to show a better hand than those who jumped to 3♥ initially.

 

My view on this hands was....

 

Board 3.... DBL--- Hand belongs to us. Time to tell partner. That rules out 3♥ which is not forcing, also pass is out of the question. That leaves two reasonable options. 1.) 3♠ cue-bid, with an emphasis on getting to NT from partners side, and 2.) A card showing double (after the twosuited take out double of the free-bid of 2♠ this is NOT penalty, but rather cards). I think I prefer the card showing double, for one reason, it give partner a chance to support with Hx of hearts.

[Guest Jlall]

I feel like a pass is pretty unlikely at the 2 level without some trumps. At the 3 level I feel like these Xs are left in much mroe often with typical balanced hands. Double really feels like the most flexible call "F word" and it's not like a pass is terrible from my perspective.

[mike777]

"I dismiss the immediate 3♥ bid because, to be honest, it sounds too "competitive" to me. We know that we don't want to let them play a 2♠ at matchpoints when that is what they want to do. So we would bid 3♥ on a lot of hands. Of course, we have to temper this competitive bid against the fact that we are red and can't stand down one doubled. "

 

 

I would assume good/bad 2nt applies here so 3H is stronger but not 100% forcing rather than 2nt and then 3H? Agree this is a tricky convention and many may disagree. If 3h shows around 11-13 total points it may be a good bid?

 

Btw when I end a phrase with a question mark I do not mean it to be a declarative sentence despite what some people may think. :P

 

I merely hope to encourage further discussion and logic.

 

With all of that said it does seem that double is often the expert's choice on so many bidding decision deals. :)

[the hog]

"I would assume good/bad 2nt applies here so 3H is stronger but not 100% forcing rather than 2nt and then 3H? Agree this is a tricky convention and many may disagree. If 3h shows around 11-13 total points it may be a good bid? "

 

Does good/bad apply to responder as well as opener, and particularly in this situation? I doubt very much whether this would be a standard treatment. Mind you, I am not saying it is not a sensible idea - far from it.

[mike777]

Agree, as I said good/bad 2nt is a tricky convention and there is room for wide disagreement. My vote is that good/bad is more useful than a natural 2nt in this situation but again agree there is room for reasonable disagreement.

 

btw I do think so many of these problems rest on what is an opening bid?

I ask since I play anything from 10 or 9+ if lightish to a roth/stone 14+.

 

 

Perhaps some quiz on what a reasonable expert/world class partner opens with a pick up partner would be useful for nonexpert bridge players on bbo?

[mikeh]

I would be very surprised to hear that anyone played good/bad 2N here. One of the essential elements of good/bad is that double stands in for the natural nt call (albeit not necessarily with a stopper, but the right size and shape), and it is clear from the comments re double that none of the doublers felt that they were showing a 2N type of hand.

[inquiry]

"I would assume good/bad 2nt applies here so 3H is stronger but not 100% forcing rather than 2nt and then 3H? Agree this is a tricky convention and many may disagree. If 3h shows around 11-13 total points it may be a good bid? "

 

Does good/bad apply to responder as well as opener, and particularly in this situation? I doubt very much whether this would be a standard treatment. Mind you, I am not saying it is not a sensible idea - far from it.

I think good/bad 2NT applies on most auction where your RHO has bid at the two level, this one included. Some excpetions are in GF auctions (not the case), if it could reasonably be unusual for minors (not the case), if we opened 1NT or bid a natural 1NT (not the case), if we have already found a fit (not the case).

 

So if playing gb2NT, 3♥ is not terrible (not terrible anyway),,,, but on this hand you are red versus white and if you are weak with hearts, you are not bidding to the three level without a known fit anyway unless you are pretty darn good. Just i think this is too good.

 

And, for what it is worth, i don't think Gb2NT is part of bbo advanced, although it does include serious 3nt and lttc... and inbergman over reverses

[mike777]

"...Just i think this is too good....."

 

 

As I said and others including Ben have said I think this is the crux of the valuation of this deal.

 

Clearly if playing Roth/Stone this hand is too good.

I would guess if playing junky openers this hand is not too good....

Across from this pickup expert partner I do not know but I hope showing a hand around 11-13 total points with 6 hearts would be ok...but then double can hardly be wrong with an expert partner?

[whereagles]

I think a good-bad 2NT here makes a lot of sense. The odds that opener has 18-19 are very low, but he might have a minimum hand that wants to bar RHO from competing while not deceiving pard as to its strength, e.g.

 

x

xx

Axxx

AQJTxx

 

Wouldn't we all like to be able to bid a non-forcing 3♣ after 1♣-pass-1♥-dbl? Well, good-bad allows us to do that via 2NT.

[keylime]

I'd treat 2NT as good/bad myself here.