Competitive Auction

[jtfanclub]

So the X was buyer's remorse, for not claiming the hand was invitational in the first place?

 

More random thoughts...

 

Once the lead is made, you know both your partner and RHO have 4 hearts (I doubt either side is concealing a 5 card heart suit). The rebid of clubs pretty much guarantees RHO has 5 clubs. That's 9 cards.

 

Take the AK of the diamonds...you're never going to stop a diamond ruff if they have one, and making them break the suits has to be for your benefit. If your partner shows count, and I hope your partner does, you now know 12 cards in RHO's hand...5 clubs, 3 diamonds, and 4 hearts, leaving at most one spade. Now you know a small spade is safe.

 

Looks to me like the problem wasn't in the bidding, it was in the play. Your choice is 3♣X-1 vs. 3♦-1.

 

Or am I missing something?

[awm]

If double of 2♣ would be "stayman" or "takeout" then partner probably should've doubled. But the agreement seems to be that double is penalty. Why make a two-level penalty double on a singleton trump and a hand without much defense? On the other hand partner can see that we have the clear majority of the values (7 with some spots opposite 15-18) and passing 2♣ seems kind of ridiculous also. The 2♦ bid is normal assuming the somewhat non-standard "double of 2♣ is penalty" agreement.

 

After the 3♣ bid, partner's double just says "hey this is our hand." It's neither penalty nor takeout. This is fairly standard I think in auctions like 1NT-Pass-Transfer-3Bid-Pass-Pass where opener usually can't act because partner might have little to nothing. Opener is supposed to judge what to do -- converting is certainly a possibility but this action usually requires either a better holding in the enemy suit, or a weaker holding in partner's suit. Holding 3-card support to two honors and likely only one trump trick, correcting to three of partner's suit is fairly normal.

[Echognome]

This hand hardly seems possible for North.

 

1) he has a clear double... a double of 2♣. Hand could belong in any of three suits.

 

2) For his "free bid" of 2♦ (sure not forcing, not even invitational), he is weak. And he has nearly no defense stregth to explain his optional double.

 

3) Once again, after 2♦ -- that establish our "fit" so a later double can not be pure takeout (thus can not be this minimum, defensivess wonder).

Argh... what other agreements are you going to assume for us? If double is penalty then double is not so clear is it? Perhaps a better comment might be:

 

(1X) - 1NT - (2X) - Dbl should be played as takeout, even if 1NT - (2X) - Dbl is played as penalty. We generally treat the auction (1X) - 1NT - (2Y) the same as 1NT - (2Y). Thus I assumed double was penalty.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

3♦ makes because west has no entry to give east a spade ruff. North simply loses 1♥, 2♠ and 1♣. North can set up spades for ♥ discards.

[inquiry]

This hand hardly seems possible for North.

 

1) he has a clear double... a double of 2♣. Hand could belong in any of three suits.

 

2) For his "free bid" of 2♦ (sure not forcing, not even invitational), he is weak. And he has nearly no defense stregth to explain his optional double.

 

3) Once again, after 2♦ -- that establish our "fit" so a later double can not be pure takeout (thus can not be this minimum, defensivess wonder).

Argh... what other agreements are you going to assume for us? If double is penalty then double is not so clear is it? Perhaps a better comment might be:

 

(1X) - 1NT - (2X) - Dbl should be played as takeout, even if 1NT - (2X) - Dbl is played as penalty. We generally treat the auction (1X) - 1NT - (2Y) the same as 1NT - (2Y). Thus I assumed double was penalty.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

3♦ makes because west has no entry to give east a spade ruff. North simply loses 1♥, 2♠ and 1♣. North can set up spades for ♥ discards.

Well, I am always willing to tell you how to bid :D but don't feel like I am doing so because you are a bad bidder... I am willing to tell everyone how to bid....

 

If you play (1[cll])-1NT-(2♣)-DBL as "penalty", then well, you are sort of stuck and must bid 2♦ if that is NON-FORCING, or pass of course. But since I am into telling you how to bid, I think you should play double of this two clubs as takeout. This hand, and hands like it, are exactly why you should play double of 2♣ as takeout. In fact, I would NEVER be able to imagine you could hold this hand and not double 2♣. I think others fall quickly into this category. See responses above by awn, and even frances, who though you should have doubled with 3-3-6-1 for takeout, no doubt she will feel even stronger if you are 3-4-5-1.

 

And while we are on the topic, I suggest you try 1NT-(2Y)-DBL as takeout for a while. You will find your results will improve I think.

[jtfanclub]

Or am I missing something?

 

3♦ makes because west has no entry to give east a spade ruff. North simply loses 1♥, 2♠ and 1♣. North can set up spades for ♥ discards.

OK, so the opening lead is a diamond...let's say you draw two rounds of trump and start on the spades. East wins and leads a low heart.

 

Doesn't matter where you win it (West will contribute the ten to force the King if necessary). If you draw the third trump and lead spades, West will win and give East two heart tricks. If you don't draw the last trump, West wins, gives East a spade ruff, and East takes the heart ace.

 

I may be peeking, but I don't see how it can make with best defense.

[cherdano]

After the 3♣ bid, partner's double just says "hey this is our hand." It's neither penalty nor takeout. This is fairly standard I think in auctions like 1NT-Pass-Transfer-3Bid-Pass-Pass where opener usually can't act because partner might have little to nothing. Opener is supposed to judge what to do -- converting is certainly a possibility but this action usually requires either a better holding in the enemy suit, or a weaker holding in partner's suit. Holding 3-card support to two honors and likely only one trump trick, correcting to three of partner's suit is fairly normal.

I would put it closer to optional double. We don't have a diamond fit, because partner would have raised, so the double will be left in often, and doubler should rather be prepared for this. My opinions on this auction:

 

0. I prefer 1♠ over 1N, ♣KJ9 is not such a superb stopper.

1. I still prefer takeout doubles over 2♣.

2. With ♦AK9 I will raise immediately.

3. I won't make an optional double with little defense and a singleton in opponent's suit. If I want to make a takeout double, I should change my agreements and do it over 2♣.

4. I wouldn't pass 3♣X.

 

Arend

[mikeh]

Appollo asked immediately what double of 2♣ would have been, and much of the later discussion would likely have been different had that been answered. I am very much in the camp that would like to see the double as negative, and the hand in question is a good minimum for such a use. Clearly, had we had that agreement, we would have been playing in ♠s.

 

As it is, given that the original double did not deny the actual hand, bridge logic strongly suggests that the opps have a 9 card fit and that partner has a hand similar to the one held: perhaps 4=3=5=1, but our respective major length argues 3=4=5=1. We can safely conclude that he is unlikely to hold 6♦ since he will not usually want to risk our passing 3♣ when he has a modest 3=3=6=1 nor will he want to risk our pulling to a major KNOWN to be 4=3: whereas with 3=4=5=1 he at least has a chance of a 4=4 fit. I say 'known' because I am with adam in that I truly dislike overcalling 1N with a biddable 5 card major.

 

With the South hand, if we trust the inferences, we can choose 3♦ (cautious choice, tough to criticize given that we are not looking for game) or 3♠ (aggressive, but probably taking more tricks when 'right' and scoring more per trick... but runs a risk that we have gone wrong in our inference-drawing).

 

No way am I passing 3♣ doubled opposite a hand that could only squeak 2♦ last time.

[jchiu]

Or am I missing something?

 

3♦ makes because west has no entry to give east a spade ruff. North simply loses 1♥, 2♠ and 1♣. North can set up spades for ♥ discards.

OK, so the opening lead is a diamond...let's say you draw two rounds of trump and start on the spades. East wins and leads a low heart.

 

Doesn't matter where you win it (West will contribute the ten to force the King if necessary). If you draw the third trump and lead spades, West will win and give East two heart tricks. If you don't draw the last trump, West wins, gives East a spade ruff, and East takes the heart ace.

 

I may be peeking, but I don't see how it can make with best defense.

Without the stated defense to tricks 2-4, the contract is ice cold if declarer takes the finesse against the ♥9. Unfortunately, I have not been paying close attention to the thread.

 

The agreement on the immediate double of 2♣ is "penalty oriented, acknowledging the stopper implied by 1N". However, it seems more prudent in light of the above comments to change doubles of suit raises (namely (1X) 1N (2X) Dbl) to negative. What do you think, Matt (this will be the only exception to the two-level penalty-double type Lebensohl structure we have in effect right now)?

[000002]

to make a contract on 3level,it need 23counts certainly,although 2♦ was described LESS-THAN-INV,but the later DBL is showing an invitational hand,beyond all doubt.

 

typical hand :

xxx

Axxx

Jxxxxx

-----

 

 

regards 000002

[mike777]

Is it really winning bridge to have numerous agreements over our strong nt bids, direct or overcall depending on what the opp play? Do we change our card depending on the numerous things the opp may play?

[jchiu]

Is it really winning bridge to have numerous agreements over our strong nt bids, direct or overcall depending on what the opp play? Do we change our card depending on the numerous things the opp may play?

Definitely. One simple example that I can deduce is that if the opponents play a direct 2♣ overcall over my notrump opening as both majors, usually 5-5. As far as I know, this is fairly common in France and is part of a defense called Landy or Multi-Landy, depending on the rest of the bids. Here it makes less sense to use double as Staymannic because partner is substantially less likely to have a hand where a 4-4 major suit fit plays better. When I play double as Staymannic and systems on over artificial 2♣ interference over other defenses, I play a double as clubs here, generally having enough to not fear a redouble on my left and without much regard for strength of hand.

[cherdano]

Is it really winning bridge to have numerous agreements over our strong nt bids, direct or overcall depending on what the opp play? Do we change our card depending on the numerous things the opp may play?

Definitely. One simple example that I can deduce is that if the opponents play a direct 2♣ overcall over my notrump opening as both majors, usually 5-5. As far as I know, this is fairly common in France and is part of a defense called Landy or Multi-Landy, depending on the rest of the bids. Here it makes less sense to use double as Staymannic because partner is substantially less likely to have a hand where a 4-4 major suit fit plays better. When I play double as Staymannic and systems on over artificial 2♣ interference over other defenses, I play a double as clubs here, generally having enough to not fear a redouble on my left and without much regard for strength of hand.

I don't disagree with your main point, but a few side remarks:

0. I think "Landy" is just the convention that 2♣ shows both majors, not a full system.

 

1. If a 2♣ shows majors, then it rarely promises 5-5 - the advantage of Landy is that it enables you to show the longer major if you have 5-4 (and if you use a bid as cheap as 2♣ for both majors, you want it to come up more often).

 

2. I play double over this 2♣ as almost the same as over a natural 2♣, it promises at least one major, so that doubles of their suits become penalty. I think this is more or less standard, and while I usually don't have strong opinions on methods, I would claim it is superior to just showing clubs.

 

Arend

[jchiu]

0-1. I really didn't concern myself with what the overcallers played, but was merely suggesting a general class of notrump defenses that may be employed. After examining the WBF cards from the most recent junior world championship, for almost every one of the defenses, at least one of the pairs used it

 

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys//Conven...fenseto1NT.html

 

This makes me doubt that there is universal advantage in using 2♣ to show both majors and differentiate 5-4 hands from 5-5 hands. In a standard IMP game, I would be hesitant to overcall with a shaded values 5-4 hand. The differentiation in length is much more useful in the Ekrens 2♣ opening, showing at least 4-4 in the majors and less than opening strength.

 

2. The abovementioned approach is hardly standard. I have only had one hand where this distinction ever mattered. In a recent North American Swiss final, I was playing with a pickup expert partner (who was my teammate originally) due to logistical issues. He suggested playing double as clubs, after which I picked up

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sxxhxxdxxxxcaq98x]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

After my partner opened a strong notrump as dealer, and my RHO overcalled 2♣ showing majors, I was able to double to uncover the profitable sacrifice by doubling. I would expect that playing double at clubs is even more useful in a partscore battle at matchpoints.

 

I play it this way also because if responder denies "biddable" clubs, he still has an opportunity to double 2M at his next turn. Certainly they may escape when partner can cooperatively double 2M opposite your doubleton, but this compensates for all the difficult situations that the abovementioned method leads to when partner doubles 2M opposite a singleton honor. The other scenario where it helps partner judge whether they have a club fit is when advancer attempts to pass out 2♣ with a long suit to play there. He can better judge whether to compete to 2♦ knowing that you don't have a club stack and less than game-forcing values.