Decisions 4th-5th level

[drinbrasil]

I had last night in last round of local league:

♠ J109x

♥ 10

♦AJ96

♣AK83

 

you vul x nvul

 

and the bidding was:

partner opp1 me opp2

pass 2♥ X 4♥

4♠ p p 5♥

p p ?

 

ok, 5 level belongs to opponents, you are vul and partner bid to make 4♠. How you think in this hand to double or bid 5♠? Does pass from partner is forcing in this situation? whats your rule with your partner?

[Guest Jlall]

I do not think pass is forcing. Partner would bid 4S with KQxxxx and out. It could easily be their hand on this auction. I don't care that we are v/nvul. I would double even though it might make, down 2 seems like a more likely result.

[inquiry]

I do not play pass of 5♥ here as forcing. Partner was under pressure when he bid 4♠. At this vul, he was hoping to make, as he would not be taking a pure sacrafice against their non-vul game.

 

If partner had a few tricks, especially one in in hearts, he would have cracked 5♥. Partner had a chance to open 2♠ and he did not, so we can see he has only five spades, and might have only four. We expect him to have no more than 3 hearts (with four he would double), and clearly probably has only two (everyone follows fairly closely the law, I doubt they have only a nine-card fit on this auction).

 

So partner is something like 5233 or 5242. You will have maximum of one loser in the minor and there is a good bet that partner has at least a minor suit queen. If in clubs, no minor loser, if in diamonds, 50/50 no minor loser. You have a heart to lose. So teh question is can you play spades for no more than one loser. Partner was not bidding on queens in the minors, and we know he doesn't have heart honors (or at least not biddig on them, heart ace would be nice). So can you play the spade suit for 1 loser? I think yes. Give partner Kxxx of spades and you can hook LHO for queen (you have JT9x). If partner has any two spade honors, you have at most spade loser. And partner rates to have two spade honors on this auction. So, I will bid 5S.

 

Ben

[mikeh]

I differ from Justin and Ben, in that I would treat the pass of 5♥ as forcing, based on the vulnerability. Yes, this means that we have to accept the occasional -650 when we find ourselves forced to hit 5♥, but it adds clarity to our other auctions.

 

Thus, if partner held KQxxx xx Kxx Qxx, do we want him bidding 5♠ unilaterally.. catching us with AJxx x QJxx KJxx... a clear minimum double of 2♥? Or do we want him to double with that hand and also KQxxx Ax Qxx xxx.. a normal 4♠ bid with no desire to go to the 5-level opposite a normal takeout double hand?

 

As for what I bid: this is going to be a close decision, since opposite good hands such as KQxxx xx Kxx Qxx, I may well fail at the 5-level. However, on this construction, the opps are almost certainly getting out for no more than 300. I suspect that 5♠ has a slightly better than even chance of making opposite most forcing pass hands, so the imp odds, barely, justify bidding.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I doubt that partner did bid 4S with the intention

that he makes 4S, he is a passed hand,

he did bid, because he believed that there may be

a fair chance to make it, a small difference.

 

You have to decide how likely is it that you make

5S, I would say the chance is not very high, the

points maybe 20:20. => I double because we can

beat it and I take my money.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Is it a forcing pass situation? Unclear, I guess my

partner may thinks so, I have to ask, luckily it

does not really interests me in with the given hand.

[pclayton]

I wouldn't play pass as forcing. There are many hand types that I would expect a 4♠, and there's nothing that compels us to turn a -450 into a -650.

 

Still I double. I three likely cashing tricks and its possible we have more.

[pclayton]

I differ from Justin and Ben, in that I would treat the pass of 5♥ as forcing, based on the vulnerability. Yes, this means that we have to accept the occasional -650 when we find ourselves forced to hit 5♥, but it adds clarity to our other auctions.

 

Thus, if partner held KQxxx xx Kxx Qxx, do we want him bidding 5♠ unilaterally.. catching us with AJxx x QJxx KJxx... a clear minimum double of 2♥? Or do we want him to double with that hand and also KQxxx Ax Qxx xxx.. a normal 4♠ bid with no desire to go to the 5-level opposite a normal takeout double hand?

 

As for what I bid: this is going to be a close decision, since opposite good hands such as KQxxx xx Kxx Qxx, I may well fail at the 5-level. However, on this construction, the opps are almost certainly getting out for no more than 300. I suspect that 5♠ has a slightly better than even chance of making opposite most forcing pass hands, so the imp odds, barely, justify bidding.

Here's the issue I see with playing this as a forcing pass. If you choose to bid 4♠ on a hand like Kxxxxx, x, Qxx, xxx, you are boxed over 5♥, and have to double.

 

I realize those that play this as NF are stuck when pard has a stronger hand with no clear direction, but it seems like a lesser evil to play pass as NF.

[jdonn]

To me, one of the biggest mistakes in bridge is playing a forcing pass based on the vulnerability. I still rarely pass it out at this vul, since the opponents tend to be bidding and sacrificing much more frequently. This hand is an easy double, expecting down 2 or maybe just 1. It's possible 5♠ makes but just as possible if not moreso that it goes down. In my mind nothing else even comes close.

[drinbrasil]

[hv=n=skqxxxhqxdkxxxcxx&w=saxhaxxxdxcqjxxxx&e=sxxhkjxxxxdq10xxcx&s=sj109xh10daj96cak83]399|300|[/hv]

 

that was full hand. I decided to double, was a correct call as lead of singleton ♣ would defeat us, anyway, after thinking about situation i see pass of partner as nonforcing, as pointed from others here, he have passed hand and can have no attacking stuff. I double with my hand in this one...(but was down because K of ♠)

[jdonn]

I do not play pass of 5♥ here as forcing. Partner was under pressure when he bid 4♠. At this vul, he was hoping to make, as he would not be taking a pure sacrafice against their non-vul game.

 

If partner had a few tricks, especially one in in hearts, he would have cracked 5♥. Partner had a chance to open 2♠ and he did not, so we can see he has only five spades, and might have only four. We expect him to have no more than 3 hearts (with four he would double), and clearly probably has only two (everyone follows fairly closely the law, I doubt they have only a nine-card fit on this auction).

 

So partner is something like 5233 or 5242. You will have maximum of one loser in the minor and there is a good bet that partner has at least a minor suit queen. If in clubs, no minor loser, if in diamonds, 50/50 no minor loser. You have a heart to lose. So teh question is can you play spades for no more than one loser. Partner was not bidding on queens in the minors, and we know he doesn't have heart honors (or at least not biddig on them, heart ace would be nice). So can you play the spade suit for 1 loser? I think yes. Give partner Kxxx of spades and you can hook LHO for queen (you have JT9x). If partner has any two spade honors, you have at most spade loser. And partner rates to have two spade honors on this auction. So, I will bid 5S.

 

Ben

Have you considered they might have an 11 card heart fit? A 5 card support could easily try to get doubled in 4♥ while planning to bid 5 all along. That would give partner 7 or even 8 cards in the minors, making your odds of losers there much worse. Like partner could have a great looking fit like KQxxx x KQxx xxx, and you just traded in down 2 (maybe 1, improbably 3) for a minus. And he would certainly bid 4♠ with a diamond honor less than that on that shape.

[mikeh]

To Phil and Josh:

 

Yes, if partner has made an aggressive 4♠ bid based on a 6=1=3=3 (or similar) hand too weak to have opened 2♠, then maybe they make 5♥. Note that playing the pass as forcing would require partner to double with Kxxxxx x Qxx xxx, but what the heck is wrong with that on this hand? Do we expect them to make it? No. After all, you did double even after the (non-forcing, for you) pass. Can we construct hands on which there are 21 tricks in play... both 4♠ and 5♥ make... yes, but I am not going to let that low-percentage possibility dominate my bidding philosophy.

 

And I do not, as a rule, espouse the idea that FPs are vulnerability based. It is not merely the vulnerability that causes me to treat the pass of 5♥ as a FP: it is the fact that we have volunteered to bid game in an auction in which partner did not need to bid if he didn't expect a play for the contract red v white. (After all, with a BIG hand, we'd double 4♥ if passed around to us.. and that second double is no more penalty than the first: just more descriptive of power)

 

In other words, both partners have announced values, in combination sufficient for a vulnerable game, and it is that announcement of values that determines the FP issue for me.

 

And, yes, I appreciate that there will be hands on which this approach costs: north has, say, a weak 7=1=3=2 or so.... but the (very) infrequent -650, losing 5 imps, is a modest premium to pay for better definition in relatively unlimited auctions: after all, the takeout doubler may have a very good hand, but not have been quite strong enough to force to the 5-level in a jammed auction, and we can readily see that the 4♠ bidder can hold a very wide range of hands.

[Guest Jlall]

Can we construct hands on which there are 21 tricks in play... both 4♠ and 5♥ make... yes, but I am not going to let that low-percentage possibility dominate my bidding philosophy.

You don't need to construct that, just hands where 5H makes. No one said 4S was making. 4S may have been bid with the hope that it can make opposite a good catch, but that doesn't mean it was going to make.

[jdonn]

Well I'll start by saying 'one of the biggest mistakes in bridge' was exceedingly dramatic of me to say :D I should clarify and say it's not such a big mistake in the sense that it will usually lead to the same end result of 5♥X, but to me a mistake in the sense that I am so very convinced it's an inferior approach.

 

On Phil's example opposite what we hold, as on the actual hand (since I presume partner would have doubled using your approach), yes it didn't matter since we were doubling anyway. But it's not the chance of a -650 that bugs me. It's the fact we box partner in. It's easy to sit there and say that just because we are vul partner bid 4♠ expecting to make, but it's not always the case. Sometimes he just doesn't know who can make what. And even more importantly, sometimes he is playing the opponents or his table feel, and just 'knows' they will bid 5. Partner is allowed to stick his neck out at any vul when he thinks the time is right, and I don't want system or approach to get in his way. Like just a few days ago, r/w I held

 

AQxxx Qx Qxx xxx

 

Partner dealt, 1♥ (2♣) X (3♥) p (4♣). And I made a knowingly terrible bid of 4♥ because I just knew that LHO would sacrifice. And he did, and went for 800 on a trump lead when RHO was 5-5 in hearts and clubs and we could have gone for 1100. Sometimes being r/w is more of a reason to take a chance, not less.

 

I will say anyway that even if pass were forcing here this is a clear double to me, we just have too few assurances about the 5 level, holding some more offense than the double suggested but not THAT much more. Look at hands with which I'm quite sure a passed partner would make a forcing pass if he could, though you are free to disagree.

 

KQxxx x KQxx xxx

AKxxx x xxx QJxx

KQxxx xxx Kxxxx - (maybe 650, maybe minus instead of a pretty sure 300 or 500)

 

and so on. And even when bidding is 'right' (take the first example with a club moved to hearts) then either the opponents are balanced in context, and we could have probably gotten 500 which I can live with (from 2 out of a spade trick, a second diamond trick, or a club ruff), or they are more unbalanced and can probably beat us with a singleton lead in a minor.

[MFA]

I'm with jdonn.

 

Pass is NF at all vulnerabilities.

I have a clear double of 5♥.