bidding after a WJS

[DWM]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sk6h942da8caj9832]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding has gone

 

(1D) - 2H - P

 

2H being a WJS albeit 2nd seat Vun.

[skjaeran]

That's really hard to say - you need to know your partner's style.

 

If I'm sitting opposite myself, pass is automatic. Hope to avoid down 2. :P

One a more serious note, I'd expect 7-9 tricks.

[pbleighton]

That's really hard to say - you need to know your partner's style.

 

If I'm sitting opposite myself, pass is automatic.

 

Ditto.

 

Peter

[pclayton]

Opposite myself, I will have a real hand at these colors and expect to take 6 tricks.

 

This may be the kind of hand that totally depends on the opening lead. It may take a spade out to break 4♥, but my RHO doesn't know that.

 

3♦ looks normal, but I don't want my LHO to be able to make a lead directing pass over 3♦ and get RHO on the spade scent, so I'll just bash 4♥. I might even induce a save.

[Guest Jlall]

4H. Partner should overcall 1H on most hands that are weak with 6 hearts, red/white he should have a great suit and a decent hand and some shape. If you are thinking few hands qualify for this, that is why I play intermediate jump overcalls when vul :) I think very few hands qualify for this 2H bid.

[awm]

I don't think pass on this hand can really be right. If partner has garbage, opponents have a big spade fit and may be making 4♠ if LHO can get back into the auction. If partner has a good hand we are probably on for game. The odds of partner having garbage vs. a good hand depend on style of course, but since in either case you need to bid... :)

 

My unfavorable bids here are very sound, so I think game should have good chances opposite me as a partner. In my partnerships I use 2NT as Ogust in this auction, and I would probably bid that. If 3♦ is my only way to invite, I'd go with 4♥ to avoid the lead-directional pass/double.

[jdonn]

'Good raise', which I take to mean invitational raise, seems perfect.

[gwnn]

3♦, wtp, seems reasonable.

[kenberg]

I am a pessimist on this (I often am). It seems to me that KQJTxx in hearts and not much else might produce a 2H bid even red against white. In theory you might be held to five tricks but it's not likely. The opponents won't be anxious to double you at the two level with their small heart spots. With such a holding I would want a heart lead.

 

If that's what partner has, 3H is enough. The opponents most likely have a spade fit and 3H will make it slightly more difficult for them to judge whether they should be playing 3 or 4. The lack of action on my right is a little curious (I am reading the auction, with 2H as a weak jump overcall, not a WJS, I assume the auction rather than the term is accurate) but still I think they have spades.

 

I doubt we can make 4H, but it does depend a bit on partner's style. I understand that 3D offers partner an option but it also gives the opponents a chance to sort out their values and shape. I think that this is their hand and so I go with 3H.

[jdonn]

I am a pessimist on this (I often am). It seems to me that KQJTxx in hearts and not much else might produce a 2H bid even red against white. In theory you might be held to five tricks but it's not likely. The opponents won't be anxious to double you at the two level with their small heart spots. With such a holding I would want a heart lead.

 

If that's what partner has, 3H is enough. The opponents most likely have a spade fit and 3H will make it slightly more difficult for them to judge whether they should be playing 3 or 4. The lack of action on my right is a little curious (I am reading the auction, with 2H as a weak jump overcall, not a WJS, I assume the auction rather than the term is accurate) but still I think they have spades.

 

I doubt we can make 4H, but it does depend a bit on partner's style. I understand that 3D offers partner an option but it also gives the opponents a chance to sort out their values and shape. I think that this is their hand and so I go with 3H.

KQJTxx and not much else on the side (lets say a queen only) gives us half the deck, and partner would reject the invitation anyway. Why should it be the opponents' hand? You are worried they will bid 4♦?

[mikeh]

I can't imagine not bidding 4♥ at imps vulnerable unless I'm playing with a suicidal and fraticidal maniac: 2♥ may be a weak jump overcall, but it is made red v white, so it had better not be QJxxxx and out! AQxxxx and out gives me a play on the probable low ♦ lead: partner can hope to play on ♣s while avoiding a lead through the ♠K...

 

And I cannot see the point in asking partner anything: we need specific information about specific suits (trump and clubs), not generic 'min-max' info.

 

When in doubt, if vulnerable at imps, just bid game.

[kenberg]

I am a pessimist on this (I often am). It seems to me that KQJTxx in hearts and not much else might produce a 2H bid even red against white. In theory you might be held to five tricks but it's not likely. The opponents won't be anxious to double you at the two level with their small heart spots. With such a holding I would want a heart lead.

 

If that's what partner has, 3H is enough. The opponents most likely have a spade fit and 3H will make it slightly more difficult for them to judge whether they should be playing 3 or 4. The lack of action on my right is a little curious (I am reading the auction, with 2H as a weak jump overcall, not a WJS, I assume the auction rather than the term is accurate)  but still I think they have spades.

 

I doubt we can make 4H, but it does depend a bit on partner's style. I understand that 3D offers partner an option but it also gives the opponents a chance to sort out their values and shape. I think that this is their hand and so I go with 3H.

KQJTxx and not much else on the side (lets say a queen only) gives us half the deck, and partner would reject the invitation anyway. Why should it be the opponents' hand? You are worried they will bid 4♦?

I don't know what they will bid, but I would be surprised if they did not have an eight card spade fit. It's my hope they will end in either 3S making 4 or 4S making 3. A direct raise to 3 provides them with the least room to sort it out. It's a good hand opposite 2H so maybe I am wrong, but I figure 4H will be doubled and will be set.

[mikeh]

It's my hope they will end in either 3S making 4 or 4S making 3. A direct raise to 3 provides them with the least room to sort it out. It's a good hand opposite 2H so maybe I am wrong, but I figure 4H will be doubled and will be set.

This hope about the level at which they will play ♠s is, to my mind, misguided.

 

Let's look at it this way:

 

We bid 3♥ and opening bidder doubles: are we so sure that the opps will get the subsequent auction wrong more often than they get it right? Seems to me that we are relying upon the incompetence of our opps, in a situation that is not uncommon. It seems to me that the odds are that if they stop in 3 they will make 9 tricks and if they bid game, they will make. So, it behooves me to do my very best to prevent them from having the room to go right.

 

Add to this the fact that it is easy to construct hands on which we make game, or block them out with 4♥, and it seems to me that the percentages strongly favour the bold bid.

 

Remember, when you bid 4♥ at unfavourable, opener has NO reason to think that you are gambling... as far as the auction tells him anything, it tells him that his partner is bust. Whereas a bid of 3♥ (or even 3♦) limits your hand and allows him the inference that his partner is not broke.... not to mention allowing him a much safer, because lower, entry into the auction.

 

I think this latter point is often overlooked...indeed, I have rarely, if ever, seen it raised in books on bidding: when choosing a call, consider how the various calls will seem to the opps, as well as to your partner.

[jdonn]

And when they sac in 4♠ Mike, will partner assume you are in a force because of the vul, or are we allowed to "gamble" :P

[mikeh]

And when they sac in 4♠ Mike, will partner assume you are in a force because of the vul, or are we allowed to "gamble" :P

Ha.... I can see the reference to the recent thread in which I suggested that a pass over the opps' 5♥ was forcing!

 

But, with respect, the auction is quite different: at least in theory the 2♥ bidder has surrendered captaincy, and the 4♥ bidder has retained captaincy. Accordingly, the 2♥ bidder has few rights over 4♠, should opener bid it or should opener double and responder pull (which is highly unlikely). The two auctions (the earlier thread and this one) are conceptually distinct. I doubt that there would be many voices for 4♥ as creating a force on this post, and mine is definitely not one of them :P

[kenberg]

It's my hope they will end in either 3S making 4 or 4S making 3. A direct raise to 3 provides them with the least room to sort it out. It's a good hand opposite 2H so maybe I am wrong, but I figure 4H will be doubled and will be set.

This hope about the level at which they will play ♠s is, to my mind, misguided.

 

Let's look at it this way:

 

We bid 3♥ and opening bidder doubles: are we so sure that the opps will get the subsequent auction wrong more often than they get it right? Seems to me that we are relying upon the incompetence of our opps, in a situation that is not uncommon. It seems to me that the odds are that if they stop in 3 they will make 9 tricks and if they bid game, they will make. So, it behooves me to do my very best to prevent them from having the room to go right.

 

Add to this the fact that it is easy to construct hands on which we make game, or block them out with 4♥, and it seems to me that the percentages strongly favour the bold bid.

 

Remember, when you bid 4♥ at unfavourable, opener has NO reason to think that you are gambling... as far as the auction tells him anything, it tells him that his partner is bust. Whereas a bid of 3♥ (or even 3♦) limits your hand and allows him the inference that his partner is not broke.... not to mention allowing him a much safer, because lower, entry into the auction.

 

I think this latter point is often overlooked...indeed, I have rarely, if ever, seen it raised in books on bidding: when choosing a call, consider how the various calls will seem to the opps, as well as to your partner.

Since I don't seriously disagree with what you say, I won't beat the horse too much longer. Here is how I think the cards lie. I think my lho has a big hand with four spades. I think my rho has a weak hand with four spades, too weak to make a negative double over 2H . How many spades can they make? I don't know and really, even if they are Meckwell, they don't know either.

 

If I bid 3D (which you don't advocate either) I give them the chance to double then pass, pass then double, double then double etc as we are staggering to 3H. If they are good, they will have nuances to each of these choices. If I bid either 3H or 4H, I cut down on the number of sequences they have. So I bid 3H or 4H. It wouldn't amaze me if 4H is right, maybe I would do it at the table when my adrenalin is higher. But in my retiring mode at the computer screen, 3H seems right.

 

To say that I am unsure is an understatement and perhaps it's right, when unsure, to just bid the *&** game and get it over with. It seems to be a fact that teammates are more forgiving of bidding games that go down than of bidding partscores making 4.

[Double !]

Anyone for playing 2NT in response to a wjo (assuming i read the hand/ question correctly) as Ogust and let partner clarify the nature of the wjo relative to the vulnerability. Take some guesswork out of the situation.

 

dhl

[bid_em_up]

Wow.

 

So what do we hope to find out with 3D? Anything? No. Does it help partner evaluate their hand any better? No. What do we tell partner about our hand with 3D? Nothing. We tell him that we have a decent hand, and trumps, but I don't think it gives partner a very good technique for evaluating his hand any further.

 

What is wrong with 3C? This must imply a good suit w/heart support or a hand that is willing to play at least 4C. Otherwise, we would pass 2H. It also may help our defense when we end up defending.

 

The downside, of course, is that 3C makes it slightly easier for the opponents to bid 3/4♠. But at least now, we are better prepared to defend it.

 

I won't argue with a direct 4H bid, it at least leaves the opponents guessing. But 3D? I don't think so.

[kenberg]

I like 3C much more than I like 3D. Actually I like almost anything more than I like 3D.

[jdonn]

I don't like 3♣ at all, partner would think a singleton is a bad thing when in fact it's great, since it also means some length in spades and diamonds that we can ruff in dummy. And partner is very likely to have short clubs, partly because we are long there, and partly because on this bidding (no 1♠ opener, no negative double, no diamond raise) there are mild implications he is not short in spades or diamonds.

 

I still don't see what's wrong with just inviting even in ambiguous fashion, must every invitation pinpoint every suit to everyone? We are (much) more likely to make game if partner is a maximum than if partner is a minimum, that's plenty of accuracy for me. I don't see the pairs playing 1♠ p 3♠ as a limit raise complaning that partner is making innacurate decisions just because we haven't told him anything specific about our hand.

 

And what is the downside of 3♦? That the opponents can compete more easily? In diamonds perhaps, but I am hardly worried about them bidding 4♦. That it will tell them what to lead? They are by far most likely to lead a diamond anyway. I don't have a serious qualm with the enterprising 4♥ bid, but really if partner rejects an invitation I think it's a lot more likely game is bad than good. I find 3♥ pointless, if anything it makes them more likely to compete into the spade fit you are almost sure they have since it sounds weaker than 3♦.

[pclayton]

And what is the downside of 3♦? That the opponents can compete more easily? In diamonds perhaps, but I am hardly worried about them bidding 4♦. That it will tell them what to lead? They are by far most likely to lead a diamond anyway. I don't have a serious qualm with the enterprising 4♥ bid, but really if partner rejects an invitation I think it's a lot more likely game is bad than good.

 

The downside for me is that my LHO can either double, or not double (depending on their agreements) to dissuade my RHO from leading diamonds; and may lead a spade. A direct 4♥ mitigates this risk.

[jdonn]

That argument sounds logical but doesn't translate to in practice at the table. It's not like someone is sitting there on lead with Jxxx of spades and Jxx of diamonds saying oops partner didn't double diamonds, obviously I am leading a spade now!

 

And anyway the double shows extra length, he could have KQJT and not double.

[kenberg]

And the winner is? What did my wild and crazy partner actually have?

 

Incidentally I bid 2H vul over 1m the other day with QJT8xx and a couple of outside jacks. It worked fine but even so I apologized to partner for the insanity. She was fine with my bid but despite the fact that a. I made it and b. it worked I regard it as idiotic.

 

It's a sign that you are getting old when the craziest thing you can recall doing recently is making an idiotic preempt.

[DWM]

[hv=v=b&n=sk6h942da8caj9832&s=sjt7hak8753d542cq]133|200|[/hv]

 

These were both of the hands.

 

Bidding went

 

(1D) - 2H - (P) - 3D

(x) - 4H

 

Is there a play problem here after 3♦ lead?

[kenberg]

Thanks for the hands. I need to think about it. (Previous thought, based on dyslexic placement of opponent's hands, withdrawn) If trumps are 2-2 there appears to be no problem, losing two spades and one diamond. If there is some line to improve on this I don't see it right off. A 4-2-5-2 shape for opener isn't at all guaranteed, but it isn't impossible.

 

Do I now think my conservative 3H bid was wrong? I'll let you know after you tell me how the hearts split :).