5-6 in the majors and in trouble

[Walddk]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakq73hq98653d2c8]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

A rather rare occasion. You hold both majors, and yet the opponents manage to pre-empt you at a high level. You are South (as was a frequent forum poster) with West as dealer.

 

LHO passes, your partner opens 1♦, RHO overcalls 2♣ and you bid 2♥ (forcing). 4♣ to your left, pass to you.

 

- 1. Do you agree with 2♥?

- 2. Doesn't matter, 2♥ is your call. What do you bid now?

 

Roland

[helene_t]

I think I would have started with 2♠, planing to sell the hand as 5-5.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 sure

#2 Openers Pass was nonforcing / forcing?

I assume it was nonforcing.

4S, it may end terrible, but so may 4H, and I wont

pass and I wont double

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[SchTsch]

4♠

 

Maybe I should defend against 4♣ but i was preempted. Partners double of 4♣ is negative?

[Walddk]

4♠

 

Maybe I should defend against 4♣ but i was preempted. Partners double of 4♣ is negative?

Partner did not double 4♣. I wrote 4♣ to your left, pass to you.

 

Roland

[Walddk]

#2 Openers Pass was nonforcing / forcing?

I assume it was nonforcing.

Sure opener's pass is non-forcing. Your 2♥ was merely forcing for one round. I don't think anyone plays 2♥ as game forcing after an overcall.

 

Roland

[Finch]

I was going to post this hand.

One thing I learned by looking at the traveller is that no-one else got the 4-level pre-emption!

[SchTsch]

Partner did not double 4♣. I wrote 4♣ to your left, pass to you.

 

Roland

I know he didn't.

But if he did, that would be negative?

[Walddk]

Partner did not double 4♣. I wrote 4♣ to your left, pass to you.

 

Roland

I know he didn't.

But if he did, that would be negative?

Card showing I presume, with less than three hearts. Better ask Frances.

 

Roland

[Finch]

Partner did not double 4♣. I wrote 4♣ to your left, pass to you.

 

Roland

I know he didn't.

But if he did, that would be negative?

Card showing I presume, with less than three hearts. Better ask Frances.

 

Roland

This was a new partnership (that's why we were playing, to try and establish some agreements). However, north plays fairly often with my husband and I would expect high-level competitive agreements to be similar, so that double is "takeout" - extra values, not three hearts, typically 4252/3262/4261 etc

[Codo]

1. No i disagree and had bid 2 ♠

2. after a better player then me choose 2 ♥ (so no stories about the waiter etc..)

I choose 4 Spade. I think this is still natural.

[neilkaz]

With such a good 5 carder and a poor 6 carder, I somewhat prefer to lie about my length and bid 2♠ right away. Then I would rebid 4♥ after the preemption but PD may then think I have only 4♥ and take me back to ♠ but I have such a strong suit that a 5-2 may be tolerable.

 

After the actual bidding, I expect PD to have a routine and rather flattish opener, but I simply cannot bear to sell out to 4♣ doubled or not so I'll bid 4♠ which certainly is to play and shows more ♥ than ♠.

 

PD may take me to 5♥ more often than I like, but perhaps the opps will carry on to 5♣x first.

 

Anyhow, I really think my 4♠ call has to show a 5-6 now .. neilkaz ..

[mikeh]

4♠

 

What else is there?

 

4♠ seems inadequate, but only compared to the alternatives:

 

Pass: absurd

 

Double: could work, will at least get us a plus so long as partner passes, but is otherwise giving up

 

4♥: could work: catch partner with a minimum 2=2=6=3 and the suits breaking badly and this may be our last making spot

 

I don't think 4♠ is forcing, but maybe that's wishful thinking. As it is, I'm hoping to catch something like J10xx x AKxxxx Ax.. the type of hand probably worth a 5♣ call.

[Finch]

mike, I'm also interested in what you would have done over 2C

[pclayton]

I'd call this a 5-5 as well and start with 2♠. Since I was apparently planning on patterning out, I'll continue with 4♠. I don't think its forcing (a good meta rule is a bid of 4 of a major in a stressed auction shouldn't be forcing).

[han]

Very interesting hand. Of course in hindsight it is easy to say that 2S initially was better, but I think it's probably right. Even if there is no further enemy bidding, you probably won't be able to show your 5-6 if you start with 2H unless you are willing to bid 4S.

 

Now I'd bid 4S. I don't think it is forcing, but it does suggest a better hand than what we hold. 4H could easily work out better, but never mentioning these spades seems wrong. We have to guess between the two, double is really not an option.

[SoTired]

#1 - I would start with 2H because I would not expect this problem. Starting with 2S, we may end up in a 5-2 spade fit rather than a 6-3 heart fit on bidding such as 1D (2C) 2S (3c) p (p) 3H (p) 3S. Plus, even if partner is 3-3 in majors, we may get in trouble when they start pushing clubs. Finally, starting with 2H allows a natural reverse into spades showing the strong 6-5.

 

#2 - 4S. Hiding our 5-card spade suit is sick. 4H could be a disaster if opener is short in hearts which is likely since opener would stretch to bid 4H with any 3-card support.

[mikeh]

mike, I'm also interested in what you would have done over 2C

I would have bid 2♥. I would have done so even had LHO not been a passed hand. I love shape, and I know which suit I'd rather play in if partner is 2-2 or 3-3 in the majors...

 

This has slam potential written all over it (and I realize that it may not make game on a bad day), and I almost never distort shape in constructive auctions.

 

The problem reminds me of the Problem D format in the BW MSC, in which we are given a wire on how the auction will proceed after certain choices. It is very difficult to disabuse one's mind of that knowledge. Certainly, knowing that LHO was bouncing tends to make one wish one had bid 2♠, at least to some extent. But LHO didn't have to bounce, and had he bid a mere 3♣ (or passed), we would be liking the fact that we bid 2♥.

 

This hand has far too much playing potential to downgrade, which is what 2♠ does. 5=6 majors are better than equivalent hcp 5=5's by a full trick.

[Walddk]

Now I'd bid 4S. I don't think it is forcing, but it does suggest a better hand than what we hold. 4H could easily work out better, but never mentioning these spades seems wrong. We have to guess between the two, double is really not an option.

While I agree with 2♥ (I am a strong believer in bidding your longer suit first), I must disagree with the vast majority regarding responder's rebid. I would double because I don't want to bypass 4♥.

 

Double is take-out. It doesn't promise four spades. What else can I do with say 3532 shape and a good hand? My plan if I get a second chance is to pull 4♦ to 4♥, and then I must have revealed my lengths in the majors: 46 or 56.

 

What if partner passes 4♣ you may argue. If he does, it rates to be best for our side. I don't mind defending with a singleton diamond and ♠AKQ.

 

I'll go as far as saying that in my view 4♠ is wrong because it forces partner to the 5-level with 2-2 in the majors, perhaps even with 3-2.

 

Roland

[han]

As you point out yourself, we would also double with 3-5-3-2 shape. In fact, I think that shape is much more common. Partner will pass it out far too often, so I would never double with this hand.

[mikeh]

In my view, double shows ownership of the hand and no unusual shape: no 4 card support in diamonds, fewer than 7 hearts and no club void. Partner should be passing with the majority of hands, taking a call only with a minimum and 3 card heart support (he won't have 3 and extras and he won't have 4 with any hand) or with some extreme shape of his own. So, to me, double, while technically not penalty, will be converted the vast majority of the time.

 

Roland is quite right to be worried about reaching 5♥ opposite a 2=2=6=3, which is an entirely plausible shape. However, we are not down yet even opposite xx Ax AQJxxx xxx.

 

And if partner has a useful minimum, slam is not unreachable after we bid but is surely unreachable after double.

 

I am often a glass half-empty bidder, to my shame, but this is a glass half-full hand even for me. Only a gloomy Dane would think otherwise, no doubt disheartened by the loss of Hans O and the resulting demoralization of the Danes in general.

[bhall]

1. 2♥, absolutely, for all the constructive reasons mikeh and others have mentioned.

 

2. Smile sweetly and bid 4♠ in tempo. They have gifted you the keys to the kingdom. The 4♣ bidder can no more know how high to sacrifice than you can know how well you fit. So, give him the problem at a higher level.

 

Opener's next action is likely to be clear-cut, no matter what your LHO does: you have offered to play 4♠ or 5♥ opposite a minimum with no particular fit. Only minor aces and major high cards count as covers. True, you may already be too high, but if opener bids a slam, LHO will be hard-pressed to pass.

[hatchett]

2. Smile sweetly and bid 4♠ in tempo. They have gifted you the keys to the kingdom. The 4♣ bidder can no more know how high to sacrifice than you can know how well you fit. So, give him the problem at a higher level.

 

Opener's next action is likely to be clear-cut, no matter what your LHO does: you have offered to play 4♠ or 5♥ opposite a minimum with no particular fit. Only minor aces and major high cards count as covers. True, you may already be too high, but if opener bids a slam, LHO will be hard-pressed to pass.

 

I strongly suspect the 4♣ bidder has shot his bolt.

[bhall]

2. Smile sweetly and bid 4♠ in tempo. They have gifted you the keys to the kingdom. The 4♣ bidder can no more know how high to sacrifice than you can know how well you fit. So, give him the problem at a higher level.

 

Opener's next action is likely to be clear-cut, no matter what your LHO does: you have offered to play 4♠ or 5♥ opposite a minimum with no particular fit. Only minor aces and major high cards count as covers. True, you may already be too high, but if opener bids a slam, LHO will be hard-pressed to pass.

 

I strongly suspect the 4♣ bidder has shot his bolt.

If the preemptor has mis-represented his hand (as Frances suggests), then the overcaller will overrate their offense and underrate their defensive prospects, suspecting a ♣ void in your hand. If his 4♣ bid was honest, the premptor will likely expect to go down about 2 tricks at 5♣, which means that even higher sacrifices will be appealing to him at this vulnerability.

 

I truly would not consider any other action than 4♠ as justified.

[hatchett]

If his 4♣ bid was honest, the premptor will likely expect to go down about 2 tricks at 5♣, which means that even higher sacrifices will be appealing to him at this vulnerability.

 

 

I was assuming having pre-empted that he would allow his partner to assess his sides defensive/offensive potential, rather than bid his hand twice.