Competitive Auction after a Weak 2 Bid

[beatrix45]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sak1098h9dq107ck976]133|100|Scoring: IMP

2♦-P-2♠-3♥

4♠-5♥-???[/hv]

 

Playing IMP pairs with reliable partner and decent opponents. The 2♠ bid was forcing and constructive.

[kenrexford]

Well, presumably partner offered his best assistance here. He presumably could have raised spades by bidding 3♠, 4♣, 4♦, 4♥, or his choice of 4♠, and possibly also by way of a 3NT call.

 

I'd expect 4♥ to show a void, or possibly a stiff (and good trump support).

I'd expect 4♣ to show good trumps and a club control.

I'd expect 4♦ to show very good diamonds.

 

So, I'm guessing something like ♠Qxx ♥xx ♦AJ9xxx ♣xx as the base cards. However, that's a tad shy. He'd likely bid 3♠ with that holding. Where, then, are his points?

 

I'm assuming that the stiff bid in hearts would also imply better-than-minimum diamonds. Something like ♠Qxx ♥x ♦AKxxxx ♣xxx, perhaps. Same for a 4♣ cue.

 

So, partner probably has something like...

 

♠Qxx ♥xx ♦K9xxxx ♣Ax or

♠Qxx ♥x ♦AJxxxx ♣xxx

 

Their bidding suggests the latter, so I'll operate off of that assumption. I['m not liking that hand. Even if we avoid the heart-lead-club-switch immediate set, we still need the diamonds coming in and no spade surprise.

 

I'm not overjoyed about defensive prospects, either. If the layout is unkind, they may even make this thing.

 

I don't like the diamond situation, either. Advancer is more likely to evaluate up the well-placed King.

 

In the end, I think I'm doubling. I expect it to make occasionally, but that club nine seems like a defensive value. Give partner some joker holding, like the 10x(x), and maybe a split Queen and Jack, and this might be just enough.

[hrothgar]

This is a very rough one:

 

"The 5 level belongs to the opponents" is a hoary old dictum. Is rarely right to bid 5 over 5. However, in this case both sides have double fits. Moreover, the Club King doesnt't look to be positioned well for the defending side. (Contrary to Ken's constructions, I think that partner is 3=3=6=1)

 

Mark me down for 5♠. Seems like reasonable insurance.

 

I hope that the Spades break 4-1

[Finch]

So, I'm guessing something like ♠Qxx ♥xx ♦AJ9xxx ♣xx as the base cards. However, that's a tad shy. He'd likely bid 3♠ with that holding. Where, then, are his points?

That looks like a 4S bid to me - he was first in a favourable, what do you expect?

[kenrexford]

So, I'm guessing something like ♠Qxx ♥xx ♦AJ9xxx ♣xx as the base cards.  However, that's a tad shy.  He'd likely bid 3♠ with that holding.  Where, then, are his points?

That looks like a 4S bid to me - he was first in a favourable, what do you expect?

Well, that's possible, I suppose. But, that helps my cause toward explaining a double.

[pclayton]

I'm not going to analyze all the permutations of what raise pard *didn't* make. 5♠ looks like cheap insurance.

[whereagles]

Pard didn't bid 3♠. He bid FOUR. Not hard to imagine him to have, say,

 

Jxxx

xx

AKxxxx

x

 

Seems like an easy 5♠ wtp? :P

[neilkaz]

I'm not going to analyze all the permutations of what raise pard *didn't* make. 5♠ looks like cheap insurance.

Agreed, Phil.

[Guest Jlall]

Easy 5S. When there is a double fit like this, just bid.

[kenrexford]

Everyone who bids keeps talking of insurance and double fits and all. How about what will actually happen on the hand?

 

If things are as they seem, the defense against 5♠ may well go heart, high-ish club back, another club, a third club, a diamond finesse losing eventually, for down three (-500) when 5♥X would have yielded +200. A 700 swing is a bad insurance rate. If the spades also fail to cooperate, the exchange could yield a 1000 swing. If the finesse works, holding the set to -300/-500, 5♥ might go for +500 and an 800/1000 swing. If 5♠ makes (+450), then 5♥ may well go for +500/+800.

 

Granted, the reality might be that the opening lead will not be a small heart (it should though), in which case no club switch is timely if the diamond finesse works. However, the diamond finesse may well fail here.

 

My gut initially told me to "take out insurance" with a 5♠ call. Now, I believe that the best insurance is with the double. (If 5♥ makes, 5♠ may well have gone for 800 anyway.)

 

Of course, I'm relying on partner to do something more intelligent than just bidding 4♠ with every hand that merits a 4♠ call.

[beatrix45]

B) I think the actual hand argues in favor of a 5♠ call, although a double would have garnered +800. Imo, partner's 4♠ was about what she should have had.

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sq432h107daj9852cq&w=s65hkq6542dkca862&e=sj7haj83d643cj1043&s=sak1098h9dq107ck975]399|300|Scoring: IMP

2♦-P-2♠-3♥

4♠-5♥-???[/hv]

 

Justin's observation for bidding one more with evidence of a two suit fit is, imo, sound advice. In addition, notice that south has a singleton (heart), another sign that bidding one more is called for. Also, the Q107 diamond holding enhances the probability that the hand is 'pure' in terms of minor honors in the opponents' suits.

 

Finally, north has two factors that support bidding on, and underpin her earlier jump to 4♠. FOUR trumps to the queen make the hand MUCH stronger than a mere three trumps. Further, the singleton club, an unmentioned side suit, is HUGE even though it is an honor.

 

Put this all together, and you have an almost unambiguous case for bidding on, and a fairly decent argument that 5♠ may be a make even though we figure to have no more that 20 HCP between our two hands - we actually have 22.

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure I get your analysis.

 

1. The actual result actually favors the double. You collect +800 instead of +450, a gain of +350.

 

2. The +450 turned on a diamond hook, a hook that is irrelevant for defense.

 

3. Partner did hold something that those of us who doubled expected, roughly, but the critical club stiff, the Queen at that, could not really be predicted.

 

4. The club 9 did turn out useful for the defense, as I predicted.

 

5. Partner did have broken diamonds, as I predicted.

 

I'm sure that I am missing something, but the actual hand meets my expectations, and the double works out more safely and for a much better result. But, you are citing this as a good argument for bidding on?

 

I like opponents like you. LOL

[jdonn]

I'm not sure I get your analysis.

 

1. The actual result actually favors the double.  You collect +800 instead of +450, a gain of +350.

 

2. The +450 turned on a diamond hook, a hook that is irrelevant for defense.

 

3. Partner did hold something that those of us who doubled expected, roughly, but the critical club stiff, the Queen at that, could not really be predicted.

 

4. The club 9 did turn out useful for the defense, as I predicted.

 

5. Partner did have broken diamonds, as I predicted.

 

I'm sure that I am missing something, but the actual hand meets my expectations, and the double works out more safely and for a much better result.  But, you are citing this as a good argument for bidding on?

 

I like opponents like you.  LOL

Actually Ken your analysis turned out very impressive. However it seems to me the actual layout unfairly favors double. To take what you said.

 

1. This is true. However as small a change as either opponent trading a spade for a club from his partner would make it +200, which must be a more likely layout at this vul. And meanwhile that is with partner holding the club queen, if you gave that to an opponent as well you would be giving up a double doubled game swing! Yes it's true I moved a bunch of cards, but it's a layout similar to the real one that is completely unexceptional and if anything fits the bidding even better than the actual layout, one in which both opponents were completely as minimum as possible.

 

2. That is true, I have to give you that.

 

3. In other words partner was actually better for defense than expected, but the same for offense? That seems to be a point against you not for you.

 

4. Again, only due to a random club queen with partner. BTW unless the defense switches to clubs early (say they play spade spade diamond diamond) declarer can and should get out for 500 by eliminating diamonds and playing a low club from the Axxx, getting an endplay.

 

5. Well done Miss Cleo B)

[kenrexford]

Actually Ken your analysis turned out very impressive. However it seems to me the actual layout unfairly favors double. To take what you said.

 

1. This is true. However as small a change as either opponent trading a spade for a club from his partner would make it +200, which must be a more likely layout at this vul. And meanwhile that is with partner holding the club queen, if you gave that to an opponent as well you would be giving up a double doubled game swing! Yes it's true I moved a bunch of cards, but it's a layout similar to the real one that is completely unexceptional and if anything fits the bidding even better than the actual layout, one in which both opponents were completely as minimum as possible.

 

2. That is true, I have to give you that.

 

3. In other words partner was actually better for defense than expected, but the same for offense? That seems to be a point against you not for you.

 

4. Again, only due to a random club queen with partner. BTW unless the defense switches to clubs early (say they play spade spade diamond diamond) declarer can and should get out for 500 by eliminating diamonds and playing a low club from the Axxx, getting an endplay.

 

5. Well done Miss Cleo B)

1. Switching cards changes the bids made by the opponents, often. However, +500 still beats +450. If you give up partner's club Queen to the advancer, and make the spades split 3-1, we still set the 5♥ contract. If you give up the Queen and make clubs 5-3, or give up the Queen to Overcaller, then we might have a double game swing. That is a risk.

 

Contrasting all of this, however, is the simple 3:1 odds against 5♠ making with the actual pattern (Advancer has Kxx in diamonds), which would have been a huge swing as well.

 

2. [conceded]

 

3. I'm not sure I followed your analysis here, either. Better for both offense and defense is fine. Worse for both would result in a set both times. I doubt that 5♠ is a better call because Opener might have a hand that allows us to make but also lets us hammer the living daylights out of 5♥.

 

4. Only with a random club Queen? Not really. Q, Qx, J, Jx, 10, 10x all produce additional trick chances in clubs. This happened to be ONE of the many possible scenarios for the club nine being useful.

 

As to the BTW. Sure, if I'm sitting South, maybe I should double because I might not be smart enough to count to 13 and realize that I need to switch to a club and not to a diamond after I cash my two spade tricks. Or, maybe I double and then use my brain.

 

...next? LOL

[mikeh]

I'm with Josh on this one, altho I echo the 'well-done' to Ken for his analysis.

 

I don't see why giving LHO the club Q, giving N a small club, is going to affect the bidding: as it is, I think the 3♥ call is very suspect: the stiff ♦K is a negative value... it is a loser, while leaving the (constructive-bidding) opps with compensating values elsewhere... that is, with defence that they wouldn't have if they held the diamond K.

 

So in fact I think the bidding is MORE likely to be as it was IF you trade, say, the club Q for the diamond K. Now what does your double do?

 

And make the clubs 5-3 and the spades 3-1: again, when the opps compete to the 5-level, surely that suggests that your suits don't break 2=2 or 3=2?

 

What happened here is that both opps made debatable bids (look at east's red v white save on a trickless wonder) and double gets 800.

 

Frankly, if your opps demonstrate that kind of judgment, you won't need to guess correctly very often. But if your opps have a semblance of ability, then maybe east has 1=4=3=5 shape and west has 3=6=1=3 shape with xxx KQxxxx x AQx which looks a heck of a lot more like a red v white 3♥ in a forcing opposition auction than the frommage he actually held.

 

Put another way, imagine just being shown the EW hands and the result of -800 in the context of 'apportion the blame'. Would we all say: no-one... normal bidding, just unlucky the opps doubled? I don't think so: I think we'd be pointing the finger at each of the EW bidders to varying degrees.

[karlson]

If partner has ♠Qxxx ♥xx ♦AKxxxx ♣x (Mike's construction) he might pull the double with the most awesome hand possible for spades. And while I agree that the cards could be better placed (in favor of bidding) given the auction, they could also much worse. If you're going to take away partner's CQ, you could also give him an extra club and give the opponents 11 hearts (surely east will bid with 5 of them, basically try Mike's second construction with east having 1534 instead of 1435). Now 5s has no shot, and 5h still goes for 500.

 

I agree that east-west may not seem have bid the hands well, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to double them. Perhaps this is an example of taking maximum advantage of your opponents mistakes. But they also may have been just trying to push you around, thinking that you'll bid 5 over 5 often when it's wrong, and in a way, they were right.

[kenrexford]

I'm with Josh on this one, altho I echo the 'well-done' to Ken for his analysis.

 

I don't see why giving LHO the club Q, giving N a small club, is going to affect the bidding: as it is, I think the 3♥ call is very suspect: the stiff ♦K is a negative value... it is a loser, while leaving the (constructive-bidding) opps with compensating values elsewhere... that is, with defence that they wouldn't have if they held the diamond K.

 

So in fact I think the bidding is MORE likely to be as it was IF you trade, say, the club Q for the diamond K. Now what does your double do?

 

And make the clubs 5-3 and the spades 3-1: again, when the opps compete to the 5-level, surely that suggests that your suits don't break 2=2 or 3=2?

 

What happened here is that both opps made debatable bids (look at east's red v white save on a trickless wonder) and double gets 800.

 

Frankly, if your opps demonstrate that kind of judgment, you won't need to guess correctly very often. But if your opps have a semblance of ability, then maybe east has 1=4=3=5 shape and west has 3=6=1=3 shape with xxx KQxxxx x AQx which looks a heck of a lot more like a red v white 3♥ in a forcing opposition auction than the frommage he actually held.

 

Put another way, imagine just being shown the EW hands and the result of -800 in the context of 'apportion the blame'. Would we all say: no-one... normal bidding, just unlucky the opps doubled? I don't think so: I think we'd be pointing the finger at each of the EW bidders to varying degrees.

If you trade the diamond King for the club Queen, Opener has ♠Qxxx ♥xx ♦AKJ9xx ♣x. That's a 1♦ opening. If you are sick enough to open this 2♦, then for God's sake bid your stiff (4♣)!!! My double, if that is the layout, does a lot. It convinces my partner to open opening hands and to show powerhouse offensive hands when he has powerhouse offensive hands.

 

However, you are right that the stiff diamond King seems like a negative value. More likely that Advancer has that card (as I mentioned), making 5♠ go set and 5♥ still set.

 

As to clubs 5-3 and spades 3-1, I'll assume that you want Advancer to have the 1435 pattern, giving overcaller 3613? That's plausible, but then Overcaller has a non-interesting nine-count and is less likely to overcall (he needs that fourth club for his bid). Or, if Overcaller is 1615 and Advancer 3433, Advancer lacks anything resembling a 5♥ call. Of course, both calls make more sense if the diamond King is well-placed for them, which sets 5♠, unfortunately.

 

The actual hand proposed (xxx KQxxxx x AQx) leaves Advancer J AJxx Kxx J10xxx unless you give partner an opening bid or, at a minimum, a clear 4♣ call after not opening 1♦. That allows 5♥ to make and makes 5♠ a good sacrifice. The layout is plausible. So, the double is not going to work 100% of the time. However, it also works quite often. The key is not in creating a deal where douible fails, but rather it is in creating various plausible deals to see what works most often.

 

I'll agree that E-W lost their minds, though.

[kenrexford]

Shortened Note:

 

I cannot imagine opening 2♦ with ♠Qxxx ♥xx ♦AKJxxx ♣x, or even with the same hand without the diamond Jack. Both seem like standard 1♦ openings.

 

If, however, I actually did open these monsters 2♦, I cannot fathom failing to indicate the wild strength of these hands with a well-timed 4♣ call (over 3♥).

 

Is there anyone who would handle either of these hands with 2♦...4♠ in the context provided???

[jdonn]

Remove the king of diamonds from that example (essentially the actual hand without the club queen) and you are looking at the sort of hand on which double game swings are made. Our game is on a finesse, their's pretty much depends on their distribution, which is usually quite shapely when they are bidding like this even though it wasn't in the actual hand. Neither, either, or both sides could be making game, which is not the time to double at imps.