Poll: Bidding at high level

[mishovnbg]

You are S:

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=s10xxxhkqdaj109xxcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(2♣*) - 2♦ - (5♣) - 5♦

(6♣) - ?

 

* Precision[/hv]

 

Your bid? Why? Do you play any conventions here?

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[joker_gib]

Hi Misho,

 

Well, it seems (I hope :D ) that opps preempt so I will consider that our side has the contract. As I have already done my job with the overcall, the only thing that remains to tell to partner is that I have only one ♣, so, I would pass (forcing) but I really don't know if it is the right action :huh:

Alain

[Free]

(I guess 5♦ in the poll is meant to be 6♦)

 

Do you EVER preempt like hell when V vs NV? I don't think so. Imo, my partner is the one preempting, and they have the hand. Where does 6♣ come from? Probably void ♦. That places a possible top honour ♦ wrong. All other cards are rubish, except the ♥s. I'd pass, and no, I don't play this as forcing...

[inquiry]

You are S:

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=s10xxxhkqdaj109xxcx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

(2♣*) - 2♦ - (5♣) - 5♦

(6♣) - ?

 

* Precision[/hv]

 

Your bid? Why? Do you play any conventions here?

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

Misho

 

Why might I bid 6♦? This is a tough hand but I think partner bid 5♦ as a save since they are bidding 6♣ vul versus not.

 

First thing I do is consult the law of total tricks. Partner will have assumed that I have 6♦ so he will have, probably, around 4 to 5. So we have 10 or 11 card fit, I will assume 11 given the favorible vulnerabilty. They will have also 11 or maybe 12 card fit, I will assume 11 as well, but would not be surprised given the vul if it was a 12 card fit. So we have a "22 trick" deal. The law at this level of trumps is frequently wrong. But the law suggest that even if 6♣ is off one, 6♦ at this vul should be a cheap sacrafice versus 5♣. So bidding is not out of the question.

 

Next as to tricks, I have a probable ♥ trick, but that is it. I really have no expectations that the ♦A will score a trick. Some people play a convention here that pass shows 0 or 2 tricks, and that double shows one. Since partner will be on the lead, I would like to save my double here for either lightner or I have them with any lead. If I had no sure tricks at all, however, I would surely bid 6♦ myself. So I will pass with this hand. Now when the bidding comes to my partner, should he have no trick, he will bid 6♦. If he has a trick or two, he will double.

 

Now for what do I bid? I pass, and leave the double, bid decision up to partner. If he is looking at...

 

♠Jx ♥9842 ♦Qxxxxx ♣x he will bid 6♦, if he has

♠Ax ♥98xx ♦Qxxxxx ♣x he will double.

 

Ben

[luis]

Pass showing 0 or 1 defensive trick (the dA is not a trick I suposse) (I'd double with 2 defensive tricks)

 

Then pd will bid DBL if he has 1 defensive trick and I pass with 1 or defend with 0

If pd has 0 defensive tricks he bids 6d and if he has 2 he just passes.

 

This is called "negative slam doubles" and I think it's a very useful convention.

[joker_gib]

Sorry, I misread the vulnerability !! :huh:

 

As I have only 1 trick (probably a ♦ void for the 6♣ bid) I would pass and let decision to partner. If he has nothing he would probably bid 6♦.

 

Alain

[flytoox]

Pass showing 0 or 1 defensive trick (the dA is not a trick I suposse) (I'd double with 2 defensive tricks)

 

Then pd will bid DBL if he has 1 defensive trick and I pass with 1 or defend with 0

If pd has 0 defensive tricks he bids 6d and if he has 2 he just passes.

 

This is called "negative slam doubles" and I think it's a very useful convention.

this seems a useful trick. I would give it a try.

[inquiry]

Pass showing 0 or 1 defensive trick (the dA is not a trick I suposse) (I'd double with 2 defensive tricks)

 

Then pd will bid DBL if he has 1 defensive trick and I pass with 1 or defend with 0

If pd has 0 defensive tricks he bids 6d and if he has 2 he just passes.

 

This is called "negative slam doubles" and I think it's a very useful convention.

this seems a useful trick. I would give it a try.

Well Luis has it wrong... a negative slam double implies ZERO tricks, not 0 or 1. So you double with zero tricks, and pass with more. The idea is that after your side has preempted and they bid a slam, if you double with ZERO tricks, it tells your partner what to do... bid on or defend based upon his hand. And a pass tells him about your trick.

 

There are a couple downside to negative slam doubles on this hand. First, it takes ligthner double out of your arsenal. Second, it is not necessarily all that clear who is sacraficing and who is bidding to make... let's change the vul to no one, for example.

 

Finally, to double with more than two tricks and to pass with 0 or 1 as luis suggest would not exactly deserve a special conventional name. Doubling when you can beat them is called normal bridge.

 

Here is how negative slam double would work on this hand. Your hand would pass, because you indeed have at least one trick (you would double with zero). When bidding comes to your partner, he will pass one trick, happy to defend, since you promised one. With zero tricks, he would double, and you would bid 6♦ as a save since you can only see one in your hand.

 

This is a nice convention, you must be willing to give up lightner doubles in the direct seat, and it only applies where yourside is preempting in a save-or-defend position against their slam.

 

Ben

[luis]

Pass showing 0 or 1 defensive trick (the dA is not a trick I suposse) (I'd double with 2 defensive tricks)

 

Then pd will bid DBL if he has 1 defensive trick and I pass with 1 or defend with 0

If pd has 0 defensive tricks he bids 6d and if he has 2 he just passes.

 

This is called "negative slam doubles" and I think it's a very useful convention.

this seems a useful trick. I would give it a try.

Well Luis has it wrong... a negative slam double implies ZERO tricks, not 0 or 1. So you double with zero tricks, and pass with more. The idea is that after your side has preempted and they bid a slam, if you double with ZERO tricks, it tells your partner what to do... bid on or defend based upon his hand. And a pass tells him about your trick.

 

There are a couple downside to negative slam doubles on this hand. First, it takes ligthner double out of your arsenal. Second, it is not necessarily all that clear who is sacraficing and who is bidding to make... let's change the vul to no one, for example.

 

Finally, to double with more than two tricks and to pass with 0 or 1 as luis suggest would not exactly deserve a special conventional name. Doubling when you can beat them is called normal bridge.

 

Here is how negative slam double would work on this hand. Your hand would pass, because you indeed have at least one trick (you would double with zero). When bidding comes to your partner, he will pass one trick, happy to defend, since you promised one. With zero tricks, he would double, and you would bid 6♦ as a save since you can only see one in your hand.

 

This is a nice convention, you must be willing to give up lightner doubles in the direct seat, and it only applies where yourside is preempting in a save-or-defend position against their slam.

 

Ben

What ? Ben ar you ok? It's exactly the same, there is absolutely no difference in playing pass=0/1 dbl=2 or dbl=0 pass=1/2

 

When

 

Pass is 0/1 trick

And double is 2 tricks

 

After pass pd bids

pass with 2 defensive tricks

double with 1

6x with 0 (you don't have 2)

After pd's doubles with 1 trick

You pass with 1

Defend with 0

 

 

When

 

Pass is 1/2 tricks

And double is 0

 

After pass

pd passes with 1+

doubles with 0

And after pd doubles

you defend with 1

or pass with 2

 

What's the difference?

[WGF_Flame]

Double ofcourse, if the bidding went 2c 2d 4c 4d 5c i would have some asitatians and then double so at the 6 level its just ovious. my hand have a nice shape, but not that unbalanced for a 6 level competetive, and my high cards cant be more defensive, i got A in the long suit and KQ doublton.

[inquiry]

What ? Ben ar you ok?

 

I certainly hope so. What I was thinking was that you misdescribed "negative slam double" as it is my belief this double DENIES a defensive trick. Here is what bridgeworld says about this... Negative slam double = in a competitive auction, the double of a slam to deny defensive tricks.

 

Bridgeworld link

 

Now you can play it differently if you like, that is fine, but I was correcting the description as of the convention you named.

 

The idea of making it ZERO, instead of ZERO/ONE is that you can count your tricks better if you know if your partner has one trick or not. If you hold one trick, and partner double shows one or 0, you don't know what to do. But if the double shows 0, then you know what to do with only one trick.

 

Ben

[luis]

What ? Ben ar you ok?

 

I certainly hope so. What I was thinking was that you misdescribed "negative slam double" as it is my belief this double DENIES a defensive trick. Here is what bridgeworld says about this... Negative slam double = in a competitive auction, the double of a slam to deny defensive tricks.

 

Bridgeworld link

 

Now you can play it differently if you like, that is fine, but I was correcting the description as of the convention you described.

 

The idea of making it ZERO, instead of ZERO/ONE is that you can count your tricks better if you know if your partner has one trick or not. If you hold one trick, and partner double shows one or 0, you don't know what to do. But if the double shows 0, then you know what to do with only one trick.

 

Ben

Well I learned the convention the other way around and it's the same.

I think that it's like Ogust where what matters is the concept and not the order in which you use the bids because it is the same.

 

Dbl = 0

Pass = 1/2

 

Or

 

Dbl = 2

Pass = 0/1

 

Can be summarized as "negative slam doubles" in my opinion.

 

 

The idea of making it ZERO, instead of ZERO/ONE is that you can count your tricks better if you know if your partner has one trick or not. If you hold one trick, and partner double shows one or 0, you don't know what to do. But if the double shows 0, then you know what to do with only one trick.

 

Double doesn't show 0 or 1, PASS shows 0 or 1. So you know what to do: Double with 1, pass with 2, defend with 0. See? It's the same :-)

[mishovnbg]

 

------------------------------------------------------------

Hi friends!

 

------

Do you really think it is important discussion? In my opinion important is what to play, not its name. But as long as you discuss it, I will write about too. Ben is right about bridge players need good glossary, especially good abbreviations and symbolic language (Jeff Rubens try in TSAR) for describing systems, else it go above 300 pages - can read them, but never can play them. Luis is right that important is spirit of convention (law), not his formal definition. So penalty double opps when they go down is not convention. Double opps with 0 or 1 trick is convention, becase lack of any other named conventions, they are both just versions of negative slam double. By the way Ben, in example you can't miss lightner double, just because the turn is of the player who will lead.

 

------

Before to decide what to play, need to be sure about priority of wining contracts. In posted example they are(from top to bottom): opps go down, succsessful sacrifice, avoid opps do play redoubled contract and make it, penalty double. There is possibility also that W jumps to game speculative, we can make 5♦ and they can't make 6♣, but in given vul is unlikeable. Negative slam double nice, but normally the problem is you are not sure have you a trick or not. More interesting in my opinion is knoledge about how good is our sacrifice. If we give to opps 1100/1400, thanks, I don't like to sacrifice. But if we give 500/800 I prefer to sacrifice, despite it is not sure they make their contract. My partner already show his ambitions by bidding 5♦ - he like we to play, not opps. My double in same position tells to partner: "I have distribution for good sacrifice and like your idea to sacrifice, but have some defense too, else I will bid 6♦ directly. The choice is yours." My pass means: "Partner, you already told me you like to sacrifice, but I don't like it. Please pass, except you did underbid and have good sacrifice at 6 level too." In example I doubled, my p passed without any trick and they made 6♣=.

 

 

------

By the way Ben, please correct 5♦ to 6DI in my poll if possible, because it is not available for me to do it. Thanks in advance friend :)

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------

Misho

[inquiry]

By the way Ben, in example you can't miss lightner double, just because the turn is of the player who will lead.

 

Misho, I know from bitter experience that if you play slam negative doubles (Whichever version), that you can't also play ligtner double. That is your double can't simultaneosly mean... "make and unusual lead" and I have 0 or in 0/1 tricks. I mean, you can't overload the bid that way.

 

Double doesn't show 0 or 1, PASS shows 0 or 1. So you know what to do: Double with 1, pass with 2, defend with 0. See? It's the same :-)

 

I think you meant "save" with 0, not pass with 0... and yes this is pretty much the same, although your way the double varies by who makes it. It shows Two in direct seat, and one in the balance seat. This is a fine way to play it, and once again, I didn't mean my comments as anything other than a commentary on my understanding of the "classical" negative slam double as defined in articles I have read. I actually don't play the negative slam double that way either. I like double shows in direct seat wants to play doubled and pass shows uncertainty. Then in balance seat, the player dbls with a mixed decision hand (good for defensive/offensive for bidding to date), takes save with better offensive hand for teh bidding to date, and passes with a better defensive hand... which is another way to describe what you said.

 

Now misho's direct seat DBL is different from both of these. Yours (And mine) suggest staying playing 6♣X, his suggest bidding on or staying depending upon his partners hand. Misho's pass, suggest defending. This seems an odd treatment.. I guess you would call it the one trick double. His partner is to pass with one trick and bid on with zero. Theoretically, I guess this will work, but seems prone to errors, as his result on this hand shows. If he was playing true "slam negative double" he would pass with this hand, and his partner with 0 would dbl and he would then bid 6D. Playing pass shows 0 or 1 he would pass with this hand, and his parnter with no tricks would bid 6D. Either of those seem clearer than his choosen way.

 

Ben

[mishovnbg]

By the way Ben, in example you can't miss lightner double, just because the turn is of the player who will lead.

 

Misho, I know from bitter experience that if you play slam negative doubles (Whichever version), that you can't also play ligtner double. That is your double can't simultaneosly mean... "make and unusual lead" and I have 0 or in 0/1 tricks. I mean, you can't overload the bid that way.

 

Double doesn't show 0 or 1, PASS shows 0 or 1. So you know what to do: Double with 1, pass with 2, defend with 0. See? It's the same :-)

 

I think you meant "save" with 0, not pass with 0... and yes this is pretty much the same, although your way the double varies by who makes it. It shows Two in direct seat, and one in the balance seat. This is a fine way to play it, and once again, I didn't mean my comments as anything other than a commentary on my understanding of the "classical" negative slam double as defined in articles I have read. I actually don't play the negative slam double that way either. I like double shows in direct seat wants to play doubled and pass shows uncertainty. Then in balance seat, the player dbls with a mixed decision hand (good for defensive/offensive for bidding to date), takes save with better offensive hand for teh bidding to date, and passes with a better defensive hand... which is another way to describe what you said.

 

Now misho's direct seat DBL is different from both of these. Yours (And mine) suggest staying playing 6♣X, his suggest bidding on or staying depending upon his partners hand. Misho's pass, suggest defending. This seems an odd treatment.. I guess you would call it the one trick double. His partner is to pass with one trick and bid on with zero. Theoretically, I guess this will work, but seems prone to errors, as his result on this hand shows. If he was playing true "slam negative double" he would pass with this hand, and his partner with 0 would dbl and he would then bid 6D. Playing pass shows 0 or 1 he would pass with this hand, and his parnter with no tricks would bid 6D. Either of those seem clearer than his choosen way.

 

Ben

OK Ben, majority of good players I asked had like your opinion. Direct double penalty, from partner - ligthner dbl, hope no not forget it, hehe

Misho

[Trpltrbl]

Why would they bid 5♣ with a good hand ? I think opps are just preempting, so I will make a X, I have a very very minimum hand and maybe 2 defensive tricks, looks more like 1 to me. I see no way to make 6♦ and if pd has the prefect dummy I am sure he'll make an overridding decision.

 

Mike :(