Fit non jump?

[Guest Jlall]

--- QTxx xx KQTxxxx

 

r/r imps.

 

p p 1D 1S 3D ?

 

Do you agree with your first pass?

What now?

[inquiry]

Life is a struggle then you die. I am afraid that if bidding now is nlm (ad I think it should be), then your only option now is pass or dbl. And if you double, odds are long you have to decide what to bid over 3♠ or 4♠. So, I will pass.

 

I think bidding in second seat would have been a better idea, but I know preempting with four card major is not "normal' so I accept the first pass too. I think if you held a gun to my head, a 1♣ opening with all those ZARs would not be horrible, and you have club rebids for a long time coming, but I understand not wanting to open with such a weak defensive hand.

[pclayton]

It would be in all my partnerships. I'd be stuck with a double and pull 3S to 4C.

[jdonn]

I wouldn't play 4♣ shows a spade fit here (why would you ever want to raise spades while allowing a 4♦ bid in anyway?) but I would still pass. Close to 4♣.

[Impact]

2. Now- Caught.

 

logically the only excuse for bidding at the 4 level when unable to bid at the 1/2/3 level at the previous opportunity should/must be a fit for partner's overcall.

 

Hence, I do not bid 4C and feel I must take my lumps with a pass...(it is all to easy to compose hands for overcaller where game or slam in C is cold - but of course if you bid those are NOT the hands he holds - and neither do they figure to be).

 

This is one moment for discipline.

 

1. As to the first pass:-

As to the idea of bidding in 2nd seat at all vull with:-

void QTxx xx KQTxxxx

in an undisciplined partnership it is fine - but always appreciate that partner looking at his Hx or Hxx is going to believe the opponents have a lock on that suit ...

 

Frankly, when you hold the lowest ranking suit if you are going to pre-empt you have to do so at the first opportunity. The suit is fine for a vul pre-empt and the general strength of the hand is right (everyone would pre-empt if the QTxx was in D).

 

 

In MSC land people talk about passing and then bidding C so that partner will "work out" that you have the 4 decent H, but this sort of scenario happens.

 

Put me in the : "you dealt me a pre-empt" which is suitable even for 2nd seat vul, so I'll do it.

 

Otherwise when vul it really is just too prescriptive ...but if you put me at adverse vul I guess I would pass the hand in 2nd seat as the stricture of specific holdings is more applicable - unless playing a system which forced me to bid.

 

regards

[Guest Jlall]

lol...I meant the tilte as a joke...interesting!

[rbforster]

hands like these are why I freed up a 2♣ opening in my system for weak hands with 5+ clubs and a 4+ major.

[mike777]

1) As a nonexpert but trying to learn I would have bid 3c in second seat. Why? as a nonexpert my thinking was I want to get this hand off my chest in one bid....vul 3c in second seat.....nonexpert second choice......5c...........

2) if I pass now I pass again.

[gnasher]

I wouldn't play 4♣ shows a spade fit here (why would you ever want to raise spades while allowing a 4♦ bid in anyway?)

Because you think that the extra information will be of more value to your partner than the extra space is to the opponents.

 

Maybe I'm just unlucky, or have a selective memory, but I find that when I eschew a fit bid in order to use up more space my side almost always ends up facing a guess on the next round.

[Free]

I would've opened 3♣, now I'm stuck with Dbl...

[andy_h]

This is a bit awkward. My hand potential is too great, so I am sold by the textbook first pass. As to my 2nd bid, I think 4C would be a FNJ for me, so I'm stuck with a dbl or a pass. I think I'm afraid of partner bidding 4S if I X so I'm opting for the wuss pass. Hopefully partner will have a 2nd bid and I'll be better prepared for it.. Ideally I would certainly like to X and remove partner's 3S to 4C.

[kenrexford]

100% fit non-jump.

[brianshark]

Pass then. Pass now.

[jdonn]

Maybe I'm just unlucky, or have a selective memory, but I find that when I eschew a fit bid in order to use up more space my side almost always ends up facing a guess on the next round.

Maybe I'm just unlucky, but I find myself not preempting on 100% of the hands with 7+ clubs that I hold, yet often wanting to bid them on the next round of the auction even with a void in partner's suit :)

[NickRW]

"Do you agree with your first pass?"

 

Yes, 2nd seat anyway. I think Zar points slightly over values this hand and, unless I'm playing light openers this is not a 1♣ opener for me. And 2nd seat you too often preempt your partner's relatively strong hand with hearts if you bid 3. Its a textbook pass and for once at least I agree with the textbook.

 

"What now?"

 

Call me a cave man if you like, but on a competitive auction with spade support I bid spades - and clubs means clubs. Next to no defence to 3♦ so I will try 4♣. Don't really like it but it seems the lesser evil.

 

Nick

[kenrexford]

The more I think about this precise sequence, the more I wonder if this is not a good spot for some intuitive canape theory (along the lines of a post from Justin a while back).

 

Clearly, one cannot imagine bidding 4♣ in this sequence as natural, after not opening 1♣ or 3♣, unless Responder has either a fit (fit non-jump) or a wildly distriubutional hand. That second option, of course, implies a secondary heart suit.

 

One also cannot possibly imagine bidding 3♥ in this sequence without one of these two, as well.

 

However, with long hearts, a club secondary makes little sense as a reason to not open something.

 

Thus, it seems reasonable for 3♥, here, to be the bid to show clubs with secondary hearts, largely because it allows us to actually play 3♥, if that is right.

 

Countering this is the reality that 3♥ might be useful as some sort of spade raise because it is below 3♠, which makes sense as well. A fit bid in hearts below 3♠ has a lot of merits.

 

Just a thought to ponder, perhaps...

[jdonn]

The more I think about this precise sequence, the more I wonder if this is not a good spot for some intuitive canape theory (along the lines of a post from Justin a while back).

 

Clearly, one cannot imagine bidding 4♣ in this sequence as natural, after not opening 1♣ or 3♣, unless Responder has either a fit (fit non-jump) or a wildly distriubutional hand. That second option, of course, implies a secondary heart suit.

 

One also cannot possibly imagine bidding 3♥ in this sequence without one of these two, as well.

 

However, with long hearts, a club secondary makes little sense as a reason to not open something.

 

Thus, it seems reasonable for 3♥, here, to be the bid to show clubs with secondary hearts, largely because it allows us to actually play 3♥, if that is right.

 

Countering this is the reality that 3♥ might be useful as some sort of spade raise because it is below 3♠, which makes sense as well. A fit bid in hearts below 3♠ has a lot of merits.

 

Just a thought to ponder, perhaps...

People take these things to ridiculous extremes. Now when I'm vul in second seat with x Kxxxxx xx AJTx I have to choose between preempting with that suit and never bidding hearts? I have had certain partners in the past who I just wish would stop trying to infer based on their idea of why I might have passed then bid.

[pclayton]

Look, if we held Kxxx, x, xx, AQxxxx we'd all be saying - wow, wouldn't it be great if 4!c showed a fit here?

 

Well, maybe not all of us.... :rolleyes:

[kenrexford]

I have had certain partners in the past who I just wish would stop trying to infer based on their idea of why I might have passed then bid.

A valid thought was raised, but this one sentence gives me the willies. Any auction, at any time, is an auction. It is not a bid launched out at some random time having some meaning unrelated to the prior actions. I, personally, rather loath people who do not reflect upon the prior decisions when assessing the meaning of the present decision.

 

That said, I understand your concern, I think. The problem, more precisely, is that partners who use this process (a good process) reach different conclusions because of a different assessment.

 

For example, consider the instant case. A decision to not bid initially, and then to bid in a new suit at the four-level, screams inference. That inference, however, is either of extreme pattern or fit. There are only so many plausible inferences, as a 4♣ call that makes sense must either be based on fit or on extreme but problematic distribution. There are no other real options.

 

The breakdown, then, occurs when one partner assumes that one of the two possibilities is "preferred" but partner thinks that the other is preferred.

 

I think that it is somewhat unfair to be angry with partner for not reaching the same assessment of preference. In an undiscussed auction, he has a duty to guess. If you have a partnership understanding that one inference type is always preferred when undiscussed, then that is fair, even if more situation-specific rules or actual agreements might be superior when the non-defaulot actually makes more sense in some minority instances. But, I wonder how strict most people are as to inference preference defaults.

 

The bottom line, though, is that your partners have no solution many times. If they guess, for instance, that 4♣ is a natural bid, but you meant fit bid, then the result could be devastating. If they guess fit bid but natural was intended, equally devastating results may occur. There is no option to assume no inference, as 4♣ is unlikely to be defined in system notes and probably cannot be found in all texts as uniformly described (if ever even mentioned).

 

If you operate under the assumption that all undiscussed bids that must be highly distributional or fit-showing must be natural, and if that has been mentioned, you have a point. But, my guess is that many undiscussed bids that must be fit-showing or highly distributional will be interpreted by you as fit bids, which, if not specifically agreed, would run contrary to the GP stated for this instance.

[nige1]

r/r imps. ♠ - ♥ QTxx ♦ xx ♣ KQTxxxx

(_P) _P (1♦) 1♠

(3♦) ??

Do you agree with your first pass? What now?

IMO

• 3♣ = 10, _P = 9.
  Terence Reese says pre-emptors worry too much about 4 card majors.
  He also says a pre-empt that is known to be weak is a blunt sword.
  The counter-argument is that 2nd seat pre-empts should be pure, especially when vulnerable; but this is pure enough for me.
  
• _X = 10, _P = 9
  Brave or foolhardy? Dangerous but possibly just worth it because 3N is your most likely game and double allows partner to declare it.
  Over partner's 3♠, you can scramble with 3N -- or you can bid 4♣ depending on which is your way to show the suit disparity and so discourage 3-card preference to ♥.
  

It's all a bit fraught :)

[jdonn]

The bottom line, though, is that your partners have no solution many times. If they guess, for instance, that 4♣ is a natural bid, but you meant fit bid, then the result could be devastating. If they guess fit bid but natural was intended, equally devastating results may occur. There is no option to assume no inference, as 4♣ is unlikely to be defined in system notes and probably cannot be found in all texts as uniformly described (if ever even mentioned).

Huh?? Assuming a fit bid is assuming 'something'. Assuming natural is assuming 'nothing'. If we have not made an agreement to play a bid as otherwise then it is natural, anything else is the inference and sorry but partner would be crazy and wrong to assume it.

[nige1]

Huh?? Assuming a fit bid is assuming 'something'. Assuming natural is assuming 'nothing'. If we have not made an agreement to play a bid as otherwise then it is natural, anything else is the inference and sorry but partner would be crazy and wrong to assume it.

Many believe that when a passed partner introduces a new suit at a high level after partner's simple overcall, then a fit non jump is the most natural interpretation.

 

I agree with JDonn that such bids are conventional. Nevertheless, Robson and Segal have persuaded me that they are a sensible use of bidding space:

• They enlist partner's help in judging whether to compete further and
  
• They suggest effective tactics when you decide to defend.
  

Anyway, JLall, we've answered your question. Now please put us out of our misery :)

• What is the successful lead? and
  
• By what logic should we arrive at the right decision?
  

... Oh! Sorry! Wrong topic :) :D :D :D :D

[jdonn]

I agree with JDonn that such bids are conventional. Nevertheless, Robson and Segal have persuaded me that they are a sensible use of bidding space:

Awesome. Should you assume these conventional bids undiscussed because you believe they are sensible bids?

 

No one believes they are the most natural interpretation. Some may believe they are the most useful interpretation, which is different.

[gnasher]

Awesome. Should you assume these conventional bids undiscussed because you believe they are sensible bids?

 

No one believes they are the most natural interpretation. Some may believe they are the most useful interpretation, which is different.

I believe that they're the most logical interpretation. In the circles I play in they're also, I think, so close to being standard that I'd assume them without discussion.

[Guest Jlall]

If you X partner will pass and you will get 500.

 

If you pass, partner passes (though it's not a clear pass, that's what he chose to do when I passed at the table) and you get 200. Side question for those who pass, what were you planning to do over the reopening X (I thought it was very close between 4D and 5C but I was going to bid 5C).

 

If you bid 4C partner will raise to 5C and you will go down on an unlucky layout.

 

Partner had QJTxx A8x Ax Axx.

 

edit: So obviously 3N is cold and a 3C opener makes the hand very simple heh.