Bad luck or bad bidding?

[ccw]

MP all red

 

You hold

 

63

Ak

AJT95

KQJ7

 

You are dealer and open 1D (your NT range is 11+ to 14)

the auction proceeds

 

1D (1S) P (P)

 

Do you double or bid 2C or something else?

 

I chose double so the auction concluded

 

1D (1S) P (P)

X P 2H P

P P

 

Partner held

 

854

QJ43

Q6

T532

 

The outstanding Hearts split 6-1. -200 was worth 0.5 MP out of 12.

 

 

So... what should we have done better?

 

Thanks

 

Collins

[TylerE]

2♣ instead of X. Looks like a two-suiter for me. X should have at least 3 hearts. That said, I might try 2♣ by responder instead of 2♥, on the theory of keeping the bidding as low as possible on really bad hands. Major only scores more when it makes...

[cphastrup]

I would double, too. Mildly put, I won't mind playing against 1♠X if partner has a spade stack.

Responding 2♣ has the advantage that opener can bid 2♦ with hearts and clubs inverted. Responder can then bid 2♥/3♥ with the current hand.

[kenrexford]

X-P-2♥-P-P is not an option.

 

2♣ is an option.

3♣ is an option.

X-P-2♥-P-2NT/3♣ is an option.

 

Some options are better than others, but...

 

X-P-2♥-P-P is not an option.

[skjaeran]

I'd definitely balance with 2♣ over 1♠. I might later come back with a double (if appropriate) to show my strength.

 

Agree with Ken that passing 2♥ is NOT an option after having made the IMO not_so_good double.

[awm]

I think there is a general error of philosophy here. A lot of people seem to regret that they are not playing penalty doubles in various auctions, and therefore balance with doubles way too often because "partner might've had a penalty double, and then it would be so sad not to get them..."

 

The fact is that most of the time partner does not have a penalty double. If you auto-balance with a double just in case partner has that hand, all too often you cannot handle the follow-ups when partner has something else. That's just what happened here -- partner had a hand with four nice hearts and because we distorted our hand in order to cater to the rare occasion that partner wants to penalize one spade, we've now stumbled into a ridiculous spot that will be hard to salvage.

 

It generally works much better to worry about showing your hand in an accurate way, and accept that you will occasionally fail to "get them" when you could've penalized a one or two level contract.

[pclayton]

I think those that bid 2♣ are resulting here. If pard held AQTxx xxx x xxx, everyone would discussing how obvious a double is, as they racked up their +130 / 150 in clubs.

 

Honestly, I don't have a lot of problem with this auction. Most of the time pard will have 5 hearts for 2♥ (because he didn't raise diamonds or bid clubs or NT) so I don't have a problem passing 2♥. Sometimes 4-2 fits can play silly, but with the power between the hands you can frequently make a fair number of tricks.

[jdonn]

I think those that bid 2♣ are resulting here. If pard held AQTxx xxx x xxx, everyone would discussing how obvious a double is, as they racked up their +130 / 150 in clubs.

I wouldn't. Double is just wrong imo, I would definitely have bid 2♣.

[SlickRicky]

Most of the time pard will have 5 hearts for 2♥ (because he didn't raise diamonds or bid clubs or NT)

Hi Phil,

 

I do not agree with this part of your post. Partner will bid a 4 card heart suit in preference to both NT with a stopper, and in preference to a 4 card club suit. Given the opponent's silence, partner will almost always have 3 spades, and often will have 4 spades. With 3433, 3423, 4423 4432 he will almost always bid 2H regardless of whether he has a spade stopper or not. Additionally, with 5 spades and 4 hearts and a hand that cannot pass the double he will also bid 2H most of the time. Also, the more spades partner has on average, the less likely he will be to have a 5 card heart suit. Basically I think that Xing and passing is very likely to get you to a 4-2 heart fit, and partner's failure to bid NT is not much of an inference about his heart length at all.

 

I also think that when we have a hand that is both this strong and has this much spade length it is very unlikely that partner has a hand that can pass 1S X. Possible, sure, but unlikely. The frequency of this upside (a pass of 1S X) is too low in relation to the frequency that we get to a 4-2 heart fit to justify taking this plan IMO.

 

Ricky

[oldman5757]

I'd double 1♠ when it comes to me. There's at least a reasonable chance that we might get 200 (or more) with no game on our way, if P has the right hand. We won't if I don't double. When P bids 2♥, I'd probably pull to 2NT, giving P a chance to pass or, much more likely since he couldn't pass the double, take a minor suit preference. Obviously, there are hands where passing 2♥ could turn out well, but IMHO, it's taking too big a position. B)

[bid_em_up]

Personally, I think this hand reopens with a double and then bids 3♣ after partners 2♥ bid.

 

1♦-(1♠)-p-(p)-

x-(p)-2♥-(p)-

3♣

 

should be how the auction progresses.

 

Bidding 2N at this point is just plain wrong with no spade stop of your own.

 

Alternatively, a direct jump shift to 3C describes the hand adequately, but gives up the opportunity of partner having a trap pass of 1S.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

2C.

 

X is not terrible, but I wont like to hear 2H,

so 2C it is, of course I wont like p holding

a trap pass, but if he happens to have a trap

pass, we still may recover, because most likely

we will reach 3NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[cphastrup]

I think there is a general error of philosophy here. [...]

 

The fact is that most of the time partner does not have a penalty double. If you auto-balance with a double just in case partner has that hand, all too often you cannot handle the follow-ups when partner has something else. That's just what happened here -- partner had a hand with four nice hearts and because we distorted our hand in order to cater to the rare occasion that partner wants to penalize one spade, we've now stumbled into a ridiculous spot that will be hard to salvage.[...]

I wouldn't call it distorting if you agree a double could include this type of hand B) . That's why I suggested responder bid 2♣ instead, so partner with 2-4-5-2 could bid 2♦ and shown his shape. Then you get both, the chance to penalize ♠ AND the ability to show shape and avoid ending up in 4-2 fits.

[pclayton]

The problem I have with 2♣ isn't just that we are missing out on a nice penalty of 1♠, although I do think people are underestimating the frequency of this when we hold a hand like this and the tray returns to us, but whatever.

 

The problem with 2♣ is that it doesn't come close to describing this hand. We would gladly rebid 2♣ with a lot of minimum 5-5's, not this prime 18 with great suits and stellar defense.

 

I stand by a double, but if you want to twist my arm that this hand should pull 2♥ to 3♣ to try to improve the contract, I will not disagree. B)

[lexlogan]

I would double, planning to bid 3C next over 2C, 2D, or 2H.

[655321]

Add me to the 2♣ bidders.

[mikestar]

X is reasonable if and only if it is your intent to bid 3♣ over 2♥. Remember the general definition of a takeout double:

• 3 card or better support for every unbid suit
  
• OR, substantial extra values (too good to bid a new suit immediately) intending to bid your own suit.
  

You had the second type but bid as if you had the first type.

 

I've been known to cheat on the distribution for type 1's to the extend of doubling with two cards in an unbid minor, but never in a major.

[waubrey]

I would double but I would bid 3C after 2H.

[bid_em_up]

Am I seeing the same hand and auction that everybody else does?

 

This is the hand I see:

 

♠xx ♥AK ♦AJ109x ♣KQJx.

 

This hand is a full jump shift, no matter how you look at it.

 

In the passout seat after 1♦-(1♠)-p-p-?

 

You either double, then bid 3C over 2H or you make the jumpshift. To simply bid 2♣ is a major underbid.

 

As I stated earlier, my preference is double to allow for the possibility that partner has made a trap pass.

 

If this is not the hand everyone else is seeing, can someone please provide what they see instead?

[Lobowolf]

Am I seeing the same hand and auction that everybody else does?

 

This is the hand I see:

 

♠xx ♥AK ♦AJ109x ♣KQJx.

 

This hand is a full jump shift, no matter how you look at it.

 

In the passout seat after 1♦-(1♠)-p-p-?

 

You either double, then bid 3C over 2H or you make the jumpshift. To simply bid 2♣ is a major underbid.

 

As I stated earlier, my preference is double to allow for the possibility that partner has made a trap pass.

 

If this is not the hand everyone else is seeing, can someone please provide what they see instead?

I'm with the double and pull to 3♣ crowd, myself, but I think it's not the hand you're seeing differently, but the auction. While you could argue the merits of a jump-shift over partner's response, jump-shifting after his pass, which promises nothing, is another matter entirely. Particularly with no major suit holding longer than a doubleton and no stopper in the opponents' advertised suit. How hard are you willing to crack that whip toward an 11-trick contract by yourself?

[655321]

This hand is a full jump shift, no matter how you look at it.

 

In the passout seat after 1♦-(1♠)-p-p-?

 

You either double, then bid 3C over 2H or you make the jumpshift. To simply bid 2♣ is a major underbid.

 

As I stated earlier, my preference is double to allow for the possibility that partner has made a trap pass.

 

If this is not the hand everyone else is seeing, can someone please provide what they see instead?

I see a partner who could not scrape up a bid over a 1♠ overcall.

I see a doubleton spade (instead of a singleton) and a lot of HCP.

I deduce that partner's silence is because he is broke, not because he has half the pack, a bunch of spades and is eagerly waiting to defend 1♠X.

I see that unless partner has the unlikely trap pass, game is very unlikely.

I see that if partner does have a some values and club support in an ideal hand, something like xxx xxx Kx Axxxx, he can still raise 2♣.

 

Actually, I don't hate a reopening double (though I do hate a reopening 3♣ bid), but I prefer 2♣.

[jdonn]

Am I seeing the same hand and auction that everybody else does?

 

This is the hand I see:

 

♠xx ♥AK ♦AJ109x ♣KQJx.

 

This hand is a full jump shift, no matter how you look at it.

 

In the passout seat after 1♦-(1♠)-p-p-?

 

You either double, then bid 3C over 2H or you make the jumpshift. To simply bid 2♣ is a major underbid.

 

As I stated earlier, my preference is double to allow for the possibility that partner has made a trap pass.

 

If this is not the hand everyone else is seeing, can someone please provide what they see instead?

It's less a matter of what hand you see, and more a matter of what the bids show. A minimum 2254 hand will (should) just pass out 1♠, so why would a hand that is not worth a jump shift opposite a responding partner make one opposite a passing partner, when he is also on a higher minimum? It just makes no sense, at least not without extra shape.

[inquiry]

I also think double is wrong. I go with 2♣.

[the hog]

I think 2C is wrong. X for me and then pull 2H to 3C.

[TylerE]

Doh. Just realised it is A*K* of ♥, not Ax. Yea, X then 3[C], nearly wtp