Decisions, decisions

[Edmunte1]

Playing in a team match we lost 12 IMP's against 6♠ making on this board:

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=skqj10753haq2d8c87&s=sahk87653da7532ck]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1♠-(3♣)-3♥-(4♦(1))

4♠-(5♣)-dbl(2)-all pass

Result: +800[/hv]

(1)♦ values + fit♣

(2) pass would have been forcing

Do you agree with North-South decisions? What you dislike most?

[Cascade]

I dislike the agreement that pass is forcing.

 

North passing the double with heart support and this much distribution borders on insanity.

[jdonn]

I dislike the agreement that pass is forcing.

 

North passing the double with heart support and this much distribution borders on insanity.

Disagree with the first part, 3♥ is probably game forcing in fact so how could pass not be forcing?

 

Completely agree with the second part, although I fear I may be resulting since north won't know south has a singleton club? I mean if one of south's hearts or diamonds was a club, you are probably getting from 500 to 1100 instead of likely 650 or 680 with a chance to go down.

[TimG]

How about 4♥ instead of 4♠? If partner is faced with a decision over 5♣ (which seems likely), exposing the heart fit would seem like a good idea even with a self-sufficient suit.

[peachy]

I would like to know what creates a Forcing Pass situation if a GF does not do it (for Wayne)?

[benlessard]

Pass if of course forcing. Double is a terrible bid. A of S, stiff clubs and A of diamond is enough to make a FP, so here the K of H is a bonus and if partner bid make any foward move we will bid slam.

 

 

 

1S----(3♣)-----3♥------(4D)

4♠----(5♣)-----Pass-----(P)

5D----(P)-------5NT P-A-S

???

 

Here I think ill bid 6S since its safer to avoid a ruff at trick 1.

 

 

Also the type of namyats / 4S preempt style you are using is a bit important here to know how strong 4S is.

[Codo]

I hate the 4 Spade bid most.

The double was bad too, but do I really have a hand, where I should look for an own slam opposite a partner who bid 1 ♠ 4 ♠?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think the 4S bid is fine, after all we have

a 7 card suit, and partners 3H bid may be

based on a 5 card suit.

 

Passing 5C is certainly forcing, at least assuming,

that 3H was already game forcing, which is certainly

the standard meaning, so the double is fine.

Passing the double, ... well I am not sure, that

this would be my decision given that I did hide

the heart support, most likely I would have bid

5H.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I would like to know what creates a Forcing Pass situation if a GF does not do it (for Wayne)?

Wayne does not play 3H as game forcing, he playes it as nf,

although constructive.

[Hanoi5]

5♥ after the double, I don't like the Pass.

[mikeh]

Pass would have been forcing in virtually all standard based methods. 3♥, by promising another call, is effectively gf even if your partnership doesn't use that language.

 

4♠ is clear: raising hearts is misguided.. the spade suit is self-sufficient.. the hand is a one suiter...

 

I don't especially like the double, since it suggests 2 club losers.

 

When the opps find a fit and preempt, a simple and often effective rule is to consider that a 2 card holding is bad news, but either a stiff or 3 cards are good... the assumption is that the opps, having preempted to a high level, will hold 9-11 cards, with 9-10 being statistically more probable.

 

So S's stiff, plus his (only) spade card, coupled with partner showing a strong suit, is encouraging. Also, the bidding, in which LHO announced diamond length and strength, hints at partner's heart support..... partner opened and bid 4♠ and rates to hold 6-7 points in the blacks, and not much in diamonds. That is enough to make me consider a fp.

 

As it is, after the double, N has a tough call, since most would assume that the double suggests two club losers. Now, as Josh points out, the upside of a bid is low, and the downside considerable. So I think that S's borderline double will compel most Norths to pass, as it did here.

 

As these comments suggest, I don't think either partner did anything terribly wrong... if your teammates also blasted to 5♣, and the opps got to slam, they deserve the imps :huh:

[han]

I hate the 4 Spade bid most.

The double was bad too, but do I really have a hand, where I should look for an own slam opposite a partner who bid 1 ♠ 4 ♠?

What would you bid instead?

[Apollo81]

agree with mikeh's post

[kenrexford]

I don't get a couple of things with respect to the analyses so far. First, how on earth is 4♠ right? Second, and related, how the heck do you end up with a 5-level forcing pass or not decision?

 

I mean, North has a five-loser hand with self-playing spades. Partner has just bid a values 3♥, and a 4♦ fit bid has just been made. I cannot imagine only bidding 4♠. 5♠ makes some sense, but not 4♠.

 

What, I'm supposed to expect that clubs are 7-2-2-2 when Advancer has forced the five-level? Sure, could be. But, 7-3-2-1 seems a wild favorite. I think I can also rely on partner to at least have two of the three critical cards (♠K, ♦A, ♥K).

 

I could imagine passing 4♦ as well, which has to be forcing, since Advancer has forced his partner to bid. That seems obvious as forcing.

 

4♠ is about the weakest possible bid, with a contextual monster.

[ArtK78]

I also agree with Mikeh's post.

 

There was an article in The Bridge World some years ago titled "High Level Bidding." I know I have mentioned the article before. The point of the article, (a point also made by Mikeh) is that a holding of 2 small in the opponent's suit is a warning sign and strongly suggests that you double in these situations. Any other holding suggests bidding more, whether directly or by means of a forcing pass and pull.

 

Of course, if you have an I HAVE GOT THEM penalty double that overrides everything else.

[mikeh]

4♠ is about the weakest possible bid, with a contextual monster.

 

I agree that the hand has grown up on the auction, especially the 3♥ call, but 4♠ is NOT a weakness call. We need to send a message about the nature of our hand.. that message is all about spades, and I do not think that this hand is (quite)good enough to pass 4♦ and then pull a double to 4♠.... your micrometer may differ.

 

And this hand definitely is NOT about hearts... if partner lacks the spade A, our hand may take very few tricks in a high-level heart contract... either we get tapped early or someone has 4 hearts, and we can kiss this hand goodbye... compare that using partner's hearts with spades as trump.

[han]

I would also bid 4S. I do think that the hand is good enough to pass and pull a double of 4D to 4S but I think that it is very unlikely that we get that opportunity.

[Cascade]

I would like to know what creates a Forcing Pass situation if a GF does not do it (for Wayne)?

Wayne does not play 3H as game forcing, he playes it as nf,

although constructive.

This is true but even if I did a mere game force does not create a forcing pass for me.

 

1. Those that play 3♥ as forcing in my observation often shade the values for that bid - that must diminish the utility of a forcing pass

 

2. On this hand with a stiff spade and a stiff club south doubled the same call he would make with a much stronger club holding because he was unwilling to make a forcing pass or take some action without sure knowledge of a playable fit

 

3. My opponents are not always insane when they are also making constructive bids (4♦ fit showing) sometimes they can make something - here 5♣ is only so poor because of the stiff spade and stiff diamond in the NS hands

 

4. Forcing pass is problematic on hands like this where we have not had explict suit agreement

 

For these reasons and probably some others we do not play forcing passes based on a mere game force. Especially not in an auction where we have been pushed around. Usually a strength showing slam try would establish a force.

[jdonn]

[snip] ... a mere game force does not create a forcing pass for me.

 

1.  Those that play 3♥ as forcing in my observation often shade the values for that bid - that must diminish the utility of a forcing pass

 

2. On this hand with a stiff spade and a stiff club south doubled the same call he would make with a much stronger club holding because he was unwilling to make a forcing pass or take some action without sure knowledge of a playable fit

 

3. My opponents are not always insane when they are also making constructive bids (4♦ fit showing) sometimes they can make something - here 5♣ is only so poor because of the stiff spade and stiff diamond in the NS hands

 

4. Forcing pass is problematic on hands like this where we have not had explict suit agreement

I am usually of the mind that too many passes are played as forcing, but I still am not seeing it from your perspective here.

 

1. I can't think of a game-forcing bid that is not frequently stretched. I really don't think that's a very good reason, especially on an auction where neither player supported the other.

 

2. Admittedly this is a difficult hand, but at the very least there is controversy over whether south should have doubled or not. But I don't think the fact south happened to choose the wrong option means it would be an improvement to reduce him from three options to two.

 

3. True they aren't always insane, but the main purpose isn't to see when we can slaughter them, it's to accurately judge if we can make our contract a level higher. Even if they aren't usually insane (and let's be honest, sometimes they are, or they run into awful breaks) they will still be down most of the time.

 

4. I think it is on just such a hand where it can be most helpful. For example, if south had passed then north can use the knowledge of his unshown heart fit as a good reason to be bidding on. If south doubles when not playing a forcing pass, north has a lot more of a guess as all south is really showing in that case is a good hand.

[rogerclee]

Wayne I think you are really going overboard by saying that 3♥ GF here should not establish a forcing pass. I think you are really overestimating the percentage of time that 3♥ is shaded here and really underestimating the benefit that a FP here gives. When the opponents put you at a decision like this, and it is very probable that it is our hand, it is very important to be able to say "I don't want to defend" or "I want to defend." If you don't play a FP here, then the 3♥ bidder has to double just to be able to say "Yes I actually had a game force" for fear that partner will pass out 5♣ on nondescript minimum hands.

 

My opponents are not always insane when they preempt, sometimes they are only going for 300 against our game! I think it is absurd to try to accommodate the one hand in fifty where it is right to just pass out 5♣.

[mikeh]

This is true but even if I did a mere game force does not create a forcing pass for me.

 

1.  Those that play 3♥ as forcing in my observation often shade the values for that bid - that must diminish the utility of a forcing pass

 

2. On this hand with a stiff spade and a stiff club south doubled the same call he would make with a much stronger club holding because he was unwilling to make a forcing pass or take some action without sure knowledge of a playable fit

 

3. My opponents are not always insane when they are also making constructive bids (4♦ fit showing) sometimes they can make something - here 5♣ is only so poor because of the stiff spade and stiff diamond in the NS hands

 

4. Forcing pass is problematic on hands like this where we have not had explict suit agreement

 

For these reasons and probably some others we do not play forcing passes based on a mere game force.  Especially not in an auction where we have been pushed around.  Usually a strength showing slam try would establish a force.

Wayne, I think that you are going to find yourself in a tiny, tiny minority on this.

 

1. So what if 'some players' stretch their 3♥ call? It is still a game force. Catering to the possibility that partner may not hold an actual game force is equivalent to advocating that responder with a balanced 9 count should pass a 15-17 1N, because some players stretch their opening 1N bid.

 

Indeed, using a FP here actually assists those who have overbid... they get to say double to announce a poor offensive hand in context... a double of 5♣ is not usefully played as 'I've got them nailed' unless you are accustomed to playing only against idiots. The double is more usefully played as: in the context of the auction so far, I strongly doubt that bidding on is wise. BTW, my comments apply to the traditional approach to fp: use of the meckwell inversion would change the comments.

 

2. the double has relatively little to do with lack of a fit. Indeed, for me, the 4♠ call announced that we have a playable trump suit... partner was himself in a fp situation, so when he bid 4♠ he showed a suit such as he has (given that I am looking at the Ace). In addition, as I posted earlier, there is some reason to suspect that partner holds a secondary fit in hearts.. there are, after all, only so many diamonds in the deck, and partner, with short hearts, no spade Ace, nothing in clubs, and some diamond length/strength would probably not bid over 4♦.

 

 

3. I am puzzled by your assumption that 4♦ was constructive. I would far more readily interprete it as saying that we have the values to save... not to make... in 5♣, and, by the way, I think that a diamond lead would be a good idea, and/or that if they bid slam, look at your shape and decide whether, knowing that I probably have 8 or 9 minor suit cards, a high-level safe might be a good idea.

 

Surely when we hold an opening hand and partner opens and freely rebids (albeit in a forcing situation) the odds are very high that the opps are saving?

 

4. I disagree entirely.... I could hardly disagree more. A fp is extemely useful when we have been jammed and have been unable to decipher the extent of our fits and values. Absent a fp, we must guess. Do we have a better fit than I currently know? I had better bid. Do we have no fit? I had better double. The one thing I can't do is pass! It might be my lead against an undoubled favourable vul save! No, while fp operates well when a fit is known, and the only question is level, it works just as well, and, arguably, better, when the extent of the fit is in doubt.

[fachiru]

My guess is that you were probably the dealer on this one, Eddie, and I feel your frustation :P

I only see a bad bid there, but it's huge IMO: the double; everything normal up to that point.

 

Instead of X, I think I'd try a 5♦ cue; this is slam try in ♠ mainly (as the 4♠ bid showed a strong suit).

As dealer, after hearing the ♦ cue, I'd simplify things by jumping to 6♥ offering a choice of slams.

[Edmunte1]

No, Vali (fachiru), i was South, and it's nothing about frustration here, just discussing a tough board. Here are some points of view about this board:

 

-4♠ is some kind of underbid, Ken has some good points here when he says that most of the time partner holds club shortage and at least 2 out of three key cards (♠A, ♥K, ♦A). I agree that this is definitely a spades hand, but 4♠ doesn't show a semisolid spade suit, just tries to find the right denomination (probably with KJ10xxxx or KQ10xxxx or KQJ10xx would be also the normal call). But i admit there's some risk in bidding over 4♠, so i consider this call understable. But I'll put another question: What would have bid North over 5♣ (or 4NT for smart bidders)?

 

- Double is a good call. After a diamond lead, we lose completely our comunication. Just one heart less and one diamond more (or ♥Q missing) and 5♠ is down, even with 7 semisolid spades in partner's hand.

 

-Passing the double, at second chance, seems pretty bad. 4♠ didn't show such a good hand (semisolid 7 carder, great ♥ pieces, ♦ shortage). I agree that i'm resulting a little, but North should have tried to recover after the initial underbid.

[Cascade]

I am sure that I am in the minority.

 

Over 5♣ there are loosely three actions:

 

1. Pass

 

2. Double

 

3. Bid on

 

It seems to me that as long as you utilize these in sensible ways that you will have a reasonable method.

 

There are also loosely three possible outcomes to the bidding:

 

1. We play 5♣ undoubled

 

2. We play 5♣ doubled

 

3. We play some higher contract

 

Perhaps I am influenced by a style that likes to bid a lot in the early auction but I feel that a method that keeps all three options in the picture is likely to be more efficient than a different method that eliminates one of the options.

 

So we would utilize these options as follows:

 

1. Pass - I have bid enough already and have nothing more I wish to contribute at this stage

 

2. Double - this is dependent on the previous auction and whether or not we have found a fit and how well we have described our hands. On some auctions it is penalties and therefore discouraging partner from bidding on. On others it is takeout and suggesting but not compelling partner from bidding on

 

3. Bid - this shows some extra distribution and reason to bid on. These bids when both partners have shown constructive hands are by their nature at least mildly invitational to slam.

 

In fourth seat after partner has passed (or doubled) obviously we have the additional information that comes from partner's action or inaction.

 

1. Pass I don't have a defensive hand or any reason to bid on - occasionally we end up defending undoubled when we could have extracted a penalty. Sometimes this is only one-off and it is no big deal.

 

2. Double again this would be context dependent - sometimes penalties, sometimes takeout. We can double (especially for penalties) a little more freely in fourth seat than in direct seat.

 

3. Bid again with extra distribution and in principle mild slam interest although the fact that partner has passed NF in front of us means that it is very unlikely she will raise to slam.

[han]

Perhaps I am influenced by a style that likes to bid a lot in the early auction but I feel that a method that keeps all three options in the picture is likely to be more efficient than a different method that eliminates one of the options.

 

It seems to me that the whole idea of playing a forcing pass is that by eliminating one of the options you can use all three bids to choose between the two remaining options. When you are in a GF auction this seems better. (I'd like to say more efficient, but I am not sure what the word efficient means in this context)