The Misadventures of Rex and Jay #5650

[microcap]

Here's a catastrophe from last night that i need help with....as usual, I will give you the first problem, followed by a second one after I get a bunch of responses.

 

You are playing a very good team.

 

You open 1♠ holding:[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skj1065h6d73cakj73]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv].

 

LHO overcalls 2♥, partner passes, RHO passes, now back to you.

 

What action do you take if any?

[helene_t]

dbl.

 

if partner bids 3♦ (whether directly or via leb) I pass.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I dont pass.

 

It is either X or 3C, I would go with X.

X has the adv. that we can still play 2S,

if partner is broke.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[brianshark]

Dbl to give partner every chance to nail them for penalties. 3♣ seems a bit committal to me. If we end up in a bad 3♦ contract, so be it.

[whereagles]

dbl.

 

if partner bids 3♦ (whether directly or via leb) I pass.

ditto

[kenrexford]

3♣ for me. I can commit.

 

BTW (warning -- systems observation -- ignore if offends), this type of auction happens to be one where a Roman 2♠ (maybe played in conjunction with Multi?) pays dividends. If I can open 2♠ to show a spade-club two-suiter and minimal HCP opening values (maybe 10-14?), I will have bid my hand already, having opened 2♠. Sure, I just preempted the opponents out of what may be a lucrative double of 2♥, but then again I may have vaulted them into a more luctrative 3♥ or a 2♠-X-XX problem.

[brianshark]

Lol, well obviously if you happen to be playing a convention which describes your hand perfectly you are better off. :(

[microcap]

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

 

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

 

You hold:[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s72hkj106dj8654cq9]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

What do you do?

[helene_t]

It's hard to be objective but I think I would bid 2♠. Maybe pass at matchpoints.

[P_Marlowe]

It's hard to be objective but I think I would bid 2♠. Maybe pass at matchpoints.

Yes, I agree, even with the comment, that it is

hard to be objective ...

 

But I think 2S is right, the X did not promise any

add. strength, and do we really wnat to defend

2H oppossite a weak NT?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[y66]

2S. I'm too chicken to pass at IMPs.

[han]

Partner has an obvious pass.

[microcap]

It's hard to be objective but I think I would bid 2♠. Maybe pass at matchpoints.

Yes, I agree, even with the comment, that it is

hard to be objective ...

 

But I think 2S is right, the X did not promise any

add. strength, and do we really wnat to defend

2H oppossite a weak NT?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Not that I disagree with your point, but we were in fact playing a weak NT. The reopening doubler cannot have a weak balanced hand.

 

It may not change anyone's opinion.

[kenrexford]

Lol, well obviously if you happen to be playing a convention which describes your hand perfectly you are better off. :D

What I meant to say was not so much that "X convention solves X problem." Rather, I personally like to keep tabs on recurring problems where some tool helps to resolve it. If the problem comes up frequently, then this is sometimes a motive for considering the convention. Obviously, there are losses to adding something. But, my reason for posting this was that perhaps someone reading this thread does not know about Roman 2-bids and would benefit from the suggestion that this tool does exist. Maybe in a different sequence (4th Seat opening?) they might like that idea.

[kenrexford]

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

 

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

 

You hold:[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s72hkj106dj8654cq9]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

What do you do?

Ugh! My 3♣ call is a disaster for poor partner. I suppose he should pass, but 3NT seems (unduly?) tempting for him.

 

Had I doubled for him, then he seems to have a fairly clean pass. 2NT is much better than 3♦ as his second option, IMO.

[H_KARLUK]

I borrowed 3 ♥ (♠+x minor) Rest partner's biz to decide 3♠/NT etc.

[gnasher]

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

 

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

 

You hold:[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s72hkj106dj8654cq9]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

What do you do?

I think he should pass. 2♠ would be more attractive if there was reason to think it would make. The cost of going down in 2♠ when you had a plus score available isn't that much less than the cost of conceding -470.

[mtvesuvius]

I would have started with a double: There is no reason partner cannot be 2-5-5-1 or something of the like. Now... With the responding hand, I will always pass at matchpoints, and this looks like a pretty good plus position in 2♥, even at IMPs. If I bid, I am going to have to make a guess (and I always guess wrong :D). If I do not trust my partner's defense, I bid 2♠.

 

 

AJK

[peachy]

Dbl. Reopening with 3C - which I assume would be some people's choice - takes away the chance to play in 2S if partner is weak, or 2HX if partner had trap. When there was no heart raise, the trap becomes more of a live possibility.

[mikeh]

Lol, well obviously if you happen to be playing a convention which describes your hand perfectly you are better off. :)

What I meant to say was not so much that "X convention solves X problem." Rather, I personally like to keep tabs on recurring problems where some tool helps to resolve it. If the problem comes up frequently, then this is sometimes a motive for considering the convention. Obviously, there are losses to adding something. But, my reason for posting this was that perhaps someone reading this thread does not know about Roman 2-bids and would benefit from the suggestion that this tool does exist. Maybe in a different sequence (4th Seat opening?) they might like that idea.

If by this you mean that you track hands on which posters have had problems.. then your approach will erroneously validate your idiosyncratic methods. We rarely see hands on which normal bidding works well... certainly not posted by people who usually bid 'normally'. A hand will be posted (usually) precisely because standard methods don't afford an easy answer. Weird methods may or may not apply... but standard ones don't.. therefore we will get a disproportionate number of hands that seem to validate unorthodox methods.

 

This is analogous to one of the real dangers facing those who develop and espouse new treatments.. read virtually any book on unusual bidding methods and we find page after page of examples where the touted methods work wonderfully.. few authors are able to be sufficiently objective as to post pages and pages of examples where the touted methods lead to poor outcomes.. the forums operate to select hands on which unorthodox will work more commonly than standard and the non-objective author's mind will operate in a similar fashion.

[mikeh]

Getting to the OP, I have some problem with the reopening decision, since I 'know' the hand now. I do think it is close.. I also think that the hand is an advertisement for an outdated approach in which one opens 1♣ and rebid spades (I play this in only one partnership).. now the reopening decision will be easier if the situation arose. Personally, I am happier with 1♠ :)

 

I suspect that at the table I would reopen with double, intending, as do others, to pass 3♦ if need be.

 

As for responder, this is an auto pass of a reopening double... I have a clear lead, 3 probable trump tricks, short spades, some minor stuff that will (usually) be useful.. if not by taking tricks, then by protecting partner's holdings.

 

I hate letting them make a doubled partscore above 2♦, but if they never make one against you, you don't double enough... at least that is what I tell myself when chalking up -670 or -530 or so.

[hotShot]

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

 

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

 

You hold:[hv=d=s&v=n&s=s72hkj106dj8654cq9]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

What do you do?

1♠ - 2♥ - p - p

X - p - ?

 

What would 2NT show?

[jdonn]

The consensus is to double and that is fine.

 

Now the overcaller passes and your partner is faced with a choice when it comes back to him.

 

You hold:

Dealer: South Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ 72 ♥ KJ106 ♦ J8654 ♣ Q9

 

What do you do?

1♠ - 2♥ - p - p

X - p - ?

 

What would 2NT show?

My preference is lebensohl (so I don't have to make so many offshape negative doubles on fair hands with a minor), but I'm sure standard is natural but a little too light for 2NT last round.

[Cascade]

2♠ is weird with a five-card suit.

[H_KARLUK]

Given sample partner has 7, he has 12. Obviously 21/19.

 

If righty had 15 maybe he would ask feature. Say 2H max 10 and his responder is 11.

 

Why I do not hope 10-11 at my p with side suit values? How will you feel when he has AQx-xxx-KQxx (or only Axxx) xx .

If lefty started with 1 hearts I wld bid 2 hearts when th others passed

 

or Axx-xxx-KJxx-Qxx and he has KJ1065-6-73-AKJ73.

Bad 3 spades? I do not think so. Partner would not pass with such holdings over weak 2 hearts?

 

I am always OK to catch best partscores, that's why worths to take some risks.