Torture

[MFA]

I saw a poor vugraph gladiator being treated to this by his partner:

 

♠T842

♥9753

♦984

♣52

 

(1♠) - X - (pass) - 2♥

(pass) - 2♠! - (pass) - 3♥

(pass) - 4♣!! - (pass) - 4♥

(pass) - 4♠!!! - (pass) - 5♥

 

Did he handle it the right way? I mean, are 3♥, 4♥ & 5♥ the correct choices? What hand type can one expect from partner?

[P_Marlowe]

Seems familar to a bidding seq. Simon gave in his famous book.

 

#1 2H is fine

#2 3H is fine

#3 4H is fine

#4 if you trust partner, and if we can assume partner is no lunatic,

and I have my doubts given the way he bids, than 6H it is.

The ruffing feature should provide a trick for p, but honestly: I

would have bid 5H (most likely), or bid 6H and dial a gun dealer,

if it does not make.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Poky]

2H = I have hearts

 

2S = I have a strong hand, do you have extra points/suits?

 

3H = no, nothing, let me play just 3H

 

4C = but I don't have hearts, I have a very strong hand with clubs (too strong to bid a NF 3C after 2H, and too weak to rebid 5C now)

 

pass = OK, but I don't have one trick for you, so, try to make 4C

 

 

Treating 4♣ as cuebid for hearts is just bizarre. The auction after a opening from opponents should be inclined towards bidding right games/partials and not speculative and thin slams.

[helene_t]

Agree with Poky, expect that I thought 4♣ was GF though and would bid 5♣ but I may very well be wrong.

[mich-b]

Agree that 4♣ is natural , forcing, and denying ♥ fit.

 

After 4♣ I would have to decide whether to violate discipline and pass his forcing bid (not unreasonable IMO) or just bid 5♣ , and hope he has enough to make.

[se12sam]

If I trust partner's bidding, the 4♠ bid shows a keen slam interest with spades stopped, running clubs and decent heart support. Partner has dragged us this far and he surely has a massive hand. The obvious thing partner seeks for a slam is a diamond control.

 

As I do not have one, I bid 5♣ to play. I'd expect a dummy like: ♠A♥AKQx♦xx♣AKQJxx   OR    spade void instead and 7-card club

[mtvesuvius]

This looks like some sort of waterboarding in bridge?

 

I think 5♥ was fine, but I'd try 5♣ first, to see if I can get out of playing this.

If partner cuebids again, I may pass just to teach him a lesson :lol:

[OleBerg]

3♥ = Fine

4♥ = No, 4♣ is natural and forcing. Raise to five.

5♥ = Obviously a misunderstanding.

 

4♣ on two hearts would be a splinter in my book, so this is the way to go with a forcing club hand.

 

(I feel certain, that when I see the full hand, it will show that transfer overcalls would have solved it nicely.)

[P_Marlowe]

Agree with Poky, expect that I thought 4♣ was GF though and would bid 5♣ but I may very well be wrong.

4C is GF, even only remotely thinking that pass is a LA, is ...

 

You may well convice me, that 4C is natural, espesially if

you play 4C over 2H as a splinter (I have to ask partner)

- although 5C should do the job in this scenario as well, but ok,

but 4C is forcing, and if you pass, pray that you are right.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

Agree with Poky, expect that I thought 4♣ was GF though and would bid 5♣ but I may very well be wrong.

Kind of agree, though I would pass 4♣ if pard is a known overbidder.

[jdonn]

Agree 4♣ is natural and forcing, and I don't mind in principle passing forcing bids in very rare moments when we seem too high already, but this is not one of those times. If partner wants us to ever pass he can bid 4♣ over 2♥. Cuebidding first is even stronger, and should be trusted. Why can't poor partner even have slam in hand and just be working hard to set the suit in case we can cuebid or so he can bid keycard?

[Fluffy]

4♣ looks natural just wonderign what the difference between 4♣ now or the round before.

[Winstonm]

Agree 4♣ is natural and forcing, and I don't mind in principle passing forcing bids in very rare moments when we seem too high already

 

Wow, in one little pass you get to say all this:

 

1) Partner, you are an idiot - I know you really didn't want to force because

2) I am clairvoyant, and besides

3) No bid is really forcing - they are only suggestions of force - if you bid them

4) I am clearly superior so dummy up and deal, 90 leg on, 30 above the line.

5) And never forget that if this ever happens again and you simply jump to game instead of making the non-forcing-on-me-but-forcing-on-you bid and we miss slam because you are afraid I might once again pass, I grant myself the right as your superior to slay you and scatter your ashes over my tomato plants.

[Lobowolf]

Every time you pass a forcing bid, God kills a kitten.

[rogerclee]

Agree 4♣ is natural and forcing, and I don't mind in principle passing forcing bids in very rare moments when we seem too high already

 

Wow, in one little pass you get to say all this:

 

1) Partner, you are an idiot - I know you really didn't want to force because

2) I am clairvoyant, and besides

3) No bid is really forcing - they are only suggestions of force - if you bid them

4) I am clearly superior so dummy up and deal, 90 leg on, 30 above the line.

5) And never forget that if this ever happens again and you simply jump to game instead of making the non-forcing-on-me-but-forcing-on-you bid and we miss slam because you are afraid I might once again pass, I grant myself the right as your superior to slay you and scatter your ashes over my tomato plants.

These words are stupid.

[mtvesuvius]

Agree 4♣ is natural and forcing, and I don't mind in principle passing forcing bids in very rare moments when we seem too high already

 

Wow, in one little pass you get to say all this:

 

1) Partner, you are an idiot - I know you really didn't want to force because

2) I am clairvoyant, and besides

3) No bid is really forcing - they are only suggestions of force - if you bid them

4) I am clearly superior so dummy up and deal, 90 leg on, 30 above the line.

5) And never forget that if this ever happens again and you simply jump to game instead of making the non-forcing-on-me-but-forcing-on-you bid and we miss slam because you are afraid I might once again pass, I grant myself the right as your superior to slay you and scatter your ashes over my tomato plants.

LOL

[jdonn]

Agree 4♣ is natural and forcing, and I don't mind in principle passing forcing bids in very rare moments when we seem too high already

 

Wow, in one little pass you get to say all this:

 

1) Partner, you are an idiot - I know you really didn't want to force because

2) I am clairvoyant, and besides

3) No bid is really forcing - they are only suggestions of force - if you bid them

4) I am clearly superior so dummy up and deal, 90 leg on, 30 above the line.

5) And never forget that if this ever happens again and you simply jump to game instead of making the non-forcing-on-me-but-forcing-on-you bid and we miss slam because you are afraid I might once again pass, I grant myself the right as your superior to slay you and scatter your ashes over my tomato plants.

Wow and I thought it was just saying I like plusses better than minuses.

 

Note that people before me actually DID pass or at least suggest it, I DIDN'T, and yet you have chosen me to unleash your breathtaking combination of stupidity and rudeness on. Without even an example hand to have any idea what you are talking about. In search for the truth as usual, I take it?

[aguahombre]

Agree 4♣ is natural and forcing, and I don't mind in principle passing forcing bids in very rare moments when we seem too high already

 

Wow, in one little pass you get to say all this:

 

1) Partner, you are an idiot - I know you really didn't want to force because

2) I am clairvoyant, and besides

3) No bid is really forcing - they are only suggestions of force - if you bid them

4) I am clearly superior so dummy up and deal, 90 leg on, 30 above the line.

5) And never forget that if this ever happens again and you simply jump to game instead of making the non-forcing-on-me-but-forcing-on-you bid and we miss slam because you are afraid I might once again pass, I grant myself the right as your superior to slay you and scatter your ashes over my tomato plants.

Wow and I thought it was just saying I like plusses better than minuses.

 

Note that people before me actually DID pass or at least suggest it, I DIDN'T, and yet you have chosen me to unleash your breathtaking combination of stupidity and rudeness on. Without even an example hand to have any idea what you are talking about. In search for the truth as usual, I take it?

The diatribe on treating partner as a idiot is a rude, but accurate, description of

how I feel when partner decides my forcing bid should be passed.

 

However, it was unfair to quote "idonn" when using it, because idonn, in the same sentence (not quoted) stated clearly that this is not the time to pass.

 

Too bad, idonn's later comment about passing to get a plus instead of a minus muddied the water a bit, since his original post on the subject was very astute, and even gave a verbal example where the "torturer" could have 11 or 12 tricks in hand.

[Finch]

I'm with those who think 4C agreed hearts.

 

If partner had a club single-suiter he should have bid them over 2H, not muddied the waters with an amorphous cue bid.

 

This hand is an advertisement for the treatment where after partner doubles, you make a minimum response, and partner cues, then step 1 = all very bad hands; everything else = some values, now FG.

[whereagles]

1. I'm with those who think 4C agreed hearts. If partner had a club single-suiter he should have bid them over 2H, not muddied the waters with an amorphous cue bid.

 

2. This hand is an advertisement for the treatment where after partner doubles, you make a minimum response, and partner cues, then step 1 = all very bad hands; everything else = some values, now FG.

1. Right. But are you sure pard is on the same wavelength? These things hardly get discussed even by professionals, let alone other partnerships...

 

2. Nice, but not a very popular style, I'm afraid.

[Codo]

What 4 ♣ shows depends obviously on your methods.

 

I am fairly sure that SEF f.e. plays double and own suit as very strong but not forcing, so you may have to insert another forcing call instead.

 

And if you play a style where all hands with 19+ HCPS "must" double first, there is much sense in that approach.

 

So I think that 4 ♣ was natural and forcing and I bid a "confident" 5♣. I won't try to go to slam with my powerhouse...

[Impact]

I have a very different take on these type of auctions from US standard.

 

Firstly, double receiving a minimum advance, followed by new suit from doubler I take as very strong - but not forcing! I expect pretty much most 5HCP from advancer would make another noise - as would most hands with prime support.

 

I retain jumps by doubler as agreeing advancer's suit and proposing SLAM!

 

Accordingly, double followed by doubler's cue-bid in response to a minimum advance is GF denying prime support for advancer's suit.

 

Advancer should clarify the nature of his holding - less by strength than by description eg extra length (beyond the presumed 4), second suit, stopper and failing all else, advancer with nothing else to say raises the cue bid suit (effectively denying more than 4 cards in his first suit, any other suit, any stopper...so whatever the GF is based on doubler knows he is facing support - albeit no significant distribution and can frequently place the contract. In the rare event that advancer held say an 8 HCP 4333 without a stop and has used this sequence he will usually be able to raise doubler's "placing of the contract" purely on cover cards).

 

On that basis doubler has shown a GF, and advancer has lied by showing extra length in H (when he should have raised the 2S cuebid to 3S).

Doubler has "emerged from the bushes by specifying his GF as based on C, and advancer should heed it by merely raising to 5C. Of course that contract is not underwritten by Lloyds, but that is what the sequence "means" in my style.

 

After the "4H" bid by responder, the 4S bid by doubler would now confirm H fit for the long suit and suggest a cue of any values held...

 

I am not suggesting my methods as ideal - and appreciate that the vast majority of players would double and follow a minimum advance with a cue on far more hands, but I am content that the method outlined works very well to locate fits, and only forces much higher with known tolerance for any suit doubler may have as base....

 

If you start with ANY agreement you will be better placed than so-called standard by the seat of your pants...

 

regards

[Fluffy]

What 4 ♣ shows depends obviously on your methods.

 

I am fairly sure that SEF f.e. plays double and own suit as very strong but not forcing, so you may have to insert another forcing call instead.

 

And if you play a style where all hands with 19+ HCPS "must" double first, there is much sense in that approach.

 

So I think that 4 ♣ was natural and forcing and I bid a "confident" 5♣. I won't try to go to slam with my powerhouse...

I also think more or less this way, but you have to also consider that aprtner could had jumped to 4♣ the round before as well.

[se12sam]

What was partner's actual hand on this deal? Can we see it?

[mtvesuvius]

What was partner's actual hand on this deal? Can we see it?

Then the jury can decide whether to convict partner with charges of bridge waterboarding.