What will it be?

[fred]

This hand aside, FWIW this area of bidding has always struck me as one for which many players, including plenty of decent ones, tend to exhibit notably poor judgment.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Hanoi5]

Isn't it enough to read Balancing by Lawrence?

[jdonn]

Isn't it enough to read Balancing by Lawrence?

Great book, but more than a little out of date if you ask me. I believe it's over 30 years old. Same for Lawrence's overcalls. His hand evaluation book has the most value currently IMO.

[nigel_k]

Obviously if you've agreed in advance never to trap pass with a strong hand then it's a different problem than the posted one. If partner has a trap pass with a weaker hand I think you still want to double. Sure they might find a better spot somewhere else but we've got enough spades that it's also quite likely they won't. LHO could have a normal overcall and partner something like Kxx K10xxx Axxx x.

 

If partner is not trapping then the hand doesn't belong to us and I wouldn't expect to go plus by outbidding them. But that doesn't mean we have to defend 1♥ for an almost certain minus. We're not vulnerable so the main danger is they double us in something, but it just seems more likely we can push them higher and maybe beat them a trick.

 

I just don't see that the upside of defending 1♥ can outweigh the downside when partner has a penalty pass and we leave him stranded.

[blackshoe]

Much of Lawrence's stuff was written in the 80s. I suppose a lot of it could be "out of date", but has there been anything as good written since?

[Jlall]

Actually pretty sure I learned a lot about this type of situation because Fred posted similar things like 5 years ago about this, and also because Hamman pretty much completely echos what Fred says if you ask about hands like this. Yay forums.

[Siegmund]

This is the type of hand that everybody who reads a book that says "strain to reopen with a double anytime you are sorta short in overcallers suit and are interested in competing somewhere" just doubles with and never posts on a forum :unsure:

 

I don't think it occurs to a lot of us to question the automatic action on deals like this. The replies to this thread seem to be a mix of "of course everybody passes this" and "of course everybody doubles this."

 

Just throwing one more question into the mix - does anybody's answer change MP vs IMP or at different colors? Or are we equally split about this hand no matter what the conditions?

[eyhung]

Isn't it enough to read Balancing by Lawrence?

Great book, but more than a little out of date if you ask me. I believe it's over 30 years old. Same for Lawrence's overcalls. His hand evaluation book has the most value currently IMO.

Lawrence's overcalls book just got updated to a second edition, I browsed through it recently and it's a lot more current. He now recommends jump raises as pre-emptive, introduces the concept of the mixed raise (and the jump cue), and goes over a lot of areas that should be discussed by any serious partnership. It still doesn't treat this situation, though, because it's a problem for opener, not overcaller/advancer.

 

Balancing doesn't seem quite so out-of-date as the original Overcalls. If anything, I find the frequency of balancing auctions keeps going down -- my opponents are responding lighter and lighter.

[eyhung]

This forum needs an optional 24-hr mask function where the stars (especially Fred) can make a post that shows up as a post but doesn't reveal itself for 24 hrs (or whatever an appropriate time frame might be.)  These 'me too' posts make me throw up in my mouth a little.

I don't see why you're so eager to attribute fawning patronage. I think there are plenty of people who are willing to go on board against stars, including stars (for example, jdonn and jlall frequently disagree). But when all the stars agree on a certain action, I find it telling, and I learn. So I'm find with hearing a chorus of similar viewpoints -- as long as people are being honest about their opinions.

 

For what it's worth, I used to aggressively double in these types of situations but stopped doing so after Fred posted something that pointed out why it wasn't such a good idea. I like to think my results have gotten better since then.

[mohitz]

Actually pretty sure I learned a lot about this type of situation because Fred posted similar things like 5 years ago about this, and also because Hamman pretty much completely echos what Fred says if you ask about hands like this. Yay forums.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=5976&hl=

 

Sorry gwnn! :) Btw, note that Jlall felt *very strongly* about doubling then! :unsure:

[barryallen]

If partner is not trapping, I still expect to do better most of the time by competing than letting them play 1♥.

Strongly disagree. Consider these questions and assume partner is not trapping:

 

- How likely is it that you can get a plus playing in notrump?

- How likely is it that the deal belongs to the opponents in notrump?

 

Then ask yourself the same questions for each of the four possible trump suits.

 

I think you will conclude that the opponents own notrump, spades, and hearts. Either side could own diamonds. We own the clubs :)

 

Then consider:

 

- Given that the opponents own all the strains that matter, it sure would be nice if we had a HCP advantage! How likely do you think that is?

 

Then consider:

 

- How likely is it that our side belongs in game?

- How likely is it that the opponents belong in game?

 

Then consider:

 

- How likely is it that Pass will lead to a disaster?

- How likely is it that DBL will lead to a disaster?

 

Of course I don't know the exact answers to these questions or how one might go about trying to add them up, but the answers are so one-sided that the implication seems clear to me (and hence my strong disagreement with your statement).

 

The standard bearers for DBL like to claim "If I DBL, the opponents might subsequently guess wrong in the bidding", but they tend to forget:

 

1) If you DBL your side might also subsequently guess wrong in the bidding.

2) The opponents may have already guessed wrong in the bidding - DBLing can nullify an opponent's misguess that has already happened.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Very nice analysis. This is one of those hands where you feel you should be doing something, fully aware that it's more likely worms than spaghetti in the tin.

[jonottawa]

I apologize. I posted this on rec.games.bridge and EVERYBODY passed. My opinion that while a close decision most people [LATE EDIT: including experts] would bid absent external influence was obviously wrong.

[bluecalm]

My opinion that while a close decision most people would bid absent external influence was obviously wrong.

 

Well... I think most players would bid. Maybe both rec.games.bridge and this forum isn't the best representation of bridge playing population :rolleyes:

[nige1]

I understand Fred & Co's arguments but I double because my partners trap-pass on strong hands, relying on protection.

 

I find this so unnatural that I asked a director whether partner's pass is alertable but was told "not nowadays".

 

Unfortunately, opponents often wake up to bid games or slams. This is the Biltcliffe gambit, named by Eric Crowhurst after one of his expert partners. A Biltcliffe can be accepted or declined. If you protect again it can be twice declined and so on. An example and one of my few good results: twice protecting against partscores on the same deal -- eventually wakening up opponents to bid a grand-slam -- depending on a two-way finesse -- that they got wrong :rolleyes:

[bluecalm]

Would you guys trap with QJ7543 A 984 A53 after 1H opening from partner and 1S overcall from opponents vul against not?

 

I am watching high level match from vugraph archives and member of one of the best partnerships (some says the best) in the world did trap with that.

[Jlall]

Actually pretty sure I learned a lot about this type of situation because Fred posted similar things like 5 years ago about this, and also because Hamman pretty much completely echos what Fred says if you ask about hands like this. Yay forums.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=5976&hl=

 

Sorry gwnn! :) Btw, note that Jlall felt *very strongly* about doubling then! :)

Amazing, that was on Jan 1 2005, exactly 5 years ago haha. At least I've learned something!

[gnasher]

Would you guys trap with QJ7543 A 984 A53 after 1H opening from partner and 1S overcall from opponents vul against not?

Yes. I don't think that breaches Fred's "never trap Pass with a strong hand" principle, because it's not close to being a strong hand (though it was one before RHO bid spades).

 

Looking at it another way, if partner happens to pass it out with Kx KJxxx Ax xxxx, we haven't missed anything at all.

[Fluffy]

I would had auto-double, guess I need to rethink of this position

[Hanoi5]

One thing I've learned in bridge (though I'm far from applying it) is that the only correct 'auto' is auto-think. Any other is doomed to fail at some point.

[jdonn]

Would you guys trap with QJ7543 A 984 A53 after 1H opening from partner and 1S overcall from opponents vul against not?

 

I am watching high level match from vugraph archives and member of one of the best partnerships (some says the best) in the world did trap with that.

If partner has that and we pass we get to defend 1♠ in a 5-0 fit rather than chase them to their 8 card diamond fit. And we have no game. Wtp?

[fred]

Would you guys trap with QJ7543 A 984 A53 after 1H opening from partner and 1S overcall from opponents vul against not?

Yes. I don't think that breaches Fred's "never trap Pass with a strong hand" principle, because it's not close to being a strong hand (though it was one before RHO bid spades).

 

Looking at it another way, if partner happens to pass it out with Kx KJxxx Ax xxxx, we haven't missed anything at all.

Good post. Sorry I haven't so far explained what I mean by this principle yet (and that my original reference to it was so vague).

 

This is really all about opener, when he holds a weak notrump that is flawed for balancing purposes, not feeling that he MUST reopen with DBL in order to "protect partner in case he has a trap Pass" (because unless partner happens to have a trap Pass and a strong hand, you are likely to be better off not reopening at all with such a hand). By "weak notrump that is flawed for balancing" I mean all hands with 3 or 4 cards in the suit that was overcalled and some hands with 2 cards in that suit (this set of hands is harder to characterize - it becomes a judgment call, but you won't go far wrong if you follow Justin's "it is usually right to pass with Hx and a balanced min imo").

 

What I mean by a "strong hand" is a hand for which you *know* you have a game opposite a weak notrump. As gnasher points out, after an opponent overcalls 1S, this hand certainly does not qualify.

 

"Never" doesn't really mean "NEVER" - with some strong hands you simply don't have any choice other than to trap Pass since there is no other sensible call you could make. Note that the more cards you have in the overcaller's suit, the more likely it is that you have a hand like this. That increases the odds of your partner having shortness in their suit and, if he does, that changes the equation as far as his reopening strategy is concerned.

 

The vulnerability matters. If the opponents are vulnerable and you are not, a trap Pass with a strong hand becomes more attractive - even if partner Passes it out, the undoubled penalty may come close to compensating for your game. If you are vulnerable and the opponents are not, the reverse is obviously true.

 

IMO making a trap Pass when you have a good fit with partner's suit is almost always a really bad idea regardless of the strength of your hand. In my experience this is another common "mistake" that a lot of decent players make.

 

From what I have seen, even some liberal trap-Passers reopen with DBL far more often than they should. It is not rare to see some players take this to the extreme by claiming that they ALWAYS (seriously) reopen with DBL. IM(strong)O this is completely unplayable. I suspect you will not be able to find a single top-level player who advocates this strategy.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jonottawa]

It is not rare to see some players take this to the extreme by claiming that they ALWAYS (seriously) reopen with DBL.

Well, usually they're 'claiming' this in committee after pard broke tempo and passed and they reopened with a cheesebox.