Maybe it's style

[awm]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxxhkqxxdkxxckj9x]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Pass-Pass-Pass-1♣

1♠-Dbl-2♠

 

What now? Would you have opened this hand in 4th seat at MP scoring?

[gwnn]

I like this hand, I have nice hearts, and 2 kings, I will definitely bid 3♥.

[jdonn]

I think 3♥ shows a (non-awful) minimum, 4♥ a normal 3♥ bid, and cuebid (perhaps among other things) a normal 4♥ bid. Even if 2NT is artificial and competing I want it to only contain one or both minors.

[mikeh]

I would have passed: only 14 pearson points, no Aces. Of course, it helps that I play a fairly light opening style in 1st and 2nd (tho not as light as some posters) and, especially, I usually play either 11-14 or 12-14 1N in 2nd seat.

 

Had I decided to open, I'd have bid 1♥, intending to pass 1N and to rebid 1N over 1♠ and to signoff over a drury response. Then I wouldn't be in this situation, altho the situation I'd be in might be no more comfortable.

 

While I am sure most of us can or would claim the following, and it is also true that I rarely play tough mps, my experience with passing out these hands has been generally, tho not universally, good.

[mikegill]

I would tend to pass initially unless my opponents are terrible enough that getting an avg from a passout is a bad board against them. -Somebody- has to bid over 2♠ here at all white MPs so I guess it should be me since I "know" we have a fit and I know I have short spades with no minor honors. If I was worried partner would punish me for bidding 3♥, I might pass.

[fromageGB]

Yes, I would open 1♣. After the double I would be very happy to bid 2♥ so am happy over their 2♠ to bid 3♥.

[hanp]

I don't know if I would have opened this hand, I certainly would against weak opponents. Definitely agree with mikeh that being aceless with only 2 spades suggests passsing.

 

Now that we have opened we should try for a plus. Passing out 2S will rarely be a plus, I think we should bid 3H.

[Apollo81]

We should bid, we're unlikely to beat 2♠, and -110 isn't going to be worth much.

[helene_t]

IMHO 1♥>pass>1♣ but it's close so I can live with 1♣.

 

Now 3♥ for the reason Mikegill states. Unless I am allowed to bid a g/b 2NT.

[nigel_k]

Pass.

 

I don't agree that any hand with hearts should bid 3♥ here. A normal 2♥ bid covers quite a wide range and there is no room to investigate if you bid 3♥ on all of them. Partner having passed doesn't prevent him holding all the hands that want to bid 4♥ only if I have a decent 3♥ bid, e.g. Axx Jxxxx Axxx x. Partner also knows that passing them out in 2♠ at matchpoints is unlikely to be good and will stretch to balance. Then I can bid 3♥ and feel good about it.

 

I would probably not have opened (unless playing weak NT) but it's close.

[aguahombre]

Pass it out slightly preferred by me, but can accept 1C.

Those who insist on bidding 3H now with any crap and 4H, should really have two agreements:

1)good/bad available, followed by 3H to show weak hand and 4 card support.

2)mandatory that the double showed 4H after 1C (1S).

 

I am not saying those agreements are great, but without them, 3H is too wide of a range --and with them, opener can use double for extra values with 3 hearts.

 

Lacking all that, maybe it is best to pass initially and not let them find their spade partial.

[Siegmund]

No poll option for "I wish I had passed it out but since I didnt I guess I have to bid 3H now"? :)

 

And yes, this is an auction where I want good/bad to apply.

[awm]

I have this book by Ron Klinger called "50 Winning Duplicate Tips" where he says (tip 14):

 

After a negative double by responder, opener should not compete to the 3-level in the direct seat with just minimum values.

 

He gives this exact auction as an example, says that opener should have around 16-18 total points to compete, and that responder will usually balance at MP in the opponents fit auction.

 

Of course, this book is about 20 years old and perhaps things have changed. It's also possible that Ron Klinger's opinion was never expert mainstream (he's an Aussie after all). Nonetheless, the problem that he foretold in his tips was actually what occurred here. Partner's hand:

 

♠Axx

♥JTxx

♦QJTx

♣Qx

 

This is probably worth an invite, and if opener's 3♥ bid showed even very mild extras then game would be a good bet (say x KQxx Kxx KJ9xx or xx KQxx Axx KJxx make for good games). Responder tried raising to 4♥ at the table and of course game is quite terrible on the normal spade lead.

[jdonn]

That is supposed to be opener's fault? Responder has a balanced 10 opposite 12-14 with nothing but queens and jacks outside the opponents' suit. I place the blame a little differently!

[Jlall]

That is supposed to be opener's fault? Responder has a balanced 10 opposite a balanced 12-14 with nothing but queens and jacks outside the opponents' suit. I place the blame a little differently!

So you just jump to game with 13 and a stiff over 2S?

[jdonn]

That is supposed to be opener's fault? Responder has a balanced 10 opposite a balanced 12-14 with nothing but queens and jacks outside the opponents' suit. I place the blame a little differently!

So you just jump to game with 13 and a stiff over 2S?

No, I quickly edit my post within 30 seconds not realizing it was going to be jumped on within 20 seconds of existing!

[awm]

The actual hands aside, it is not at all uncommon that responder holds an invitational hand with four hearts on the auction 1m-1♠-X-2♠-3♥-Pass. It does seem to create a problem if the 3♥ bid can be on an absolute minimum, especially since there are lots of mildly better hands which should not jump to game opposite a simple negative double at the one-level.

 

Of course, one can use double or 2NT somehow to distinguish range, but a lot of people (including me) think that good/bad 2NT is a poor convention (or that it should never include four hearts) and double normally doesn't contain four hearts.

 

Anyway, it could be that modern bidders think that showing the 4-card heart fit is somehow more important than avoiding this problem. I'm just sort of curious as to how/when/why these things changed. Or was Klinger right after all?

[Codo]

So you reached a game, where they have an obvious lead and three aces so that you are down one with a balanced 12-14 opposite a balanced 10?

 

I had freely bid much worse games then this even without competetion.

 

I cannot judge whether Klingers style is winning bridge. This hand, the style had worked great. However, without thinking too much into it: Doesn't it lose, because it overloads the "pass"?

 

OTOH: Playing a weak NT system had worked here too. Shall we switch to weak NT then?

[mike777]

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> West </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> MP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> xx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> KQxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> Kxx </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> KJ9x </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

 

Pass-Pass-Pass-1♣

1♠-Dbl-2♠

 

What now? Would you have opened this hand in 4th seat at MP scoring?

if pard opens lite in first and second then easy -pass in 4ht seat.

 

 

otoh if not.....then...1club

[the hog]

I would have passed. I deserve what I got by opening. Pass now as well and I have learned a bridge lesson.

[dealmegold]

I would have passed. I deserve what I got by opening. Pass now as well and I have learned a bridge lesson.

Yeah, you should have opened 1S!

[mcphee]

Lets for one moment consider what partner had to dble 1S. Surely this dble does not need to be 10 hcp, could it not be some 6 HCP hand which contains 4H, in other words a hand that says "I would have responded and want to compete". For me the dble of 1S does not include the "I always have 4H" photo but more I have a reason for bidding. After all what does poor partner do with 10 hcp and 2-3-4-4 pass over 1S? I suppose you could argue that they might try 1N with no S stop and this particular hand or bid 2C. The problem also finds a few less values with 2-3-5-3 and 7-8 pass suggested over 1S?

 

I would not have opened this hand and I think to now bid 3H is begging to go for a minus which may or may not be greater than 110, thats if they can even make 110. Bidding 3H is to me bad, partner is still there if you pass. We made the problem when we eopened, do not make it any worse than it already is.

[Codo]

I would have passed. I deserve what I got by opening. Pass now as well and I have learned a bridge lesson.

Ron, If you had listen to Ron, you had reached 3 ♥ for + 140 or 3♠ -1 for + 100 which had been much better then the zero you had brought back.

[the hog]

I would have passed. I deserve what I got by opening. Pass now as well and I have learned a bridge lesson.

Ron, If you had listen to Ron, you had reached 3 ♥ for + 140 or 3♠ -1 for + 100 which had been much better then the zero you had brought back.

 

 

roflmao. That is the comment of a true result merchant. No, they got a d ruff, or perhaps partner was missing one of the vital queens and you went down or partner had the K of S instead of the A and you went down. Note that pd has perfect cards for you.

[aguahombre]

I would have passed. I deserve what I got by opening. Pass now as well and I have learned a bridge lesson.

Ron, If you had listen to Ron, you had reached 3 ♥ for + 140 or 3♠ -1 for + 100 which had been much better then the zero you had brought back.

 

 

roflmao. That is the comment of a true result merchant. No, they got a d ruff, or perhaps partner was missing one of the vital queens and you went down or partner had the K of S instead of the A and you went down. Note that pd has perfect cards for you.

and, as shown before....if you bid 3H, and it is making --pard will bid four.