Bidding contest

[hanp]

You wanted a consensus, so let's discuss some more to see if we can get a consensus on the boards where it is very close.

 

1.  4♣:  10 votes

    double:  8

    other:  2

This is so close between two popular choices that I am thinking that I will submit it as a split vote, and ask the editor to give us a score equal to the average of the scores given for 4♣ and double.  So unless anyone wants to change their vote so that we have an outright majority, that's what I'll do, unless I hear a better suggestion.

 

I hope that the 4C bidders will come to the rescue here and admit that double is much better. We are not too suited enough for 4C and also a bit too heavy in highcards.

 

2.  3NT:  8

    3♣:  6

    3♦:  4

    other:  2

Similar situation as #1, except there are more than two contenders here, so there is more room for movement.  The "other" votes were both for 2NT, which I am tempted to lump in with 3NT as the most similar option, but if anyone who voted for one of the less-popular options wants to support one of the others as a second choice, that could work too.  If that leads to a two-horse race like #1, I will do the same thing and submit a split vote.

 

I don't like my own vote here, the hand is too big for 3C even at matchpoints. Also, the 3D bid is somewhat similar to 3NT, so I think we should go with 3NT here.

[cherdanno]

If you can still count it, I vote for double on the first (and hope to carry some people along) and for 3♦ (3NT second choice) on 2.

[gwnn]

X on first, 3NT on second, 4C is very feeble on the first

[mikeh]

I must be getting way out of date, but the idea of a card showing double on 1 leaves me cold, and the idea that doubles of all bid-and-raised overcalls are 100% takeout also leaves me cold. I'd hate to see partner leave it in with some 2=4=3=4 7 count, which is a textbook minimum negative double.

[dkharty]

You wanted a consensus, so let's discuss some more to see if we can get a consensus on the boards where it is very close.

 

1.  4♣:  10 votes

     double:  8

     other:  2

This is so close between two popular choices that I am thinking that I will submit it as a split vote, and ask the editor to give us a score equal to the average of the scores given for 4♣ and double.  So unless anyone wants to change their vote so that we have an outright majority, that's what I'll do, unless I hear a better suggestion.

 

I hope that the 4C bidders will come to the rescue here and admit that double is much better. We are not too suited enough for 4C and also a bit too heavy in highcards.

hanp and cherdanno's (admittedly tepid) support of 3NT on #2 has swung the vote fairly convincingly in its favor, so I'm going to go ahead and close the book on that one and submit 3NT as the consensus vote.

 

Regarding #1: Han, could you elaborate a bit on your reasons for preferring double to 4C? Double was a close second choice for me, but I haven't heard anything yet that convinces me it's superior. The fact that a lot of good bridge players choose it is a pretty powerful argument, but I'm also somewhat in agreement with mikeh that partner will sometimes (often?) leave in the double with a typical negative double hand (he won't be playing us for a diamond void unless he is looking at 4+ of them), when we could have game or slam in clubs. If we belong in clubs, somebody has to bid them, and it seems that this wouldn't preclude landing in a heart contract if that's right. A freely-bid 4C shows a good hand in my book; you seem to disagree, from your comment about it being too heavy in high cards. I'm open to being swayed on this one, and right now it's a dead heat...

[cherdanno]

I think Justin already made the case for double. For me it's a takeout double; partner will imagine 5314 shape as the typical shape, so we are not so far removed from that. We do have aces to make up for the trump in case partner passes. We might miss by bidding 4♣, e.g. if partner is 2533 slightly too weak to bid 2♥, then he will guess which black suit to bid (or pass 4♣, ouch!). Even if partner passes with 2434 and a trump trick, then that's not necessarily bad (looks like the will take 5-6 diamond tricks plus one or two outside), 200 or 500 is pretty good compared to playing 4♣. And in any case, if partner does take the double out we are ideally placed - we can raise 3♥ or 4♣, and pretty much show our shape with 4♣ over 3♠.

[hanp]

Yesterday at dinner we had a discussion about this hand. Our guest (who will remain nameless) was in doubt whether he was worth 4C or 5C. He didn't want to double, he doesn't trust doubles, or rather, he doesn't trust his partners with doubles. In the end he went with 5C as he thought he was too strong for 4C.

 

After 4C we will never get to 3NT, 4H or 3DX, and I think we are more likely to miss a club slam.

[bluecalm]

I must be getting way out of date, but the idea of a card showing double on 1 leaves me cold, and the idea that doubles of all bid-and-raised overcalls are 100% takeout also leaves me cold. I'd hate to see partner leave it in with some 2=4=3=4 7 count, which is a textbook minimum negative double.

 

For me it would be unimaginable for partner to pass 2nd double without at least ♦KQT8 at imps. Some lighter passes probably are possible at MP's but I would consider it very undisciplined.

[hanp]

Just gave xx AJxx Qxxx xxx to a Dutch player, he said he'd bid 3S and wouldn't consider pass. I guess I shouldn't have given him the heart ace.

[MFA]

For me the most important thing is that 4♣ is a big underbid. If it were approximately right on values I could easily live with not being so flexible since the upside of introducing such a strong suit is great.

 

When we have this 'monster', and yes it is a monster with all those controls and the good shape, it's very convenient to state that 4♣ shows strong values. But it doesn't. Or at the very least it shouldn't do. Without the ♥A we would have had a routine 4♣ call. We must be able to compete with shortness in their suit and reasonable playing strength.

 

4♣ is clearly NF and will quite often get passed. If partner bumps us to 5♣ we would have a choice of just reraising to 6♣ or making a mild try for 7♣. If partner makes any slam try over 4♣, the hand would be good enough for a direct leap to 7. I don't want to bid like that.

[dkharty]

For me the most important thing is that 4♣ is a big underbid. If it were approximately right on values I could easily live with not being so flexible since the upside of introducing such a strong suit is great.

 

When we have this 'monster', and yes it is a monster with all those controls and the good shape, it's very convenient to state that 4♣ shows strong values. But it doesn't. Or at the very least it shouldn't do. Without the ♥A we would have had a routine 4♣ call. We must be able to compete with shortness in their suit and reasonable playing strength.

 

4♣ is clearly NF and will quite often get passed...

I guess this is what I don't get here. Sure, 4C is "nonforcing", but is partner really going to pass very often when we have a game? Give partner hanp's example hand--xx AJxx Qxxx xxx--and he may very well pass 4C. Which seems to me to be just about as good a spot as anything else. To me, opener taking a free bid in a new suit above 3NT shows a very good hand, not just "reasonable playing strength." It seems backwards to me to say that 4C doesn't show a good hand, but then argue that you must strive to compete with shortness in the opponent's suit--THAT, to me, is the hand that should be doubling, the 5314 hand without significant extras. Maybe that's an unusual position, I don't know. If that's the case--that 4C doesn't show significant extras--then I would choose double. I'm not sure I understand hanp's argument about missing 4H though, why is this contract impossible after 4C?

[hanp]

I wouldn't double with a minimal hand.

 

I think it is unlikely that partner bids 4H over 4C with a 5-card heart suit.

[dkharty]

Sorry for the long wait but the results are now in, I just got my new issue of Table Talk. The results of the bidding contest were very interesting...

 

The "Forum Consensus" picks would have scored 475 out of a possible 500 (since we didn't achieve consensus on problem #1, I simply averaged the results for the two answers with equal votes). That would have been good enough for 3rd place on the expert panel, and would have comfortably bested all reader submissions (the top reader submission was 440).

 

Congratulations to the following posters, whose individual scores would have been excellent:

 

MFA (perfect 500, well done! No experts on the panel matched this)

hanp (490)

RobF (490)

jjbr (460)

Dirk Kuijt (460)

P_Marlowe (460)

wyman (450)

MarkDean (450)

Mbodell (450)

 

For reference, the "perfect" answers to the problems were:

 

1. dbl

2. 3NT (agree with 1st pass)

3. 4NT

4. 2C

5. pass

 

Also, an amusing note about problem #4. Many people commented on how awful the psyche was; apparently a lot of the expert panel did, as well. The hand as given was incorrectly printed! It was supposed to be: 6 T985 K97 AQJ63, which makes it a lot less awful I guess. The "correct" hand was emailed to the expert panel after the mistake came to light, but none of them changed their answers. ;)

[MFA]

The danish bridge magazine "Dansk Bridge" has its own master solvers' club article series, and I am one of the two editors.

 

I took the liberty to "borrow" problem 1 and 3 - I hope you don't mind that. ;)

 

The results based on the danish jury were:

 

Prob 1.

 

X 10points

4♣ 10p

4♦ 7p

4♥ 4p

5♣ 2p

6♣ 2p

 

Prob 3.

 

X 10p

4NT 8p

3NT 7p

Pass 5p

4♦ 2p

[dkharty]

I took the liberty to "borrow" problem 1 and 3 - I hope you don't mind that. ;)

Not at all, as long as you give credit to Table Talk, not me--they aren't my problems! :)

 

Very interesting results, too--the scores on #1 are quite similar to the Table Talk results, but the results on #3 are radically different. The Table Talk scores for #3:

 

4NT: 100

dbl: 90

4D: 90

3NT: 80

pass: 80

 

Seems like a lot of high scores for very different evaluations. I'm glad I didn't have to score it (or any of the hands) myself.