WBU Swiss Pairs 2

[VixTD]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sq96ha108d6caq10754&w=sj854hkj42d5432c6&e=sak72h97dkqj108c82&s=s103hq653da97ckj93]399|300|Scoring: MP

..P...1♣..1♦...X

..P...2♣..2♦..3♣

.3♦..4♣..P(H).P

.4♦....P....P....P[/hv]

(H) undisputed hesitation

 

Result: 4♦ (E) -1, NS +50

 

NS asked for a ruling as West's final bid could have been influenced by the hesitation. West said that she had passed on the first round because she wanted to see "where NS were going".

 

How would you rule?

[jeremy69]

I don't think much of West's bridge reason in passing on the first round but even if she had bid 3D preemptive and 4C had come round to her why would she bid again? Pass, in my view, is a logical alternative and I would not allow 4D following the hesitation. If you play sensibly you should make 4C.

[jallerton]

I agree with Jeremy. The chance of 4♣ going off is sufficiently low that it does not seem equitable to give any weighting thereof.

 

By the way, what did the double of 1♦ mean and was it alerted?

[nige1]

Hear, hear! (or should that be "Read, read!"). Pass seems to be a logical alternative. The usual argument is that the hesitaton is as likely to be based on penalty considerations as on a desire to compete. In my experience the former is rare. And I hope those polled agreed.

[VixTD]

I agree with Jeremy. The chance of 4♣ going off is sufficiently low that it does not seem equitable to give any weighting thereof.

 

By the way, what did the double of 1♦ mean and was it alerted?

I gave serious consideration to perhaps 10% of 4♣ -1, but my co-director adjusted to 100% of 4♣ =.

 

I too was curious about the double, but again I wasn't the one called to give the ruling, and I never found out. No alert was reported to me during the discussion.

[bluejak]

My partner doubled. It showed an unbid 4-card major, which I ocnsider one of the three pretty common uses for double in British bridge.

 

The other two are both majors, and general values.

[VixTD]

My partner doubled. It showed an unbid 4-card major, which I ocnsider one of the three pretty common uses for double in British bridge.

 

The other two are both majors, and general values.

The common meanings I come across are:

 

(1) both majors, about 6+ hcp

(2) no four-card or longer major, about 6+ hcp

(3) specifically four spades, denying four or more hearts, about 6+ hcp (in a system where 1♥ would promise four or more hearts and may also have four spades, 1♠ would promise five or more spades)

 

If your double promises four cards in one or other major and nothing in the other, what is opener supposed to do with a 4=2=2=5 or 2=4=2=5 minimum opener after the auction:

 

1♣ - (1♦) - X - (2♦) ?

[aguahombre]

The common meanings I come across are:

 

(1) both majors, about 6+ hcp

(2) no four-card or longer major, about 6+ hcp

(3) specifically four spades, denying four or more hearts, about 6+ hcp (in a system where 1♥ would promise four or more hearts and may also have four spades, 1♠ would promise five or more spades)

 

If your double promises four cards in one or other major and nothing in the other, what is opener supposed to do with a 4=2=2=5 or 2=4=2=5 minimum opener after the auction:

 

1♣ - (1♦) - X - (2♦) ?

This discussion of what the double meant is really not off track.

 

It was a poor idea, but not ridiculous --with those majors ---for West to (as he said) wait for further developments. But, since we have decided that neg doubles are not alerted, he can't really ask for fear of giving UI himself.

 

Further off-track, then ---since neg doubles are treated so many different ways, perhaps they should be alerts, so one may ask at one's turn as a routine.

 

Anyway, though I have sympathy for West's quandry, if he had just bid 3D the first time, this would put the opener in a bad spot with his actual hand --and also with any hand which had four spades. 3D would also have eliminated the whole issue of UI, since he would now be out of the auction.

 

Got to roll back to 4C, I think (back on-track).

[RMB1]

Apologies in advance for what seems to be a rant.

 

I am sure that jallerton and VixTD are being genuine but they seem blissfully unaware of how huge swathes of the (English/Welsh) bridge population bid. After 1C-(1D) you can't pass if you have values to respond to 1C, you can bid 1NT with a 4cM because uncontested 1C-1NT denies 4cM, you can't bid 1M because that shows 5; and all because what you do with a 4cM is make a negative double.

 

What does opener do on 1C-(1D)-X-(2D) without a certain fit? - he guesses like he does in many contested auctions. Surely you have seen players bid like this? One solution is for opener to pass (or double) slowly - but that's a subject for another thread.

 

These are the same players who never raise partner's (1 or 2 suited) preempts to game with a 10 or 11 card fit. They don't know what they're doing but they do know to make takeout doubles with a four card major, even if they can't handle further competition.

[bluejak]

If your double promises four cards in one or other major and nothing in the other, what is opener supposed to do with a 4=2=2=5 or 2=4=2=5 minimum opener after the auction:

 

1♣ - (1♦) - X - (2♦) ?

Bid their suit? Pass and see if partner is strong enough to take action?

 

Of course there are other ways to play it, but it is fairly easy to find bad hands for those other ways. Perhaps best is not to trouble to discuss whether a method used by thousands and thousands of bridge players in England and Wales is reasonable: ok, it is a fine subject for discussion, but why here?

 

I mean, I can ask you what you bid with a minimum 3325 after 1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♦ if 1♥ shows four, and you will give me some sort of answer. But you will not know you have a heart fit as some players will. All this means is that some people play different methods. Playing it as both majors or one major or general values are common. Playing it to show four spades or deny a major is not.

 

But how does any of this affect this hand?

[VixTD]

I am sure that jallerton and VixTD are being genuine but they seem blissfully unaware of how huge swathes of the (English/Welsh) bridge population bid.

I don't doubt that there are people in England and Wales who bid like this (I found out recently that one of my partners is one of them), but I was surprised to find that someone who puts a lot of thought into his bidding systems actually has an agreement to use the double in this way (which is quite a different matter), and I was genuinely interested to see if Bluejak had a solution to my bidding problem.

 

I would also be quite surprised if this method is really as widespread as you and Bluejak claim. I cannot find a single authority to support this (in the form of a book or article on basic bidding). Where does the idea come from?

 

I agree it's not really germaine to the ruling.

[bluejak]

When I play with a strange partner I assume that 1♣ 1♦ Dbl show one four card major. I expect to be disappointed about half the time.

 

As for your problem I expect I pass, but I have no problem with it: my method solves other problems. Finding a specific problem for an agreement is not sufficient for the method to be wrong.

[gnasher]

I've come across, and even played, a style where 1♣ (1♦) 1M shows five. It makes it harder to find 4-4 fits, but easier to find 5-3s.

 

That's obviously more suited to four-card majors than five. Playing a strong notrump and four-card majors, you're more likely to have a 5-3 major-suit fit than a 4-4, so this method caters for the more likely fit.

 

Hmm. I might have just talked myself into adopting this method.

[gwnn]

do you play 4cM?

[jdonn]

I've come across, and even played, a style where 1♣ (1♦) 1M shows five. It makes it harder to find 4-4 fits, but easier to find 5-3s.

 

That's obviously more suited to four-card majors than five. Playing a strong notrump and four-card majors, you're more likely to have a 5-3 major-suit fit than a 4-4, so this method caters for the more likely fit.

 

Hmm. I might have just talked myself into adopting this method.

I don't see what interference has to do with it. By the same logic shouldn't you play a direct major suit response show 5+ in the suit?

[Vampyr]

I've come across, and even played, a style where 1♣ (1♦) 1M shows five.  It makes it harder to find 4-4 fits, but easier to find 5-3s.

 

That's obviously more suited to four-card majors than five.  Playing a strong notrump and four-card majors, you're more likely to have a 5-3 major-suit fit than a 4-4, so this method caters for the more likely fit.

 

Hmm.  I might have just talked myself into adopting this method.

I don't see what interference has to do with it. By the same logic shouldn't you play a direct major suit response show 5+ in the suit?

The problem is that you don't have double to handle the 4-card suits.

[aguahombre]

Then there are those who think that when an opp has made a call which does not interfere with what you were going to bid, you shouldn't let it interfere with what you were going to bid. Those people would bid a major if they were going to do so, and take advantage of the additional call (double) bestowed upon them --to either show exactly 4-4 in the majors or show a hand without majors which has no good bid because of the 1♦ overcall.

 

I think the 4-4 majors is more frequent, and more prepared in case of diamonds being raised.

[VixTD]

I've come across, and even played, a style where 1♣ (1♦) 1M shows five. It makes it harder to find 4-4 fits, but easier to find 5-3s.

 

That's obviously more suited to four-card majors than five. Playing a strong notrump and four-card majors, you're more likely to have a 5-3 major-suit fit than a 4-4, so this method caters for the more likely fit.

I see the advantage of using suit bids to show 5-card suits, of course, and I would love to use 1M responses to promise 5 cards if I had some other way of showing a four-card major. (As jdonn says, this would apply whether the opponents have overcalled or not.)

 

What I don't see is any advantage of using double to show one four-card major, when partner has no idea which one it is. This seems to be hindering our efforts to find a fit.

[bluejak]

Interference makes it more difficult to find fits because people raise, while making it more important. It is true that if you open, partner responds, and RHO overcalls at the four level, you will have problems, some of which would be solved by a 5cM response. But it is rare, and anyway you are merely shuffling problems: you are also creating some problems while solving others.

[gnasher]

do you play 4cM?

In one partnership, yes.

[gnasher]

I don't see what interference has to do with it. By the same logic shouldn't you play a direct major suit response show 5+ in the suit?

As Stefanie says, without interference you have no double available, so you would have to give up a natural 1♦ bid. (Actually, I think I've seen people playing that as well.)

 

Also, the overcall changes our expectations about what will happen next. If we can hope for an uncontested auction, we can afford to take two rounds of bidding to find out whether there's a fit. The more likely it is that 4th hand will bid, the more important it is to identify the length of our fit immediately.

[gnasher]

I see the advantage of using suit bids to show 5-card suits, of course, and I would love to use 1M responses to promise 5 cards if I had some other way of showing a four-card major. (As jdonn says, this would apply whether the opponents have overcalled or not.)

 

What I don't see is any advantage of using double to show one four-card major, when partner has no idea which one it is. This seems to be hindering our efforts to find a fit.

There are two advantages:

- When responder does have a five-card major, he can say so (ie the advantage you mentioned)

- When responder doesn't have a five-card major, and opener is 3-3 or shorter in the majors, opener knows immediately that there is no major-suit fit.

[jallerton]

My partner doubled.  It showed an unbid 4-card major, which I ocnsider one of the three pretty common uses for double in British bridge.

 

The other two are both majors, and general values.

The common meanings I come across are:

 

(1) both majors, about 6+ hcp

(2) no four-card or longer major, about 6+ hcp

(3) specifically four spades, denying four or more hearts, about 6+ hcp (in a system where 1♥ would promise four or more hearts and may also have four spades, 1♠ would promise five or more spades)

(1) is the standard negative/Sputnik double textbook meaning. (2) and (3) are rather less common although there is another meaning with theoretical merit gaining popularity internationally:

 

(4) 4+ hearts

 

I can't recall ever seeing the meaning mentioned by Bluejak in action, but I would welcome my opponents to adopt it. I can see that it would fit well with a Benjamin Acol system.

 

Also, the overcall changes our expectations about what will happen next. If we can hope for an uncontested auction, we can afford to take two rounds of bidding to find out whether there's a fit. The more likely it is that 4th hand will bid, the more important it is to identify the length of our fit immediately.

 

If we expect next hand to pre-empt surely that makes it more important to tell partner now which 4-card major we hold.

[bluejak]

My partner doubled.  It showed an unbid 4-card major, which I ocnsider one of the three pretty common uses for double in British bridge.

 

The other two are both majors, and general values.

The common meanings I come across are:

 

(1) both majors, about 6+ hcp

(2) no four-card or longer major, about 6+ hcp

(3) specifically four spades, denying four or more hearts, about 6+ hcp (in a system where 1♥ would promise four or more hearts and may also have four spades, 1♠ would promise five or more spades)

(1) is the standard negative/Sputnik double textbook meaning. (2) and (3) are rather less common although there is another meaning with theoretical merit gaining popularity internationally:

 

(4) 4+ hearts

 

I can't recall ever seeing the meaning mentioned by Bluejak in action, but I would welcome my opponents to adopt it. I can see that it would fit well with a Benjamin Acol system.

 

Also, the overcall changes our expectations about what will happen next. If we can hope for an uncontested auction, we can afford to take two rounds of bidding to find out whether there's a fit. The more likely it is that 4th hand will bid, the more important it is to identify the length of our fit immediately.

 

If we expect next hand to pre-empt surely that makes it more important to tell partner now which 4-card major we hold.

I do not really understand why it is necessary to misinform people so much. The methods I have mentioned are played by a lot of the populace, and really it is not necessary to suggest otherwise.

 

Of course better players who understand such things play other methods. But are you really seriously suggesting that if you go to the Little Raynford Congress the number of people playing 1♣ (1♦) Dbl as showing four hearts will be greater than the number of people playing it as one four card major?

 

I know it is easy to decry my experience, and basically suggest I am either lying or stupid. But I play a lot of bridge, and I know what people play against me and with me. I do not think it completely obvious that I am lying. Whether I am just so stupid I do not know what they are playing is a different matter.

 

Yes, I know that at a better level of bridge things may be different, but I think it unfortunate that the presumption that I have no idea what happens in low level bridge is unnecessary.

 

Of course, the bridge played in th South-East of England is rather different owing to the influence of American methods, and greater exposure to a number of better players. But that does not mean that methods I have seen many times do not exist, even if they are rare in some parts of the country.

 

As for your comment about Benjamin, I presume that is just meant to be a method of decrying the method as well as suggesting it does not exist. Very good: I am suitably chastened: not only am I ignorant, and stupid, but I cannot play bridge either. Thank-you, Jeffrey.

[VixTD]

I do not really understand why it is necessary to misinform people so much.  The methods I have mentioned are played by a lot of the populace, and really it is not necessary to suggest otherwise.

I cannot speak for Jeffrey, but I play and direct around a lot of mediocre club and minor tournament players, and the first time I had come across the method you say is so popular was the time my partner upbraided me for bidding 1♠ over a diamond overcall on a four-card suit about two months ago. While I'm sure there are a number of players who will double in this situation with one four-card major, perhaps thinking vaguely that's what "the system" requires, I'll bet they haven't discussed this sequence, and if you asked their partner what the double shows you'd be unlikely to get the answer "one four-card major". Nor would I expect you to get any reason out of them why they play this way, whether this be on the lines of "because it's more important to be able to show five-card suits in this situation to find a fit" or just "because our teacher / favourite author recommended it". The sequence does not come up very often, and I suspect that not as many players as you suggest play this method, and many of those that do play it by accident rather than by agreement.

 

I don't think that Jeffrey was suggesting that many lesser tournament players have sophisticated expert agreements, he was just adding to the interesting discussion about what other methods are available. I checked through all the books I had on Acol-based bidding, and the only methods I found mentioned were:

 

both four-card majors: (Crowhurst, Klinger, Kambites, Dormer)

no four-card major ("this is non-standard"): (Klinger, Robson / Segal)

 

Until this week I assumed the majority of players used double to show both majors.