"Pass or Correct"

[aguahombre]

(1NT) Dbl*

 

Double of their strong NT was alerted and explained, per our agreement, as either the red suits or the black suits.

 

After 3rd hand passes, partner bids 2♥*, which I alert and am asked for explanation.

 

Here is my problem: Simply stating "pass or correct" seems a woefully inadequate explanation, since I now know more about partner's hand. She has probably guessed I have the red suits because she has more black cards, and is choosing the strain and level based on that.

 

But if I say, "to play if I have the red suits", then remove, I have --in effect ---included what my rebid will mean in the explanation and still not disclosed that partner might have a huge fit if I do remove. This would be just plain logical to expert opponents; but others might need this information and not understand the danger in competing to a black suit.

 

Please offer a reasonably concise way of properly disclosing in this situation.

 

I have tried "choice between the red suits, but she might have a lot of black cards." But I am not really comfortable with that, either.

[Stephen Tu]

"Prefers hearts to diamonds, support for either or both black suits"

[peachy]

Nonforcing, shows preference to hearts if partner has the reds, requests Pass or correct to a black suit if partner has the blacks.

That is what the bid means, right? If you have additional agreements or discussions around it, of course this is the time to include them and describe the detail. If I were the opponent, plain Pass/Correct is fine, the rest is "just bridge"; again, unless you have discussed some additional detail. Fortunately the Dbl* was already explained and now 2H properly alerted.

[Mbodell]

Prefers hearts to diamonds and either prefers spades to clubs or wants to play at least 3♣.

 

 

She may even have more red cards than black cards so your OP isn't accurate 4522 would bid 2♥ (depending on strength).

[Phil]

I've never believed you have to explain the logic of an auction to your opponents beyond disclosing your methods.

[MFA]

I think it's wrong to imply something about black suit length that could easily not hold. If you thereby scare them off a successful competitive action, you have just misled them.

 

'Pass or correct' is fine, if they don't kow the principle so well, you could explain how it operates.

[aguahombre]

She may even have more red cards than black cards so your OP isn't accurate 4522 would bid 2♥ (depending on strength).

Interesting you would decide the explanation is not accurate based on what you would do, rather than what was stated in the OP.

 

On your 4-5-2-2 example 2S would be the bid, perfectly happy to play a 5-5 heart fit at the 3-level.

 

So far, I really like Stephen's offer. It is clear and short.

[MFA]

So far, I really like Stephen's offer.  It is clear and short.

.. but wrong, it seems. What if partner is 3-4-3-3, 3-4-4-2, 2-4-4-3, etc.?

[Bbradley62]

"Prefers hearts to diamonds, support for either or both black suits"

This does not address the strength of partner's hand (or the forcing-ness of the bid), which should be included in the explanation.

 

Isn't "to play if I have the red suits" a complete and accurate explanation? There's no problem with including your rebid explanations, as this happens often enough:

2S-(p)-2NT... "What does that mean?" "Partner is asking me to identify an outside A or K, if I have one."

[jdonn]

But if I say, "to play if I have the red suits", then remove, I have --in effect ---included what my rebid will mean in the explanation and still not disclosed that partner might have a huge fit if I do remove.

I would just say "to play in 2♥ if I have the red suits, to play in 2♠ or higher if I have the black suits". I do not try to describe partner's hand in this situation beyond what he wants or intends to happen. It's like 1NT p 3NT, it doesn't show a particular type of hand, it just says this is where partner wants to be.

 

As for your answer disclosing what your next bid will mean, so what? It's the right answer. If someone asks me what my partner's stayman bid means am I not allowed to say "asks for a 4 card major" because then I'm disclosing what my 2♥ rebid means?

[barmar]

I see little problem with "pass or correct". Everything you "know" about partner's hand is a logical inference that the opponents can make just as well as you can. You may also be able to guess some things based on your hand and probability, but you aren't required to disclose this.

[Bbradley62]

Could partner have a 0760 yarb, and plan on bidding 3♦ over your 2♠?

[barmar]

It depends on what 3♦ means in the auction. If it's forward-going, like a cue-bid in support of ♠, then he can't have that hand.

[aguahombre]

I would just say "to play in 2♥ if I have the red suits, to play in 2♠ or higher if I have the black suits". I do not try to describe partner's hand in this situation beyond what he wants or intends to happen. It's like 1NT p 3NT, it doesn't show a particular type of hand, it just says this is where partner wants to be.

 

Hmm, think I will use that. Tks.

 

But Stephen's choice is not wrong. Balanced hands with more red cards will bid a black suit. That is what we do, and ---as horrible as it might be ---this is a disclosure question. We already know the drawbacks of the system, but have not been burned, yet ---partly because the two-suiter bids are two-suited, major suit bids are natural, and we let the 4-5 Mm hands slide.

 

Haven't run into 0-7-6-0, yet...but close :) we have chosen a doubleton and then removed our own choice when doubled as an absolute "to play" in the removal suit.

[gnasher]

I'd just say "pass or correct", or "to play if I have the red suits". If they're too stupid to understand to implications of partner's failure to bid 2♣, a 2-minute exposition of his possible hand-types isn't going to help them much either.

 

If you like, you can say "to play if I have the red suits; doesn't want to play in exactly 2♣ opposite the black suits." But nobody will thank you for it.

[jdonn]

If you like, you can say "to play if I have the red suits; doesn't want to play in exactly 2♣ opposite the black suits."  But nobody will thank you for it.

Thus it's a good thing no one has suggested saying that, instead suggesting saying something that has the same meaning but is more easily understood and connects very well to the relevant fact of the minimum level partner is willing to play in a black suit.

[JLOGIC]

I think it's wrong to imply something about black suit length that could easily not hold. If you thereby scare them off a successful competitive action, you have just misled them.

 

'Pass or correct' is fine, if they don't kow the principle so well, you could explain how it operates.

Totally agree with this, everything else will just confuse/fluster them more, and waste time if they do know what p/c means.

 

Anyways aren't your bridge inferences about what partner would bid pass or correct with general bridge knowledge/bridge logic? I have no idea because I would always explain it if they asked what hands might bid 2H pass or correct obv.

[Siegmund]

"To play opposite red, wants to play at least 2S opposite black" is what my current partner uses.

 

That type of answer is plenty adequate for 2C and 2D, and marginally adequate for 2H. The 2S response of course needs a bit more said - since it promises a good fit for a red suit.

 

I had one partner some years ago who, rather than saying "pass or correct" said "it's the best of his worst" (the better suit of the less desirable pair of suits) and that REALLY got us blank looks. Against most experts, or people from regions where things like Multi are in common usage, "pass or correct" is likely adequate; sadly against the large majority of ACBL players it's inadequate.

[aguahombre]

"To play opposite red, wants to play at least 2S opposite black" is what my current partner uses.

 

That type of answer is plenty adequate for 2C and 2D, and marginally adequate for 2H. The 2S response of course needs a bit more said - since it promises a good fit for a red suit.

An answer which, good or bad, understands my problem. Responses are, in fact "best of the worst", regardless, of certain beliefs that it isn't true.

 

Justin plays against players who would have no problem with a simple "pass or correct". They are way above the level of players to whom I am worried about under-disclosing.

[Bbradley62]

Haven't run into 0-7-6-0, yet...but close ;) we have chosen a doubleton and then removed our own choice when doubled as an absolute "to play" in the removal suit.

I asked because I didn't understand including any mention/speculation of partner's black-suit holding in our explanation of the 2♥ bid.

[kenberg]

The fact is that 2♥ neither shows particularly long hearts nor particularly short clubs or spades. This is the information that they need in order to judge whether they may want to pass, double or balance in with, perhaps, 3♥ after you convert 2♥ to 2♠.

 

So I like:

"Awaiting clarification from my hand but it neither promises length in hearts nor denies length in the black suits." If they want more detail, they will inquire. I wouldn't worry that "awaiting clarification" says something about what your bid will mean. It's fair to say that the announcement that you have a two-suiter already made that clear.

 

It's true, presumably, that 2♥ shows a preference for hearts over diamonds but this, for their purposes, is very secondary to the fact that the call does not show much in the way of hearts. 3♥ their way may well be a perfectly reasonable contract:

 

1NT X Pass 2♥

Pass 2♠ Pass Pass

X Pass 3♥ AP

 

The above is presumably a reasonable auction with opener's double being for take-out to the reds. Once it is made clear that 2♥ does not promise heart length, this auction should be possible for them.

 

 

It's simply a fact that the opponents are going to have some trouble, some opponents more than others. Many years ago I tried to explain to opponents that my partner's 1♥ over my 1♣ did not deny longer diamonds. I thought they finally got it but as we were leaving the table I heard one saying to the other "He said the heart bid showed longer diamonds but his partner didn't have longer diamonds". Some people do not do well with things like "might have". There is no cure for this.

[Free]

"Wants to play 2♥ opposite reds, wants to play at least 2♠/3♣ opposite blacks."

[JanM]

"To play opposite red, wants to play at least 2S opposite black" is what my current partner uses.

 

That type of answer is plenty adequate for 2C and 2D, and marginally adequate for 2H. The 2S response of course needs a bit more said - since it promises a good fit for a red suit.

An answer which, good or bad, understands my problem. Responses are, in fact "best of the worst", regardless, of certain beliefs that it isn't true.

 

Justin plays against players who would have no problem with a simple "pass or correct". They are way above the level of players to whom I am worried about under-disclosing.

I agree with you, and the fact that your opponent is an expert may not mean that s/he understands the concept of pass or correct when you've made an ambiguous bid. Things are better today than they were 20 or so years ago when my (undeniably expert) partner completely mis-defended 2 after 2[D]-P-2 ("wants me to pass if I have spades") because she didn't realize that declarer had longer or better hearts than spades. But even today there are plenty of people for whom the concept that you're bidding a shorter suit isn't obvious.

[barmar]

If the opponents can't figure out the logical implications of the auction, that's their problem, not a disclosure issue. You're only required to explain your special agreements, not teach the opponents bridge. "Pass or correct" is an adequate description in this case.

[MFA]

It's simply a fact that the opponents are going to have some trouble, some opponents more than others. Many years ago I tried to explain to opponents that my partner's 1♥ over my 1♣ did not deny longer diamonds. I thought they finally got it but as we were leaving the table I heard one saying to the other "He said the heart bid showed longer diamonds but his partner didn't have longer diamonds". Some people do not do well with things like "might have". There is no cure for this.

One lesson to be learned from this is to strive to make explanations simple, if they can be.