2nd strong club question

[shevek]

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=saqhk92dk8543ca85&e=s95hqjt43dj7cqjt7]266|100|Scoring: IMP

1♣ - (no) - 1♦ - (1♠)

1NT - (3♠) -  x -  (no)

3NT //[/hv]

1♣ 16+, 1♦ 0-7, X tko

 

Sorry everyone.

 

Club finesse failed so 3NT was -50.

However, ♦A was onside so 4♥ is +420.

3♠x is +300.

[Flameous]

If opener's X is true T/O, always having 3+ in other suits (Especially hearts) bidding 4H instead of X seems like a good idea. It won't always either lead to the best spot but I think it's better more often. However if opener's X also includes stronger balanced hands (something like 19+) so could have just 2Hs, it gets harder and I see double being right more often.

[spotlight7]

Hi:

 

If you felt like you had to bid, why not 1NT to show 16-18 and a stopper?

 

Since the 1C opener doubled for takeout, why did responder not show his 5+ heart suit? If it is a point count thing, you do have a double fit, two 'working' tens and a fair five card suit.

 

Regards,

Robert

[helene_t]

I think 16-18 balanced just passes. Or at least 16-17. So 1NT would be 18-20 or such. Maybe with 21+ opener also doubles but such a hand can also bid 2NT. That would make the dbl a real t/o. Or maybe 23+ balanced but responder should not worry too much about that.

[straube]

I agree with others. Opener's X was wrong. Minimal values and not nearly enough shape. 1N would also be wrong. Over the wrong X, responder has to bid 4H.

[kayin801]

I like X by opener and I think it's important to do so, this hand is nothing to be ashamed of. We're min but we have a good shape with a lot of controls in the right place and we have an easy rebid (pass, or NT after a cuebid) of whatever partner does. It sucks we only have 3 hearts, but oh well. Is partner really supposed to guess to bid 4♥ with a max 1♦ bid and only a 5 card suit after we pass and N still raises to 3♠?

 

After X its a clear 4♥, we have poor defensive values and it's not like partner is gonna take us for more than we have :(

 

Edit: In case it wasn't clear, P is a reasonable but less preferred alternative, and 1NT and 2D are horrrrrrrrrrrrible

[akhare]

P is good with opener's hand, but I won't fault the the X too much either (AQ looks good after the 1♠ overcall).

 

However, responder's X over the presumed TOX by opener is bizarre at best...

[awm]

Well it obviously depends on your agreements.

 

There are a number of possible agreements about opener's initial double, from penalty to "extras" to takeout. It seems apparent from opener's shape and values that it was intended as takeout.

 

Assuming takeout is the agreement, responder should bid 4♥. He is guaranteed at least a three-card fit (often four) and making a responsive double with five cards in the unbid major is weird to say the least.

 

If their agreement is that double is "extras" or something like that, obviously opener is at fault for violating their agreements.

[keylime]

Double for me is takeout; since pard is only on a 0-bad 8, I won't bid 1NT, to allow a possible 2♣/♦ partial.

[shevek]

Sorry eveyone.

 

Opener actually rebid 1NT.

[straube]

I think responder can find a 4H bid here after the 3S call even without a takeout X. Opener's pass is very likely to communicate a balanced minimum (which is what he has) and after the 3S call, it's even more likely to be a balanced hand and not something awkward like 4-1-4-4. I'd think most days of the week opener will have 3 hearts and the other days 4H might have play with say Hx opposite this QJTxx suit.

[kayin801]

I think responder can find a 4H bid here after the 3S call even without a takeout X. Opener's pass is very likely to communicate a balanced minimum (which is what he has) and after the 3S call, it's even more likely to be a balanced hand and not something awkward like 4-1-4-4. I'd think most days of the week opener will have 3 hearts and the other days 4H might have play with say Hx opposite this QJTxx suit.

I agree that a 4♥ bid will work out a lot of the time if opener will pass with the opening hand at their second turn because on the auction opener, with a balanced-ish hand, can't have many spades and so will always have at least 2 hearts and almost all the time 3, otherwise they might have found a bid in a minor or something (with a lot of 22(54)s).

 

However, if partner would make takeout doubles with appropriate balanced mins, then after pass 4♥ won't work because either opener's hand will be worse than this one even with 3 hearts and the game will fail, or partner won't have a fit and 10 tricks could be very hard to come by.

 

After 1NT I think 4♥ is the bid on the auction, no question, since our values might be too slow for 3NT to be successful, especially when partner sometimes only has 1 spade stopper. This is regardless of whether 1NT shows 16-18 or if it shows extras.

[hrothgar]

Auctions like this are why some of us prefer to show shape with out semi-positives

[rbforster]

Auctions like this are why some of us prefer to show shape with out semi-positives

Sure, but auctions like

 

1♣* - P - 1♦* - (1♠) strong; art GF; natural overcall

1N - (3♠) - ?

 

are the same reason other people like to play natural positives. Any time your opponents manage to jam the auction to 3♠ where your side has made only 1 descriptive bid is going to work out poorly for you on average.

[straube]

Auctions like this are why some of us prefer to show shape with out semi-positives

Sure, but auctions like

 

1♣* - P - 1♦* - (1♠) strong; art GF; natural overcall

1N - (3♠) - ?

 

are the same reason other people like to play natural positives. Any time your opponents manage to jam the auction to 3♠ where your side has made only 1 descriptive bid is going to work out poorly for you on average.

True, but semipositives bring opener into the auction in a way that 1D (0-7) can't do.

 

If 1D here showed a GF of any shape and then we have a 1S overcall, opener is now empowered to make a useful descriptive bid with his minimum hand.

 

If responder had instead made a descriptive (or ambiguous) semipositive, then opener may have been able to do something. Say the auction went 1C P 1N showing 5-7 and 5H (a la Moscito), opener has now an easy raise of hearts.

[DinDIP]

Auctions like this are why some of us prefer to show shape with out semi-positives

Sure, but auctions like

 

1♣* - P - 1♦* - (1♠) strong; art GF; natural overcall

1N - (3♠) - ?

 

are the same reason other people like to play natural positives. Any time your opponents manage to jam the auction to 3♠ where your side has made only 1 descriptive bid is going to work out poorly for you on average.

True, but semipositives bring opener into the auction in a way that 1D (0-7) can't do.

 

If 1D here showed a GF of any shape and then we have a 1S overcall, opener is now empowered to make a useful descriptive bid with his minimum hand.

 

If responder had instead made a descriptive (or ambiguous) semipositive, then opener may have been able to do something. Say the auction went 1C P 1N showing 5-7 and 5H (a la Moscito), opener has now an easy raise of hearts.

1. I'm with Rob. This auction is difficult whenever 1♦ just shows strength, whatever the range. Sure O has more options after a 1♦ pos but how do you find a 5-3 H fit with confidence?

 

2. These hands are easy with some semipos responses but not others. So, after a 1N response that shows 5+H, O has enough (with the promoted SQ) to bid 4♥. But what if the response were a majors-first principle 1♠ showing 4+H UNBAL? If 4th now bids 2S

1♣ (P) 1♠ (2♠)

would you bid 3♥ as O when you might have a 4-3 fit?

 

David

[DinDIP]

[hv=d=w&v=n&w=saqhk92dk8543ca85&e=s95hqjt43dj7cqjt7]266|100|Scoring: IMP

1♣ - (no) - 1♦ - (1♠)

1NT - (3♠) -  x  -  (no)

3NT  //[/hv]

1♣ 16+, 1♦ 0-7, X tko

 

Sorry everyone.

 

Club finesse failed so 3NT was -50.

However, ♦A was onside so 4♥ is +420.

3♠x is +300.

If you trust the opps then they are likely to have a nine-card fit to bid 3♠, which makes 4♥ by responder rather than X more attractive.

 

David

[awm]

This seems very similar to what might happen if 1♠ had been opened in front of the strong hand.

 

In direct seat, he has a choice of double or 1NT. I rather like double, which would solve the actual problem (3♠ raise, 4♥ from partner). If partner had made a responsive double (which normally wouldn't include five hearts after the original double), then pass or 3NT is a standout.

 

Having chosen to bid 1NT in direct seat instead, auctions like this one are somewhat problematic. Certainly partner could trust the opponents bidding that strong notrumper has two spades and not three, and hope that he has three hearts and not 22(45) or 22(36) and bid 4♥... but I think the actual auction is reasonable if a bit unlucky.

 

To the degree that there's blame, I'd blame the choice of 1NT rather than X by opener. But nothing truly unreasonable happened.

[Cascade]

Sorry eveyone.

 

Opener actually rebid 1NT.

 

Assuming

 

1. Opener has a balanced hand - not two doubletons.

 

2. The opponents have nine spades

 

then opener will have three hearts.

 

Sure this is not guaranteed.

 

However, further, responder's cards are soft with no quick entry and may well need developing. Together these conditions suggest that a trump contract is likely to be better.

 

I would just bid 4♥ over 3♠.

[Free]

1. I'm with Rob. This auction is difficult whenever 1♦ just shows strength, whatever the range. Sure O has more options after a 1♦ pos but how do you find a 5-3 H fit with confidence?

 

2. These hands are easy with some semipos responses but not others. So, after a 1N response that shows 5+H, O has enough (with the promoted SQ) to bid 4♥. But what if the response were a majors-first principle 1♠ showing 4+H UNBAL? If 4th now bids 2S

1♣ (P) 1♠ (2♠)

would you bid 3♥ as O when you might have a 4-3 fit?

 

David

1. what you don't realize is that opps won't compete overagressively if you have a penalty Dbl available. So they will have a 9 card fit pretty much all of the time. This makes it easier in this case for responder to just bid 4♥ since he can expect partner to have 3+♥.

 

2. there's a reason why this semipositive structure was formed based on 5 card Majors. These responses are made to make competitive auctions easier, not to have something which is different for fun. If you first deny a 5 card M with your SP (1♥), then you can safely bid your 4 card M later on if necessary. It's with reason why Richard and I are really against a structure where you combine ALL semipositives into 1 response.

[mikestar13]

I think responder should gamble 4♥ instead of doubling. True opener may have only two, but ♠ is probably opener's short suit, as they almost certainly have a nine-card fit (certain if they play LOTT).

[DinDIP]

1. I'm with Rob. This auction is difficult whenever 1♦ just shows strength, whatever the range. Sure O has more options after a 1♦ pos but how do you find a 5-3 H fit with confidence?

 

2. These hands are easy with some semipos responses but not others. So, after a 1N response that shows 5+H, O has enough (with the promoted SQ) to bid 4♥. But what if the response were a majors-first principle 1♠ showing 4+H UNBAL? If 4th now bids 2S

1♣ (P) 1♠ (2♠)

would you bid 3♥ as O when you might have a 4-3 fit?

 

1. what you don't realize is that opps won't compete overagressively if you have a penalty Dbl available. So they will have a 9 card fit pretty much all of the time. This makes it easier in this case for responder to just bid 4♥ since he can expect partner to have 3+♥.

 

2. there's a reason why this semipositive structure was formed based on 5 card Majors. These responses are made to make competitive auctions easier, not to have something which is different for fun. If you first deny a 5 card M with your SP (1♥), then you can safely bid your 4 card M later on if necessary. It's with reason why Richard and I are really against a structure where you combine ALL semipositives into 1 response.

 

1. Maybe, but it's still the case that it's harder to find a fit if all you've done is to say something about your hand's strength and nothing about its shape. If O's pass is the equivalent of a takeout X and R bids 4♥ how does O know if R has 4 or 5 or 6H? There's still a lot of guesswork involved and this on hands where we know we have the values for game and often for slam.

 

2. I agree that showing 5+M semipos hands will often work well. But that comes with a price; on other hands O's decision about whether and how to compete will be affected by knowing whether R has 4 cards in a major. An ambiguous response like 1♥ that lumps all semipos without 5M doesn't provide O with that information. And Marston's structure means 2N and 3-level responses are not available to show other semipos hands with (say) length in the minors. That's less likely to be critical (because the suit is a minor and not a major) but there is still some cost. As always, different structures have plusses and minuses; and when the plusses come up the system looks great.

 

David

[Free]

1. Maybe, but it's still the case that it's harder to find a fit if all you've done is to say something about your hand's strength and nothing about its shape. If O's pass is the equivalent of a takeout X and R bids 4♥ how does O know if R has 4 or 5 or 6H? There's still a lot of guesswork involved and this on hands where we know we have the values for game and often for slam.

 

2. I agree that showing 5+M semipos hands will often work well. But that comes with a price; on other hands O's decision about whether and how to compete will be affected by knowing whether R has 4 cards in a major. An ambiguous response like 1♥ that lumps all semipos without 5M doesn't provide O with that information. And Marston's structure means 2N and 3-level responses are not available to show other semipos hands with (say) length in the minors. That's less likely to be critical (because the suit is a minor and not a major) but there is still some cost. As always, different structures have plusses and minuses; and when the plusses come up the system looks great.

 

David

1. 1♣-1♦-(1♠)-1NT already denies 5♥, so when the auction continues ...-(3♠)-pa!-4♥ it's clearly a 4 card suit. If responder bids 4♥ instead of pass then it's 5+♥ and opener isn't supposed to run away with most doubletons. It's not always perfect, but it works well most of the time.

 

2. It's all about frequency. If semipositives are more frequent than GF, then you want the system to work well with semipositives and acceptable with GF. If it were the other way around (like with a 1♣ opening 17+ or 18+ I think) then obviously it's better to treat your GF hands as good as possible and don't bother about semipositives. So yes, the system looks great if a SP comes up (which is a lot), we manage with the GF hands which are less frequent, and the double negatives are the worst. The impression I get is that using SP like we suggest solves most of the problems everyone is having using a normal negative, and that the problems we encounter when we have a GF are much smaller compared to these. The double negative is worse (1NT rebid by opener has a huge range for example). Lucky it's pretty rare that we have a DN and opps stay quiet. I admit that it may (not sure however) be more useful to just bid 1♣-3m with SP, but the price is that you lose efficient relays. As always in the MOSCITO philosophy, part scores are less important than game and slam bidding. This is why Marston doesn't use 2NT and higher as SP, he prefers to keep slambidding as accurate as possible for all hands SP or stronger.