Bidding ATB

[gwnn]

Sure kenberg, actually I wouldn't overcall 2♣ either. I think the downsides of 2♣ are more prominent on this particular hand than the upsides. That doesn't mean the upsides aren't there though. But I think I am starting to sound like a pedant (still haven't stopped sounding like a pedant)

[kenberg]

I wish I had more opponents who think like this.. eheheh

Ah, but then you wouldn't be able to get to play 5♠X. What fun would that be?

[gnasher]

But I think I am starting to sound like a pedant

 

Nothing wrong with that.

[JLOGIC]

3♦ - I like this bid, 3♣ is possible although you already told partner you have a club suit like this. Passing is not an option because -1240 is a bad score.

 

!!! Alert, this is the most I've ever disagreed with 655321 in the history of bridge. I am actually shocked!

[JLOGIC]

I think playing both 2N and pass as natural is silly. However, if I did play them both as natural, and I had to choose between rebidding my KQ9xxx or bidding my 3 small, I would rebid my clubs.

 

It is obvious to me that my bewilderment stems from a difference in what hands I think would double.

 

I think xxx AQxxx KJx xx is a pretty obvious double of 2S. I'm not bidding 3C, I'm not passing, and we might make 4H. I think that this double mainly says "we might make 4H" and if not usually you play 3C. Getting to diamonds is secondary, and is usually facilitated by partner scrambling out. I would double with xxx AQxx Qxx Qxx. Maybe I am nuts, but it seems like bidding 3C risks missing 4H.

 

And I would certainly X with 2443 or 3442 if I had it. Yes, I know we have 3 spades, but our bidding cannot be dependent on "knowing" who has length and who has shortness in spades.

 

Furthermore I think it would be pretty unusual for partner to want to compete when he has a stiff club, especially as a passed hand. With 3451 I would pass. With 2551 I would double, oh well. I think it is much more common for partner to have 2 clubs when he wants to compete.

 

Apparantly this is not a mainstream BBF view that we can double with all of these shapes. I would have thought this is like playing a negative double promises diamonds... the other major is what's important, especially when partner can just rebid his 6 card suit when he has it most of the time and play a 6-2 fit or a 6-3 fit and maybe an occasional 6-1 fit when we have a better spot available (oh well).

[rogerclee]

Let's assume that in the auction posted (1S 2C 2S X XX ?), pass is a suggestion that we defend 2Sxx (this is my meta-agreement anyway, even though it is obviously bad in this auction), and 2N is not natural. When we can't bid hearts and don't want to defend, then our options are to bid 2N, 3C, or 3D.

 

1) 3D has to promise a strong hand because (to me at least) partner didn't show diamonds. Partner often has 4+D on this auction, but there are many handtypes with 3 or even 2 diamonds (3523) where partner has to x in order to get hearts into the picture or show some values. To me this is the same reason everyone now plays 1C 1S X doesn't show diamonds, but people will disagree.

 

2) We can bid 2N with 4 or more diamonds to get diamonds into the picture. This is the other reason that it is largely unnecessary to bid 3D with diamonds, we have a bid to show the minors. However with (332)5 hands, we have to run but can't bid 3C, so these hands also go through 2N. It would be great to be able to pass with these hands, as a side note.

 

3) Given that we bid 2N whenever we have 4 diamonds or (233)5 shape, partner should use his judgment with 5-3, bid 3D with 5-2 or 5-1, bid 3C with 4-3, and bid 3D with 4-2.

 

So now there is a question of whether we should be able to bid 2N with 3-6 in the minors. The answer is no, this makes it impossible for partner to choose the right minor when he is 4-2.

 

As for bidding 3D with the actual hand, I think that can easily be dismissed; even if the double shows some diamonds, 2N is surely better. I thought the real question was whether we should bid 2N, but if you agree with the above the answer is that you have to bid 3C, because partner will choose wrong too often if you offer diamonds. You pay off to 2551 or 2461 but I think it's necessary, since to me, the most pressing concern on this hand is to be able to play 3C when we have a 5-3 or 6-2 (or even 6-3!) club fit.

[MrAce]

I am surprised there are people who consider the pass by south would suggest sitting on 2♠ redoubled.

 

I know this is not A/E section but, playing this pass for suggesting penalties vs good opponents, is wrong imo. If there are opponents who would redouble in this auction and go down 2 or 3, you would probably win them without this agreement anyway and it almost never comes. Anyway, i just read the replies, Justin said it much better than anyone else imo.

[655321]

I am surprised there are people who consider the pass by south would suggest sitting on 2♠ redoubled.

 

I know this is not A/E section but, playing this pass for suggesting penalties vs good opponents, is wrong imo.

 

Well, (like Roger) I do think you need meta-rules about the pass of the opponent's redouble so that your partnership is on firm ground instead of having to guess on a case by case basis.

 

I have never made an exception for auctions like this. Guess it is true here that the (pretty rare) times you would like to pass to show no preference are more common than the (very rare) times you would like to pass for penalties. Even so, not sure that the extra memory load is worthwhile though, the rule that passing a redouble is to play is simple to remember. Would the exception apply after we have bid a suit and they have bid and raised, or just when they have bid and raised? Seems like there is danger of running into ambiguous sequences here.

[kenberg]

In all analysis there are two issues, agreements and judgment. My guess is that this partnership.ike most partnerships I have, never discussed whether passing 2♠XX is to play. Practically speaking, this means that partner will pull a pass because he will not be sure of partner's intent.

 

I still think that as North I would choose 5♣ instead of 5♦ as the auctin had gone to that point. Again, this is w/o any detailed discussion. I would expect the message to be something like: I was hoping hearts might work, but if not let's play 5♣ unless you have something like five clubs and four diamonds.

This seems reasonably straight forward for on the fly bidding. And if anyone thinks 4♣ is better than 5♣ I wouldn't really contest that.

[Finch]

I am surprised there are people who consider the pass by south would suggest sitting on 2♠ redoubled.

 

I know this is not A/E section but, playing this pass for suggesting penalties vs good opponents, is wrong imo. If there are opponents who would redouble in this auction and go down 2 or 3, you would probably win them without this agreement anyway and it almost never comes. Anyway, i just read the replies, Justin said it much better than anyone else imo.

 

I also play pass as suggesting defending 2Sxx

 

Is that the right agreement for exactly this auction? Quite possibly not. But I also like to have general rules for competitive auctions, and my general rule is that pass of a redouble is to play in all auctions at the 2-level and higher (and after 1x P P dbl rdbl). I can bid 2NT to scramble if I need to.

 

It's true that a natural pass of the redouble isn't that common; but it's also true that on most auctions you don't miss the need to make a neutral pass. And you can smoke out the opponents sometimes.

 

p.s. what's "not the A/E section" got to do with anything? You think that playing pass as to play is so ridiculous that no advanced or expert player would do it? I raise...

[Finch]

Justin's description of what the double shows is in line with how I play it. I would 2NT on the actual hand as South because my clubs are so poor; if I had KQJ10xx in the suit I'd always rebid them here.