High Level decisions

[rduran1216]

We should talk to our partner about the difference between a 2S bid and a 3S bid after 1D p 1S x ?

 

7 loser 12 count in jacks doesn't qualify as a jump. That is awful.

 

2 is very unlucky that 4S is a winning action IMO, even with partner's great shape, a different layout would fail miserably and be consistent with the auction.

[gszes]

I am commenting on third hand only because I think this situation is pretty clear.

The opps are two passed hands and their obvious intent is a sacrifice. IMO p pass

of 5c should be considered forcing since there was no reason for p to speculate

on game vs non bidding opps (if p had doubts an asking sequence would make much more

sense) P has the goods. When p passes 5c it shows an ability to go on but it depends

on your hand.

 

You are max for your weak 2 and have a singleton club what more could you

possibly want to advance to 5s??? Since you can freely cue bid 5d or 5h on

the way to 5s p will know you had no red cue bid and will be better placed

on what to do next if opps bid 6c.

[MrAce]

I am commenting on third hand only because I think this situation is pretty clear.

The opps are two passed hands and their obvious intent is a sacrifice. IMO p pass

of 5c should be considered forcing since there was no reason for p to speculate

on game vs non bidding opps (if p had doubts an asking sequence would make much more

sense) P has the goods. When p passes 5c it shows an ability to go on but it depends

on your hand.

 

You are max for your weak 2 and have a singleton club what more could you

possibly want to advance to 5s??? Since you can freely cue bid 5d or 5h on

the way to 5s p will know you had no red cue bid and will be better placed

on what to do next if opps bid 6c.

 

No.

Where did u come up with both opponents are coming from pass ?

In fact none of the opponents are coming from pass. Coming from pass and passing over a multi is totally different things. But even if u disagree with this, East is definetely not coming from pass.

 

Here is the 3rd hand

[hv=pc=n&n=sq974hkjt74dkqca5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2dp4cd4h5c]133|200|[/hv]

[nige1]

Duh :( I would have got all of them wrong, too -- 4♠ .. I mean.. 5♠, Pass, and Double :(

(edited)

[aguahombre]

...

[rhm]

And the moral of the story: Don't play a multi. It would be a brave east to bid 5c after 2s x 4s at all red. I would not do it.

With 3 small spades and 6 good clubs and a stiff would anyone really pass 2S X 4S ?

Maybe some would bid 5♣ anyway, but it requires a lot of courage to come in at the 5 level vulnerable and I would expect few to do this beyond the top level.

Even at the top level, there would be some, who would refrain. 5♣ could be expensive, if for example 4♠ is down. A double of 4♣, however, is almost risk free.

 

But contrary to Phil I think the stupid bid was 4♣.

I have become very careful of bidding 4♣ (transfer) and 4♦ (bid your major directly) over 2♦, when I have huge support for either major.

The disaster is entirely foreseeable. There was no need for a transfer here. Another case of convention overuse.

My normal response is 4♥, which I still play as pass or correct. There are other means to play in ♥ opposite a ♠ weak two opened as 2♦.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

We should talk to our partner about the difference between a 2S bid and a 3S bid after 1D p 1S x ?

 

7 loser 12 count in jacks doesn't qualify as a jump. That is awful.

 

You think 3S is awful, I think 2S would have been terrible.

[rduran1216]

You think 3S is awful, I think 2S would have been terrible.

 

why does this hand qualify for a 3S call?

[Finch]

There's another thread talking about this auction, and the merits of playing 3S as (semi-)pre-emptive and 2NT as a strong raise.

[rduran1216]

There's another thread talking about this auction, and the merits of playing 3S as (semi-)pre-emptive and 2NT as a strong raise.

 

Well that's far from standard treatment. Even over t/o double which in this case can be shapely and not a big hand, why wouldn't partner bid 2S with his 7 loser 12 count rather than jump with effectively 8/9 working points.

[han]

It's a good hand and if your loser count doesn't see that then maybe you should start thinking about that. Partner is 6-4 and 10 of his 12 points are in his suits, that's quite good! You suffer from the same disease that aquahombre had in another thread, going out of your way to emphasize the negative. When counting losers you already ignore your jacks (which is wrong) and then you mention "12-count in jacks". If you cannot see the difference between this hand and Qxxx KQ Qxxxxx K (another 12-count, 7-loser hand, but no jacks!) then something is seriously wrong.

[rhm]

It's a good hand and if your loser count doesn't see that then maybe you should start thinking about that. Partner is 6-4 and 10 of his 12 points are in his suits, that's quite good! You suffer from the same disease that aquahombre had in another thread, going out of your way to emphasize the negative. When counting losers you already ignore your jacks (which is wrong) and then you mention "12-count in jacks". If you cannot see the difference between this hand and Qxxx KQ Qxxxxx K (another 12-count, 7-loser hand, but no jacks!) then something is seriously wrong.

I agree with that and the old fashioned (and wrong) way people count losers gives this evaluation method a bad image.

Also jacks supported by aces are good values.

Rduran1216 point that 3♠ should show more HCP is traditional and in my view tactical wrong.

If you hold a strong hand with ♠ and good defensive values, RDBL and raise ♠ thereafter, assuming you do not have conventional agreements like a 2NT power raise available.

Raising ♠ immediately should show predominantly distributional strength.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rduran1216]

It's a good hand and if your loser count doesn't see that then maybe you should start thinking about that. Partner is 6-4 and 10 of his 12 points are in his suits, that's quite good! You suffer from the same disease that aquahombre had in another thread, going out of your way to emphasize the negative. When counting losers you already ignore your jacks (which is wrong) and then you mention "12-count in jacks". If you cannot see the difference between this hand and Qxxx KQ Qxxxxx K (another 12-count, 7-loser hand, but no jacks!) then something is seriously wrong.

 

qx in the doubler's suit is not a good holding.

 

treating this hand as a 3S bid is jumping to a conclusion that diamonds are working and trumps are breaking.

 

What is the downside to bidding 2S, which assumedly shows 4 spades.

 

its not necessarily HCP, AJ9x xx AQJxxx x is fine for a 3S bid. If 2S isn't gonna have any meaning other than noise, I just dont see how thats useful or as I said should be assumed standard. But this is certainly a style thing. The hand you posted is even worse than this one, but IMO neither are a 3S bid.

[jallerton]

On the third one, maybe South should remove the double of 5♣? He knows he's opposite some heart length, so his hand looks very good for declaring.

 

Responder has implied a hand that wants to play in 4♥ opposite a vulnerable weak two in hearts, so "some heart length" is "probably at least two hearts" Why does that make ♥Qxx so good for declaring that you would even consider pulling partner's penalty double?

[lamford]

Responder has implied a hand that wants to play in 4♥ opposite a vulnerable weak two in hearts, so "some heart length" is "probably at least two hearts" Why does that make ♥Qxx so good for declaring that you would even consider pulling partner's penalty double?

Shouldn't there be better methods over the double of 4C? There are pass and redouble available. A simple system might be Pass = good hearts, Redouble = good spades; 4D = bad hearts; 4H = bad spades. So you should pull because you forgot the system on the last round!

[lamford]

- It's virtually impossible to get the first one right.

I would leave out the "virtually", although I did get it right after seeing all four hands. And I don't think not bidding 5S is "right" because both contracts are off. With 22 total trumps, the reason why total tricks are 20 is that all four suits break 1-1 or 3-2. The combined chance of this seems around 11%, and it is more likely that both 5S and 5C will make.

[gnasher]

Responder has implied a hand that wants to play in 4♥ opposite a vulnerable weak two in hearts, so "some heart length" is "probably at least two hearts" Why does that make ♥Qxx so good for declaring that you would even consider pulling partner's penalty double?

 

"Probably at least two" doesn't mean the same as "typically only two". Opener will have four hearts here more often than two, because with length in both majors he needs less in high cards. For the same reason, his values are more likely to be in hearts than in diamonds.

 

And I didn't mean that opener should bid 5♠ solely because of his heart holding. He started off with one of the most offensive hands he could possibly have, and it's now become more offensive, partly because of the likely heart fit.

[jallerton]

"Probably at least two" doesn't mean the same as "typically only two". Opener will have four hearts here more often than two, because with length in both majors he needs less in high cards. For the same reason, his values are more likely to be in hearts than in diamonds.

 

I disagree. As rhm correctly points out, on a hand with length with both majors and possibly less in high card strength, Responder should bid 4♥ (pass or correct) not 4♣.

 

And I didn't mean that opener should bid 5♠ solely because of his heart holding. He started off with one of the most offensive hands he could possibly have, and it's now become more offensive, partly because of the likely heart fit.

 

Are we looking at the same hand? 6322 is the least offensive shape for a vulnerable weak two. The AK in his suit, whilst obviously useful offensively, are potential defensive tricks.

 

Compare the offence/defence ratio with another super-maximum weak two such as ♠KQJ10xx ♥xx ♦QJ10x ♣x.

[gnasher]

I disagree. As rhm correctly points out, on a hand with length with both majors and possibly less in high card strength, Responder should bid 4♥ (pass or correct) not 4♣.

Was that an option? I think it's normal to play 4♥ as natural, with 4♣ as "transfer to your suit" and 4♦ as "bid your suit".

 

In any case, I don't see why one would want to advertise weakness in this way. If you want to make life hard for the opponents, you should make the same bid on a hand where you don't want them to save as on one where you do.

 

Are we looking at the same hand? 6322 is the least offensive shape for a vulnerable weak two. The AK in his suit, whilst obviously useful offensively, are potential defensive tricks.

No, we're not looking at the same hand, or not if you think it's 6322, anyway. The one I'm looking at is AKJ10xx Qxx xxx x.

 

Compare the offence/defence ratio with another super-maximum weak two such as ♠KQJ10xx ♥xx ♦QJ10x ♣x.

Yes, OK, there are hands which started with more offence but weren't improved by the 4♣ bid. With that hand, however, I'd now be passing, because I'd expect my heart shortage to be opposite some values and length. But I realise that as you don't accept that partner has heart length, you won't agree with that conclusion either.

[jallerton]

Sorry yes, 6331. I should have said: "6322 is the least offensive shape for a vulnerable weak two and 6331 is not too far behind. The AK in his suit, whilst obviously useful offensively, are potential defensive tricks."

 

I'm surprised you think it's normal to play a 4♥ response to a Multi as natural, as (i) I have played Multi with many partners, and I can't recall any even suggesting playing a 4♥ response as natural; and (ii) it would be a very poor treatment to do so, given the relative frequency of the two hand types.

[MrAce]

Sorry yes, 6331. I should have said: "6322 is the least offensive shape for a vulnerable weak two and 6331 is not too far behind. The AK in his suit, whilst obviously useful offensively, are potential defensive tricks."

 

I'm surprised you think it's normal to play a 4♥ response to a Multi as natural, as (i) I have played Multi with many partners, and I can't recall any even suggesting playing a 4♥ response as natural; and (ii) it would be a very poor treatment to do so, given the relative frequency of the two hand types.

 

It is very normal, if you play 4♣ = transfer your major to me and 4♦= bid your suit and play. And thats the situation he is talking about.

[rhm]

It is very normal, if you play 4♣ = transfer your major to me and 4♦= bid your suit and play. And thats the situation he is talking about.

If you think bad Bridge is normal I agree with you.

But if you feel the urge to defend this poor status quo Bingo might be a better game for you

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Was that an option? I think it's normal to play 4♥ as natural, with 4♣ as "transfer to your suit" and 4♦ as "bid your suit".

 

In any case, I don't see why one would want to advertise weakness in this way. If you want to make life hard for the opponents, you should make the same bid on a hand where you don't want them to save as on one where you do.

Bidding over 2♦--4♥ is not so easy for opponents.

Doubling 4♣ or 4♦ is risk free.

4♥ (pass or correct) will be my default action, when I do not care much, which side will play the hand (and it rarely matters in a suit contract).

I will choose this action in nine out of ten cases when I want to be in game in partner's major and the jump to 4♥ will often be a power raise. 3♣ over 2♦ shows an independent suit (e.g a ♥ suit) the way I play.

 

I will bid 4♣ or 4♦ only if I think

 

a) right-siding is likely to matter or more likely

b) I am interested in slam and will probably continue with a slam try.

 

I will never choose 4♣ or 4♦ if I think I have to fear a DBL. This does not mean when I bid 4♥ that I will fear a sacrifice, though all preemptive raises with both majors tend to go via 4♥.

 

At any vulnerability, but particularly red versus white, claiming you have to bid 4 of a minor over 2♦, when you are long in both majors is suicidal.

What happened here is not exceptional.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

If you think bad Bridge is normal I agree with you.

But if you feel the urge to defend this poor status quo Bingo might be a better game for you

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

You are assuming that 'normal' means good or bad neccesarilly. You are wrong as usual and i showed you how and why you are wrong so many times in the past topics which are yet to be replied but was not. So i will not waste my time on this one and just ignore you.

 

Lets talk about your habbit of suggesting people which game they should play instead of Bridge each time when they have different ideas than you;

 

While you think choosing the way you reply to a multi 2♦ is a good way to figure whether someone should play bridge or bingo, the facts are totally different. "Temper and emotions, and the way your personality can handle frustrations and deal with conflicts is more important. Of course being easy on partners is even more important " Does this sentence remind you something Rainer ? In another bridge site, you confessed that you are neither good at the first part nor good at being easy on partners. If you were telling the truth when you said this in public, then you have no chance at bridge, regardless of how good or bad conventions you choose to play. However Bingo game does not require any of these, perhaps more suitable for people like you ?

 

But i have good news for you. You dont have to neccesarilly play Bingo. Because BBO came up with this thing called "GIB" and it is fairly cheap. You and GIB has some similarities, both are great card players but has little clue when it comes to bidding imo. You should be fine in long run and GIB never gets offended by your comments.