A98XX x AT9876 X...

[akhare]

IMPs, all vul. pard is dealer and limited to 15 points.

 

1♥ - (2♠) - P - (P) - X

 

What's your call?

 

Bonus: What's your guess on pard's holding (shape / HCP)?

[whereagles]

Is this a trick question? Pass :)

[Free]

If we can't vote for 6♦, then pass must be right.

[gordontd]

If we aren't going to pass, we should have bid on the previous round.

[mikeh]

If we aren't going to pass, we should have bid on the previous round.

I certainly don't agree with this statement. Give partner a shapely heart-club 2-suiter, and how are we ever going to survive a 3♦ call (or any other non-pass)?

 

As it is, we now have reason to believe that partner has at least a partial fit for us. Common shapes include 1=5=3=4, 0=5=4=4 and so on.

 

We have reason to hope to make 5♦ on many hands consistent with the reopening double, and far less reason to hope to make that contract at the time of our first decision.

 

We may even make a slam....many maximum hands with 4 card support for our diamonds will offer us a good play slam.

 

As for the 'obvious' nature of the pass, not only are we giving up on 600 or even 1370, but we are not assured of getting a big penalty here. Our trump spots aren't great, and if partner's hand were, for example, void AQJxx KQxx Jxxx, this could get ugly.

 

Accordingly, I don't think that this OP was a silly question, nor that we can't seriously consider bidding here. If I did bid, it would be 5♦...I am not pulling the double to play in a partscore nor in hearts.

 

I think the choice here is close and may depend on partner's style. I think he should have upper range for his reopening and must be able to handle my bidding diamonds. That doesn't guarantee diamonds...he may be 1=6=2=4. as one example.

 

I'm bidding 5♦ anyway. The main thing I have going for me is that on a magic hand, he can and should raise to slam. I can dream of void Axxxx KQxx Axxx, can't I?

[gordontd]

We have reason to hope to make 5♦ on many hands consistent with the reopening double, and far less reason to hope to make that contract at the time of our first decision.

It wouldn't have been that contract we'd have committed to at the time of our first decision.

[JLOGIC]

You realize 3D is GF right? If partner wants to pass out 2S, that's almost defnitely the right spot as he will have some spade length and we have no reason to think we can make any game. Once partner Xs, we know he has short spades and at least 2 diamonds, so our hand re-evaluates upwards.

[AlexJonson]

I would bid 5D.

 

5D.

[JLOGIC]

I would 100 % pass fwiw

[mikeh]

It wouldn't have been that contract we'd have committed to at the time of our first decision.

No, of course not....why, we might have committed us to 4♥ or 3N instead....and there's something about our hand that suggests that these won't play well either.

[gszes]

IMPs, all vul. pard is dealer and limited to 15 points.

 

1♥ - (2♠) - P - (P) - X

 

What's your call?

 

Bonus: What's your guess on pard's holding (shape / HCP)?

 

I freely admit we will beat 2s but it looks like the penalty will

be either 200 or 500 (via 5 spades + one random trick). This seems

insufficient in light of the fact we seem to be overwhelming favorites

to score up 600 for 5d making and might be losing out on various slam

bonuses (7d anyone)? Even though I will not make a penalty pass

there seems to be no reason why we have to go jumping all over the

galaxy when we have no idea how high we might be able to go.

 

A 5d bid certainly is close to right on values but takes up so much space

that slam exploration deserves hazardous duty pay. This hand deserves more.

 

IMO we should begin with

 

3s

 

While we never expect to hear 3n we are doing something very interesting.

We are telling p that our hand is distributional enough to suddenly become

very powerful in light of the fact we had to pass over 2s. P might not know

what that distribution is but they know we have lots of potential in one

(or maybe both) of the minors. After this start you have lots of room to

search for slam and p can limit their power. If perchance p does bid 3n

then we should play there (and wish we had passed 2s X). Bidding 3s pretty

much forces us to 5d which wont always (void KQJxx Qxxx KQJx) make but the

risk is worth the reward and the reward might be ten times greater than

the bonus for an original pass.

 

bonus question

 

P might have as little as say void KQxxx Kxxx Axxx and may be considerably

stronger. The balancing tox is more of a distributional device than a power

one but it can be both.

[gnasher]

I freely admit we will beat 2s but it looks like the penalty will

be either 200 or 500 (via 5 spades + one random trick).

 

How do you get to 200? Five spades and one other trick will mean it's 500 or 500. It seems almost impossible that they'll get two side-suit tricks when I have singletons in two of the side-suits and partner has a good hand. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if they made any tricks outside trumps.

[rhm]

Since I was not sure what was best I have tried a simulation.

 

I made the following specification:

 

1♥ opener:

5-6 ♥s, minimum 3 cards in each minor, at least 10 HCP if void in ♠, 11 HCP if singleton ♠ and 12 HCP if 2=5=3=3

 

2♠ overcaller:

minimum 6 cards in ♠, KQTxxx or better, max. 11 HCP

 

With 1000 random deals the result was as follows:

 

For ♦:

 

Average number of tricks 11.16

5♦ made on 751 deals 75.1%

6♦ made on 373 (out of the 751) deals 37.3%

 

For ♠ (from overcaller's perspective):

 

Average number of tricks 6.2 tricks

2♠ made on 147 deals (30 with an overtick,6 with 2!) 14.7%

7 tricks were available on 234 deals 23.4%

2♠ would be down 2 or more on 619 deals 61.9%

 

Typically 2♠ was 2 down when game in ♦ made and 3 down only if slam made.

When 5♦ was down, 2♠ was usually either one down or making.

 

It seems to me it is better to give up on the penalty double.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

How do you get to 200? Five spades and one other trick will mean it's 500 ot 500. It seems almost impossible that they'll get two side-suit tricks when I have singletons in two of the side-suits and partner has a good hand. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if they made any tricks outside trumps.

You have only assurance that your side has about half the HCP. Why could opponents not have the ♥ ace or ♣ ace?

If you are really unlucky they have both, which with the ♠ honors would only give them 14 HCP and there are still up to 18 HCP available for the 1♥ opener, who might have a ♠ void.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[petterb]

1♥ opener:

5-6 ♥s, minimum 3 cards in each minor, at least 10 HCP if void in ♠, 11 HCP if singleton ♠ and 12 HCP if 2=5=3=3

Did you limit opener to max 15 HCP?

[gnasher]

You have only assurance that your side has about half the HCP. Why could opponents not have the ♥ ace or ♣ ace?

They could have, but that doesn't mean thay're going to score it. Suppose, for example, that declarer has ♣A and partner has two quick heart tricks. Partner could cash his winners, and I could discard my club. Then partner might lead a club through declarer and I would ruff his ace.

 

Anyway, I only said I'd be "quite surprised", so I don't know why you're using words lke "assurance".

[gnasher]

1♥ opener:

5-6 ♥s, minimum 3 cards in each minor, at least 10 HCP if void in ♠, 11 HCP if singleton ♠ and 12 HCP if 2=5=3=3

Would opener really double with any 5431/5440 minimum? He's committing to playing at the three-level, vulnerable, in a non-fit auction, or to defending a doubled partscore. I'd expect him to have a non-minimum, with quick tricks rather than queens and jacks.

 

2♠ overcaller:

minimum 6 cards in ♠, KQTxxx or better, max. 11 HCP

Likewise, can RHO have an 11-count for a weak jump overcall? KQJxxx x Jxx Axx is a one-level overcall for most people. I would set his upper limit at about a 9-count.

[rhm]

Did you limit opener to max 15 HCP?

Sorry I overlooked that I will refine my simulation.

Maybe opener could also have a doubleton ♦, which would argue for defending.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

I have refined my simulation. The new assumptions I made are:

 

Maximum 15 HCP, 5-6 ♥s, minimum 2 cards in each minor, if no more than 4 cards in the other minor, otherwise at least 3 cards in each minor, at least 10 HCP if void in ♠, 11 HCP if singleton ♠ and 12 HCP if a doubleton ♠. So distribution for South like 2♠=5♥=2♦=4♣ or 1♠=6♥=2♦=4♣ or 2♠=6♥=2♦=3♣ are possible. Maximum 15 HCP.

 

2♠ overcaller:

minimum 6 cards in ♠, KQTxxx or better, max. 9 HCP

 

With 1000 random deals the result was as follows:

 

For ♦:

 

Average number of tricks 10.83

5♦ made on 667 deals 66.7%

6♦ made on 251 (out of the 615) deals 25.1%

 

For ♠ (from overcaller's perspective):

 

Average number of tricks 6.35

2♠ made on 131 deals (21 with an overtick,3 with 2!) 13.1%

7 tricks were available on 284 deals 28.4%

2♠ would be down 2 or more on 585 deals 58.5%

 

Typically 2♠ was 2 down when game in ♦ made and 3 down only if slam made.

When 5♦ was down, 2♠ was usually either one down or making.

 

The refined constraints make the success for a high level ♦ contract less certain, but also reduces the chances for a successful penalty.

 

It seems to me it is better to give up on the penalty double.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

Would opener really double with any 5431/5440 minimum? He's committing to playing at the three-level, vulnerable, in a non-fit auction, or to defending a doubled partscore. I'd expect him to have a non-minimum, with quick tricks rather than queens and jacks.

 

 

I dont know Rainer or others, but on my part it is % 100 auto DBL with perfect shape, even if i opened with a juicy 9 hcp.

 

And yes, it may really get ugly, but imo it gets even uglier and more often if opener chickens and passes with perfect shape. Perfect shapes as in your examples such as 5431 or 5440 combined with no raise from preempter's pd, are very serious indicators of a trap pass. You just cant afford to pass and expect it to be profittable decision in long run imo.