Goodish hand, badish options

[CSGibson]

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt985hqd7cqt852&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d3h]133|200[/hv]

 

You are playing with a pick-up partner, a very good player, with no prior discussion but with the assumption "expert standard 2/1"

 

What do you do? How about a plan for possible continuations by partner?

[ArtK78]

3♠ seems obvious. Probably rebidding 4♠ unless partner bids 4♣.

[HighLow21]

I agree. It's only a 9-point hand and it could be a misfit, but chances are you'll land on your feet. 3♠ for me, rebidding 4♠ unless partner responds in clubs or NT.

 

The thing that seals it for me is that the intermediates in both black suits are excellent.

[AyunuS]

3 spades. Then pass if he bids NT, stay in clubs if he bids clubs, and hope 4 spades works if he bids diamonds. Even if he has virtually nothing in spades, you realistically have at most 2 losses in spades, so it's a relatively safe bid anyway.

[mikeh]

I would negative double, intending to bid 4♠ over 3N or 4♦ and to bid 4♥ over 4♣.

 

3♠ is a close second, and if you reversed my red suits, it is what I would bid for two reasons. One is that with me holding the heart Q, it is less likely that he will be able to pass the double than if I held the diamond Q. The other is that I would like my hand more, in terms of working hcp, and so would upgrade.

 

(Edit: in the remote event that he does pass, I won't be terribly hurt, since I do have an A, a stiff in partner's suit and a trump honour that will promote partner's holding even if I have to use it to ruff a diamond).

 

I should add: if I were to bid 3♠ here (and this is a game force call), wild horses couldn't make me pass 3N. Partner isn't expecting this hand, either in shape, misfit, or weakness, when he bids 3N. In fact, his usual holding will be one heart card and a weak notrump, possibly with length in diamonds, where we have zero help. Even if our heart Q provides a 2nd stop in 3N, and is of no help in 4♠, I think we belong in spades more often than notrump.

[jmcw]

I would negative double, intending to bid 4♠ over 3N or 4♦ and to bid 4♥ over 4♣.

 

3♠ is a close second, and if you reversed my red suits, it is what I would bid for two reasons. One is that with me holding the heart Q, it is less likely that he will be able to pass the double than if I held the diamond Q. The other is that I would like my hand more, in terms of working hcp, and so would upgrade.

 

(Edit: in the remote event that he does pass, I won't be terribly hurt, since I do have an A, a stiff in partner's suit and a trump honour that will promote partner's holding even if I have to use it to ruff a diamond).

 

I should add: if I were to bid 3♠ here (and this is a game force call), wild horses couldn't make me pass 3N. Partner isn't expecting this hand, either in shape, misfit, or weakness, when he bids 3N. In fact, his usual holding will be one heart card and a weak notrump, possibly with length in diamonds, where we have zero help. Even if our heart Q provides a 2nd stop in 3N, and is of no help in 4♠, I think we belong in spades more often than notrump.

 

This seems right to me, especially the bit about the horses, but honestly I would bid 3♠ for fear that pulling 3NT would be showing something a bit different.

[MrAce]

It is 3♠ for me.

[AyunuS]

I thought negative double wasn't an option seeing as t/o double is so I thought a double in this situation couldn't be negative, which left 3S as the best option.

[HighLow21]

I thought negative double wasn't an option seeing as t/o double is so I thought a double in this situation couldn't be negative, which left 3S as the best option.

 

Depends on whether you play neg dbls through 2♠ or through 3♠. Seems to me like most negative double agreements cease to hold once the 3 level has been reached, but it's open to partnership agreement.

[mikeh]

Depends on whether you play neg dbls through 2♠ or through 3♠. Seems to me like most negative double agreements cease to hold once the 3 level has been reached, but it's open to partnership agreement.

HiLow.....I sense that you are going to benefit greatly from being in these forums.....the great majority of experts play negative doubles through the 3-level, and my personal experience suggests that through 4♠ is common. If your experience is otherwise, and I don't doubt your statement that suggests it is, you are going to have a lot of fun learning treatments that will further enhance your successes in the games in which you play, and prepare you when you move up, which I suspect won't be too long in coming.

 

of course, standard treatment at the 4 level is that the double is less definitive about shape and more about hand ownership, hence these 'negative doubles' tend to get left in more and more as the level increases...but (maybe due to the poor convention cards in use in ACBL which offer few descriptive choices for double) they are still commonly called negative.

 

Indeed, in two of my partnerships, our CC discloses negative doubles through 7♠. But we don't play that opener should pull to 7N :D He is, however, allowed to do so, provided that his first round spade control is the Ace. :P

 

So far no-one's ever made a 7 level overcall against us.

[jmcw]

@Mikeh.

 

So you X, partner bids ♣, can you ever untangle a playable ♠ contract or is it lost.

 

2254 come to mind, maybe even a less likely 3154 or 2164!

[Vampyr]

the great majority of experts bridge players play negative doubles through the 3-level 4 ♥ at least

 

That's my experience here in the South, anyway.

[CSGibson]

I thought negative double wasn't an option seeing as t/o double is so I thought a double in this situation couldn't be negative, which left 3S as the best option.

 

By take-out, I meant to imply that negative doubles were still on at the 3 level (undiscussed, but standard in this area). Sorry for the confusion.

[mikeh]

@Mikeh.

 

So you X, partner bids ♣, can you ever untangle a playable ♠ contract or is it lost.

 

2254 come to mind, maybe even a less likely 3154 or 2164!

 

I can't ever see partner being able to bid 4♣ with a stiff heart....I mean...LHO would have to be not merely sworn to silence, but also temporarily paralyzed not to bid 4♥ with 4 card support at favourable, no matter what the form of scoring. So I simply wouldn't cater to that in my bidding plan over 3♥.

 

2254 (or for some misguided souls, 2245 ;) ) is more plausible, tho I would expect LHO to be bidding 4♥ on most of these deals at this heat.

 

If memory serves, we weren't told the scoring. I tend to answer questions as if they were imps, because that's where my interest lies. If this were mps, maybe I would consider bidding 4♠ over 4♣ even tho I rate to buy a stiff spade...the 6-1 might score better than (or fail by the same amount as) the 5=4 club fit.

 

But they pay a bonus for slam bidding at mps as well as at imps, and this hand has great slam potential in clubs and virtually none, in the hypothetical auction under discussion, in spades, so I would cue 4♥ as I wrote earlier, and give up on spades.

 

At imps, I think that decision is clear. While 4♠ and 5♣ are both plausible contracts, the chance of finding a good slam (without finding a bad one) is enough in my view to make a try worthwhile.

 

As to whether 4♥ is a slam try or an effort to keep spades in the picture, I confess that I have never played COG cues as frequently as I think good bridge suggests, and I wouldn't expect any of my partners to see 4♥ that way if I bid it. So...can 4♠ by opener be passed?

 

Well, any call can be passed,even if partner didn't think it would be, but I'd take it as encouraging for clubs.....consistent with say x Axx QJxxx AKJx.

 

I can think of good arguments for this being no better than the 2nd best view....that it should be perhaps Hx in spades....but given the conditions of contest, I just don't see that as a probable layout and so don't think we should design our approach around it.

[mikeh]

That's my experience here in the South, anyway.

I have learned, the hard way, that anytime I generalize, someone, somewhere, takes my language literally and since the chances that we would ever get unanimity on anything is remote, in the bridge world, I tried to be tactful.

 

Now I am learning that that approach gets nitpicked as well.*

 

of course, now I risk someone taking exception to this generalization. Consider me corrected already, please.

 

 

 

 

* I know....pot yet again calling a kettle black. Well, what did you expect, lol?

[HighLow21]

HiLow.....I sense that you are going to benefit greatly from being in these forums.....the great majority of experts play negative doubles through the 3-level, and my personal experience suggests that through 4♠ is common. If your experience is otherwise, and I don't doubt your statement that suggests it is, you are going to have a lot of fun learning treatments that will further enhance your successes in the games in which you play, and prepare you when you move up, which I suspect won't be too long in coming.

 

of course, standard treatment at the 4 level is that the double is less definitive about shape and more about hand ownership, hence these 'negative doubles' tend to get left in more and more as the level increases...but (maybe due to the poor convention cards in use in ACBL which offer few descriptive choices for double) they are still commonly called negative.

 

Indeed, in two of my partnerships, our CC discloses negative doubles through 7♠. But we don't play that opener should pull to 7N :D He is, however, allowed to do so, provided that his first round spade control is the Ace. :P

 

So far no-one's ever made a 7 level overcall against us.

 

Sorry you are right --> I don't know what I was thinking with that comment. I've been playing with a new partner and we've agreed to neg dbl only through 2♠, to the point where I've forgotten that that's non-standard.

[HighLow21]

I have learned, the hard way, that anytime I generalize, someone, somewhere, takes my language literally and since the chances that we would ever get unanimity on anything is remote, in the bridge world, I tried to be tactful.

 

Now I am learning that that approach gets nitpicked as well.*

 

of course, now I risk someone taking exception to this generalization. Consider me corrected already, please.

 

 

 

 

* I know....pot yet again calling a kettle black. Well, what did you expect, lol?

 

I take exception to your refusal to make recalcitrant, overgeneralized comments and adamantly insist that they are correct. ;-)

[jmcw]

I have learned, the hard way, that anytime I generalize, someone, somewhere, takes my language literally and since the chances that we would ever get unanimity on anything is remote, in the bridge world, I tried to be tactful.

 

Now I am learning that that approach gets nitpicked as well.*

 

of course, now I risk someone taking exception to this generalization. Consider me corrected already, please.

 

 

 

 

* I know....pot yet again calling a kettle black. Well, what did you expect, lol?

 

Hope you didn't think my follow up was nitpicking.

FWIW, I find your comments insightful and very well written. It's also abundantly clear you know your stuff, so Ty for taking the time to reply, I very much appreciate.

[HighLow21]

Hope you didn't think my follow up was nitpicking.

FWIW, I find your comments insightful and very well written. It's also abundantly clear you know your stuff, so Ty for taking the time to reply, I very much appreciate.

NOOO, not at all, man! I'm learning a lot from you guys.

[MrAce]

NOOO, not at all, man! I'm learning a lot from you guys.

 

He was quoting to MikeH :)

[mikeh]

Hope you didn't think my follow up was nitpicking.

FWIW, I find your comments insightful and very well written. It's also abundantly clear you know your stuff, so Ty for taking the time to reply, I very much appreciate.

thanks for the kind words, and, no, I didn't take anything you (or anyone else) wrote here as 'nitpicking'. I was making a rueful comment, that is all...I didn't mean to offend anyone. I am usually far more pointed and explicit when I intend to offend someone :P

[rogerclee]

I'm not sure why 3S is a bad bid, I think anything else is overthinking it.

 

We might get too high if partner forces to slam in diamonds, but in all other cases 3S is a good start. If partner wants to slam in spades, my hand is not even a minimum. I can follow up pulling 3N to 4C to find a club fit, while the negative doublers could possibly land in 4S while cold for 7C. If partner passes out the negative double (which he should on many hands), doubling will likely have been either bad or disastrous.

[JLOGIC]

I think that a negative double is horrible.

[Zelandakh]

Depends on whether you play neg dbls through 2♠ or through 3♠. Seems to me like most negative double agreements cease to hold once the 3 level has been reached, but it's open to partnership agreement.

 

HiLow.....I sense that you are going to benefit greatly from being in these forums.....the great majority of experts play negative doubles through the 3-level, and my personal experience suggests that through 4♠ is common.

 

A few years ago I used the handy "Negative Double Thru" section of the WBF cc to compare the levels for pairs in major events. The most common levels appearing were 4♦/4♥ (4♦ very common over 1♥) but with 4♠ and higher bids also mentioned frequently. My feeling is that the levels would quite possibly be higher now and certainly not lower. I would recommend any pair to play negative doubles to at least 1 step below 4 of Opener's suit and ideally higher in the case of 1m openings. In other words 4♥/4♦/4♥/4♥ would be a minimum and 4♥/4♦/4♠/4♠ is probable better. Higher levels may be better still; certainly some very good players recommend such an approach.

[whereagles]

The negative dbl plan looks ok to me, but I just can't do it on a 6-5. 3S for me.