Bid with nothing?

[bd71]

[hv=pc=n&s=s98742h7d98632c84&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1c1sd]133|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints

 

What is your call, and your thinking?

[32519]

From the bidding, I place West with 4X♥, North with 4X♥, East with 4X♥ and South has 1♥.

 

You are vulnerable so I would hesitate bidding too high. Raise the ante and bid 2♠. Consume some of the opps bidding space. The hand has great cross-ruffing potential.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

3♠ ( weak jump ) .

If the Vul were reversed, I venture 4♠.

[Phil]

3♠. Normally I would 4 with this shape, but 500 is too likely at MPs.

[ahydra]

Well you could pull out 4♠ faster than you can say "opps have game in hearts", but even opposite AKQxx Jx xxx Kxx it's going for 500 and partner may well raise 3S to 4 with that. Hence I should technically pass, but at the table I'd probably bid 3S.

 

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

This hand is interesting. We have 10+ trumps if partner is an older player but vulnerability and values suggest only bidding 3♠ since 4♠ rates to be too expensive. But we can also be fairly sure that the opponents have 4♥ on. If we do bid 3♠ then we are probably making sure they play their best contract. Against conservative players I would bid 3♠ anyway but if I trust them to bid over 3♠ when it is right it is probably better to start lower, with either 2♠ or 2♦ followed by spades later if appropriate. That might just get them to misjudge; on the other hand it might make partner misjudge on defence. Most likely it does not matter though and we'll be defending 4♥ with partner able to suss out something is funny.

[awm]

I'd bid 4♠. Partner seems marked with heart length. Even a very modest hand like ♠AKxxx ♥xxxx ♦x ♣xxx is probably down one in 4♠, and partner could easily have that hand plus an ace or more. Of course bad things are always possible when we jump to a vulnerable game at MP on garbage, but the shape on this hand is extremely promising.

[aguahombre]

Well you could pull out 4♠ faster than you can say "opps have game in hearts", but even opposite AKQxx Jx xxx Kxx it's going for 500 and partner may well raise 3S to 4 with that. Hence I should technically pass, but at the table I'd probably bid 3S.

 

ahydra

Where do you find a partner who would raise your preemptive 3S bid to four with that? Actually, that question is not looking for an answer; unfortunately there are lots of players who would. They just wouldn't be partners.

 

I know at the table I would probably bid a direct 4S with the advancer's hand, but I won't admit it here on the forum. :rolleyes:

[ggwhiz]

I'm all in with 4♠ after flipping a coin with that or pass and let them both think they are facing wasted spades.

 

Any other number of spades is a waste of time. You are defending 4♥ period, unless pard bids 4♠ anyway. Worse you could sucker pard into a double (2♠) or mark the play (3♠) without applying useful pressure.

 

I want to defend 5♥ (maybe +1?) but if it doesn't work out I don't have to play it.

[CSGibson]

Any other vulnerability and I'd insta 4S. At this vulnerability I dial it back a bit on my preempting, so I'm just going 3S

[neilkaz]

Any other vulnerability and I'd insta 4S. At this vulnerability I dial it back a bit on my preempting, so I'm just going 3S

Same for me.

[han]

Constructions where partner has Jx of hearts are not so useful, partner is very likely to hold 4 hearts. That makes our hand (and our 5th trump) much better and I'm sorely tempted to bid 4S in spite of the vulnerability. Perhaps 3S is the prudent call anyway.

[gnasher]

4♠. That has several ways to win: it may be the right contract; they may defend it undoubled; they may bid 5♥.

[whereagles]

At mps it's risky to bid 4S... 3S only for me.

[kenrexford]

If I am totally honest, I have to admit that at the table I would bid 1NT. With a ten-fit in boss spades, five cards in the unbid suit, and a yarb, vulnerable against not, this deal is going to result in a crazy auction. So, I will make a crazy bid.

 

This may well work out wonderfully, if Opener raises hearts and partner, as expected, has four hearts, as he may well smell a rat somewhere and tread with caution. Better, the opponents might get all screwed up somehow.

[ggwhiz]

If I am totally honest, I have to admit that at the table I would bid 1NT.

 

I like that a lot. If it goes something like 2♥, double to rho's big hand the rest of the auction could be fun and get us out in a lower number doubled than my 4♠ bid.

[gnasher]

If I am totally honest, I have to admit that at the table I would bid 1NT. With a ten-fit in boss spades, five cards in the unbid suit, and a yarb, vulnerable against not, this deal is going to result in a crazy auction. So, I will make a crazy bid.

 

This may well work out wonderfully, if Opener raises hearts and partner, as expected, has four hearts, as he may well smell a rat somewhere and tread with caution. Better, the opponents might get all screwed up somehow.

 

Can I refer you to these two threads, which seem to have been brought back to life with impeccable timing?

 

http://www.bridgebas...e-for-the-rant/

 

http://www.bridgebas...irst-then-play/

[mikeh]

The psyche of 1N idea calls to mind the old Frances rant post recently resurrected. I don't doubt that this psysche may work against a lot of indifferent players, including self-professed experts, but all it will do is tell good opps what is going on....not right away, but pretty soon. Plus partner may not be clued in and he may start doubling....heck....he SHOULD start doubling on some forseeable sequences.

 

I'd bid 4♠.

 

I think bidding 3♠ is just pushing the opps to 4♥, over which, on most layouts, neither we nor partner know what to do. We are, by 3♠, usually....not always...setting ourselves up to make the last guess.

 

I've long understood, correctly or not, that one of the important factors to consider when deciding how high to preempt is this consideration of the last guess. If we think, as surely we do, that over 4♥ P P or Double P 4♥, that we might belong in 4♠...then we have to bid 4♠ now.

 

It is foolish to assume that the opps always do the right thing. The odds are that one or other of them is looking at a stiff or void spade, and that neither is looking at a spade trick....plus they will know they have a fit and that, at this heat, you have shape...why assume they're going to do the right thing?

 

If your opps always do the right thing....my advice is to quit playing.

[phil_20686]

I am in for 4S.

 

While opponents may have no better than two eight card fits, they may well have a ten or 11 card fit in clubs now, and I want to make it as hard as possible for them to find it.

[kenrexford]

Some of you seem to me to be assuming that the only reason for a "psychic" is to mislead the opponents and thereby to cause problems. If you notice, I did not call the 1NT biod a psychic, for a reason. I called it a weird bid.

 

Some calls (lime this 1NT) are not bid to mislead anyone but rather to kick the auction out of its normal flow, by intention. The reason why I would actually if honest bid 1NT at the table would be for that goal, not for the goal of tricking anyone as to what I held.

 

An auction very similar to this came up not too long ago against a young player who has more than one national title to his name and at least three world championship titles. Hence, credentials. I made this same 1minor-1♠-x-1NT call, again not as a psychic but to throw rythm off. The end result was us playing two of our 10-fit doubled, making 11 tricks. The result was silliness, admittedly, but the reason for their mistake was subtle.

 

Responder had a weak hand with five hearts. Opener had a three-fit. Whether this auction was an exception or whether they generally did not use support doubles or whether Opener had the wrong hand for that, 1NT was passed to Responder, who balanced with a double, undiscussed somewhat, and a struggled auction ended up as I mentioned.

 

When you raise to 2♠, you have what is expected, and the opponents' agreements cater to the expected. When you jump in spades, to any level, the same thing happens. But, when you bid 1NT, the opponents' methods are geared to a different expectation, and you convert their auction out of a situationally-ideal set of methods to a situationally-flawed set of agreements, because the situation is not as expected.

 

The same type of thing happens with, for example, canape openings. Most structures are geared toward an expectation that Opener has length in the suit he opened. This increases the odds of Opener's LHO having shortness there, and likely length everywhere else, which explains and facilitates the takeout double. If, however, a 1♦ opening is made with OK diamonds (maybe only 3) but a longer second suit (any), then Opener's LHO has a tendency to more often have a two-suiter (such that two-suited overcalls are very important) or to have a three-suiter with a floating stiff that could be anywhere. In that latter instance, a takeout double only caters to one of four possibilities, such that the condition that suggests a takeout double is changed sufficiently to cause problems. By playing canape, then, you change the conditions that induced the normal structure and leave the opponents in a non-ideal structure (unless they have worked this out).

 

Suppose, as another example, that you are Responder, partner opens a minor, a takeout double follows, and it is your bid with, say, 1-5-4-3 pattern and weak. If you bid the expected 1♥, the opponents have a structure geared toward handling that situation, expecting you to have hearts. If, however, you bid 1NT, you have deprived the opponents of space, but more importantly, perhaps, you have forced them into a structure that assumes no major for you. Hence, they have dedicated a call to showing hearts. They also lose the ability to cuebid hearts later, if that is important for them.

 

I mention all of this because the objections seem to be an assumption that the 1NT call is purely psychic, to mislead, and a "baby psychic" that anyone can figure out, as if that responds to the reasoning. It does not, as the thinking is much more developed and subtle.

 

I also recall an auction from years ago against two world champions that was identical at both tables, except for two bids. The two changes were the last decision (they got it wrong at our table but our teammates got it right) and my first call. I responded 1NT after 1♥-1♠-?, whereas my parallel bid 2♥. That subtle change affected views and expectations and auction structure sufficiently to change the four-level decision.

 

So, whereas you might still find the thinking strange and even stupid, please consider that the reasoning is much more developed and subtle than the silly "psychic mislead" that you assume. If you desire to debate the merits of "structural assumption diverting bids," or "SAD Bids" for short, feel free. If the comment or thought is "typical Rexford idiocy," fine.

[mikeh]

Ken, I commend you for the depth to which you think about your actions, but your posts often, and this one certainly did, remind me of something my then-partner told me some 14 years ago, when I explained how it was that I had carded in a certain way....my carding 'had' to suggest a certain holding.....which I didn't have, and so the opp should go wrong. This was late in a national team trial, so the opp was certainly 'expert'.

 

Gord laughed and said, in essence: 'Mike, nobody thinks like that at the table....your opp was never going to be fooled because he'd never think that way'

 

He was correct.

 

 

Your 1N is a psyche. Calling it an loon rather than a duck doesn't alter the fact that it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck. You can guess to whom the word 'loon' refers :D

 

Your subtle reasoning won't impress a committee if your partner reads the psyche in a borderline situation, and the fact that a weird action of yours once or twice worked against good players only suggests to me that you take a lot of weird actions.....sometimes they will work.

 

Did it ever occur to you that, if you really do bid as you so often suggest on these forums, that your partners are going to become constrained by knowing of your propensities?

[han]

The psyche of 1N idea calls to mind the old Frances rant post recently resurrected.

 

Yes indeed, for me too. I have more sympathy for the old rant now.

[y66]

4S auto for me. I see why others think 3S may be more prudent at match points and this vulnerability.

[kenrexford]

Ken, I commend you for the depth to which you think about your actions, but your posts often, and this one certainly did, remind me of something my then-partner told me some 14 years ago, when I explained how it was that I had carded in a certain way....my carding 'had' to suggest a certain holding.....which I didn't have, and so the opp should go wrong. This was late in a national team trial, so the opp was certainly 'expert'.

 

Gord laughed and said, in essence: 'Mike, nobody thinks like that at the table....your opp was never going to be fooled because he'd never think that way'

 

He was correct.

 

 

Your 1N is a psyche. Calling it an loon rather than a duck doesn't alter the fact that it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck. You can guess to whom the word 'loon' refers :D

 

Your subtle reasoning won't impress a committee if your partner reads the psyche in a borderline situation, and the fact that a weird action of yours once or twice worked against good players only suggests to me that you take a lot of weird actions.....sometimes they will work.

 

Did it ever occur to you that, if you really do bid as you so often suggest on these forums, that your partners are going to become constrained by knowing of your propensities?

 

I understand your points well. My point, however, which you still seem to be missing, is that the call is not made to mislead as the primary focus but rather to send the auction into a different structure. The call is not meant to give the opponents a different view of the hand as much as to get them into the wrong sequence.

 

Maybe a different, unrelated example of the principle will enlighten. I have on occasion opted for a negative double without, say, four hearts. I might have three. An example might be 1♣-1♠-X. I am not making the double to convince them that I have four hearts when I really have three. Rather, having looked at their CC, I am pushing them into a Rosenkranz Redouble sequence, for whatever reason that the same seems to make sense at the time. To object that the double is a stupid psychic because no one would be fooled by this maneuver is nonsensical to me. I don't care what anyone thinks I have, to a degree. I want the opponents to use or to not use Rosenkranz, for some reason.

 

There are many other situations like this, where a call is made that is not strictly the "right" call, or not even close, to the point where it could be viewed as a "psychic." It might also meet that definition. However, the reason the call is made is to induce a structural shift, in the new example a shoft to include Rosenkranz Redouble.

 

In the actual example, people often have not discussed support doubles if Advancer bids 1NT. This is one reason for the call. They end up in uncertain territory.

 

Another reason, for that matter, is to induce those who do use support doubles to double. That keeps the auction low enough for partner to make another call, like 2♦ perhaps.

 

2♠ or 3♠ gives the wrong view to partner at these colors. So, giving him a wrong view with a 1NT call in a sense is just a degree of misbid. If my misnid is worse but causes structural problems for the opponents or induces a double low enough for my partner to complete some description, I have found this sequence to work out well.

 

And, btw, in my regular partnerships where I would do this, we alert 1NT and explain it.

[mikeh]

I understand your points well. My point, however, which you still seem to be missing, is that the call is not made to mislead as the primary focus but rather to send the auction into a different structure. The call is not meant to give the opponents a different view of the hand as much as to get them into the wrong sequence.

 

Maybe a different, unrelated example of the principle will enlighten. I have on occasion opted for a negative double without, say, four hearts. I might have three. An example might be 1♣-1♠-X. I am not making the double to convince them that I have four hearts when I really have three. Rather, having looked at their CC, I am pushing them into a Rosenkranz Redouble sequence, for whatever reason that the same seems to make sense at the time. To object that the double is a stupid psychic because no one would be fooled by this maneuver is nonsensical to me. I don't care what anyone thinks I have, to a degree. I want the opponents to use or to not use Rosenkranz, for some reason.

 

There are many other situations like this, where a call is made that is not strictly the "right" call, or not even close, to the point where it could be viewed as a "psychic." It might also meet that definition. However, the reason the call is made is to induce a structural shift, in the new example a shoft to include Rosenkranz Redouble.

 

In the actual example, people often have not discussed support doubles if Advancer bids 1NT. This is one reason for the call. They end up in uncertain territory.

 

Another reason, for that matter, is to induce those who do use support doubles to double. That keeps the auction low enough for partner to make another call, like 2♦ perhaps.

 

2♠ or 3♠ gives the wrong view to partner at these colors. So, giving him a wrong view with a 1NT call in a sense is just a degree of misbid. If my misnid is worse but causes structural problems for the opponents or induces a double low enough for my partner to complete some description, I have found this sequence to work out well.

 

And, btw, in my regular partnerships where I would do this, we alert 1NT and explain it.

As for whether your 1N is a psyche....you, as a lawyer, should well understand that the Director and any committee will call it a psyche....if you doubt this, then go look up the definition of 'psyche' as used by the ACBL. You will find nothing therein that exempts an otherwise psychic call from being a psyche merely because the bidder has a more subtle goal in mind than misleading his opps.

 

As for the negative double with only 3 hearts, when the usual usage is 4+, well any reader of the BW will know that experts (the MSC panel) will often make negative doubles with less than 4 cards in the promised major, if no other call seems as good. I doubt that anyone would call this call a psyche unless your CC or notes expressly stated that the negative double ALWAYS shows 4+.

 

A psyche of that nature is never 'silly' (altho it could work out poorly), and will almost never be readable in the auction, by anyone. It is not remotely equivalent to your suggested 1N call.

 

Finally, if your partnership bids 1N in this auction with sufficient frequency to warrant an alert, may I suggest that you are playing a ridiculous system. 1N means 'either I have whatever 1N shows for normal people....say about 10 hcp and stoppers in the opps suit and no primary spade support, or I have a preemptive raise where I want to throw my opps off track'.

 

The ethical pressure to which you subject your partner is enormous. Assuming you avoid the committee hearings that seem to me implicit in this agreement, there will ...there have to be....many occasions when your partner will make a terrible decision, being unable to work out what you have. If you claim that your partners never go wrong, then either your partner is so perfect that you'll beat everyone playing straight-up (and thus shouldn't use this method) or your partner is reading your psyches improperly