What to do with this

[kenrexford]

In real life, when the points are balanced, you would always rather play 1N than defend it. Hence the trope about the "race to 1N".

 

I'm not exactly sure that this is right. If everyone is vulnerable, I'd rather hand over -90 than -100. In other words, if the fate of the universe is that the opponents take 7 tricks no matter what, I want to defend.

[the hog]

[hv=pc=n&s=s974ht8652d92cak9&w=s86hakq73dk83c864&n=saj53hj4daqt4cqt5&e=skqt2h9dj765cj732&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp1hd1sppp&p=d9d3dqd6dad7d2d8d4d5s4]399|300[/hv]

 

At the table, I bid 1♠ and played it right there. Down two.

 

There was no route to a plus score. After the hand, I thought partner should have bid 1NT. This wouldn't be making, but it would only be down one. Minus 200 was a multi-way tie for bottom, minus 100 would have been close to average. If I passed, everything would depend on what LHO did. If she passed and partner played 1♥ doubled, we would have a zero; if LHO bid 1NT and we held it to 1, we would be above average.

 

Your "partner" needs some bridge lessons. The pass is truly absurd.

Quiddity, this is a 1S bid, as I and others have posted. I could not play with someone whose judgement suggested that this hand was a pass. Why do you need to tremble and quake in your boots because your rho has doubled. You could still be cold for 4S even. People have been known to x on 3244 shapes you know. By the way, do you realise that if the x is passed out, (not a totally unreasonable action), you are -2 in 2H?

[Stephen Tu]

Your "partner" needs some bridge lessons. The pass is truly absurd.

Quiddity, this is a 1S bid, as I and others have posted. I could not play with someone whose judgement suggested that this hand was a pass. Why do you need to tremble and quake in your boots because your rho has doubled.

 

This seems massive exaggeration. He's not passing out of *fear*. He's passing because of *opportunity*. You have opportunity to be +100, +200 by defending, while by bidding reasonably often you end up only +90 or maybe minus. Or maybe the opps are making +90, and by bidding you go -100/-200.

 

You could still be cold for 4S even.

This isn't much of an argument. You "could" be a lot things. You "could" be headed for +200 with no game on by passing. What matters is the frequency of each outcome. I don't see the "bid 1s, anything else is absurd" people quantifying how often the various good and bad things can occur, so their arguments aren't particularly convincing.

 

I'm not sure what's best, but I think people are underrating pass at these colors. I don't think it's absurd at all. Best would be to deal out a bunch of hands and look generally if you get better score defending or declaring.

 

Strengthen the hand, surely at some point there is a boundary where you prefer to xx planning to x rather than bid 1s. I don't see why only 1s and xx are possibilities, that there can't be some strength window where pass is percentage. I don't know if this hand falls in it, but I really don't see why 1s so clearly >>>> pass for most people in this thread.

[aguahombre]

I don't see why only 1s and xx are possibilities, that there can't be some strength window where pass is percentage. I don't know if this hand falls in it, but I really don't see why 1s so clearly >>>> pass for most people in this thread.

I don't know all the "percentages" involved. But, it would seem that the strength window where pass is best would be when we want to advise partner that we don't have enough strength to respond ---and otherwise show a responding hand with 4+spades. Perhaps this information might be more useful than a pass with zero to (what?) range when he opened with certain hands and the auction continues (competitively or not).

 

1S and XX are the possibilities, depending on which one of those two choices shows a 1S response in the style we employ.

[the hog]

This seems massive exaggeration. He's not passing out of *fear*. He's passing because of *opportunity*. You have opportunity to be +100, +200 by defending, while by bidding reasonably often you end up only +90 or maybe minus. Or maybe the opps are making +90, and by bidding you go -100/-200.

 

 

This isn't much of an argument. You "could" be a lot things. You "could" be headed for +200 with no game on by passing. What matters is the frequency of each outcome. I don't see the "bid 1s, anything else is absurd" people quantifying how often the various good and bad things can occur, so their arguments aren't particularly convincing.

 

I'm not sure what's best, but I think people are underrating pass at these colors. I don't think it's absurd at all. Best would be to deal out a bunch of hands and look generally if you get better score defending or declaring.

 

Strengthen the hand, surely at some point there is a boundary where you prefer to xx planning to x rather than bid 1s. I don't see why only 1s and xx are possibilities, that there can't be some strength window where pass is percentage. I don't know if this hand falls in it, but I really don't see why 1s so clearly >>>> pass for most people in this thread.

 

Stephen, I suggest you r-read Quiddity's posts. He(?) keeps on talking about downsides. This does not seem like looking for an opportunity to me.

[han]

Responding at the one-level with king queen ten fourth sounds like an opportunity to me.

[Stephen Tu]

Responding at the one-level with king queen ten fourth sounds like an opportunity to me.

 

Defending vulnerable opponents on a possible misfit sounds like an opportunity to me.

 

Really this kind of argument is pointless. This is a matchpoint problem. The differences between +100 and +90, -100 and -90, +200 vs. anything matter, quite a bit. People making arguments that "if opponent had passed, you would bid 1s" are also silly. The opponents entering the auction have given you additional avenues to get a good score, which are closed off if you bid 1s. Just because one has *enough* to respond, doesn't mean that you are sure to actually get a better score by responding than passing. Additional strength helps you on defense also.

 

Bidding 1s works better when:

- both sides make a partial

- your side makes 120/110/140 etc. in a partial, their side gets out for 100, your side wasn't going to be clever enough to double them

- partner is going to be able to bid a making game opposite a response, but opposite pass is shut out in some manner, you end up not doubling them, or double them but worth less than your game

- LHO was going to leave the takeout double in (despite being under the bidder, which is going to be rare, I doubt most would on the actual hand), 1h goes down, bidding 1s leads to a better scoring spot

 

Passing works when:

- neither side makes

- their side makes, but only for 90, while you go down

- their side goes down for 100, you can only make 90

- their side goes for 200, doubled or not, you have only a partial, or weren't likely to reach game

- your side is headed for 200/worse if you had bid

- bidding leads to partner bidding a game which fails, while you were going plus on defense (or -90).

- LHO gambles a pass of the takeout double, but partner has enough and makes it

 

Unless you are going to somehow quantify how often bidding > passing, by going over a largish number of hands in a simulation, to me your arguments don't really mean anything.

[JLOGIC]

I think passing is fine and I would do that, it is an old fashioned concept but passing with 4144 r/r and some values is not bad, you prevent taking LHO off the hook (and prevent putting yourself on the hook!).

 

Yes, we could miss a 4-4 spade fit, but often they will have no fit and we will have no fit in which case we want them to declare (and even if they have a fit, letting them declare will be ok if we don't have a 4-4 spade fit probably).

 

I don't really expect many bad things to happen after bidding 1S. About the worst is partner rebidding 1NT or 2H and playing there, no big deal.

 

The big deal there is that we have missed out on our chance to defend 1S or 1N or 2C or 2D and are instead playing 1N or 2H ourselves. Wouldn't you agree that that rates to be bad?

 

I know it is a common thought process that we should just bid whatever we would have had RHO passed when they X, but I really think that is wrong. I am passing because LHO is (basically) forced to bid and I am happy about the idea of defending on a misfit hand r/r at MP. Of course, sometimes I will lose when partner is 4-5 in the majors or some other hand types, but I am trying to make (what I think) is the highest percentage bid.

 

Yes, I think he should. I don't think he needs significant extras to double with that shape. Even if responder has a 5 count we don't want to let them play 2D.

 

quiddity I was with you in this thread (at least regarding the merits of passing), but it is certainly a fringe view (and that is tactful wording) that partner should X with a 4513 13 count after 1H X p 2D. I would never expect my partner to do so, and I'd expect to lose the board by passing in this scenario. Fortunately I think I will win the board on more normal hand types.

[JLOGIC]

hmm I missed page 2 on this thread. I see I just repeated much of what stephen tu said.

[JLOGIC]

In real life, when the points are balanced, you would always rather play 1N than defend it. Hence the trope about the "race to 1N".

 

Umm, no? lol. This is def not true when you are r/r, you try to defend 1N not play it.

[JLOGIC]

dbl post as usual, crappy internet sry

[quiddity]

quiddity I was with you in this thread (at least regarding the merits of passing), but it is certainly a fringe view (and that is tactful wording) that partner should X with a 4513 13 count after 1H X p 2D. I would never expect my partner to do so, and I'd expect to lose the board by passing in this scenario. Fortunately I think I will win the board on more normal hand types.

 

Hmm.. Why is it better to require extra values for this double? Do the risks of missing game and going for a number outweigh the risk of failing to compete when it looks very likely that they have a fit?

[aguahombre]

Hmm.. Why is it better to require extra values for this double? Do the risks of missing game and going for a number outweigh the risk of failing to compete when it looks very likely that they have a fit?

Fit vs. fit battles for partscores are reasonable when each side has somewhere around half the deck (17-23). When partner's pass means he chose not to show a responding hand nor a spade suit, IMO it would be extremely unlikely that both of the criteria will be met when you hold your 4-5-1-3 13 count. If it turns out he has a responding hand with four spades, his "operation" failed.