Low level decision

[bluecalm]

[hv=pc=n&n=sqj73hk832datct63&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1sdp]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPs.

I thought the action I took is the best but I am yet to find any support for it (other than the actual score).

I think (semi) resonable options are: 2H, 2S->3H, 3H, 1N, 2N.

 

Your choice ?

[mikeh]

Tough problem.

 

I rule out 2♠, since my agreement (and I think it is a mainstream tho not universal one) is that a cuebid creates a force until we reach game or there has been suit agreement via a raise....which is tantamount to a gf in this situation (the only non-game contracts after a 2♠ advance of a takeout double of 1♠ are 4m).

 

I rule out 2N because it is an overbid and eliminates playing in hearts.

 

So I see the options as 1N, 2♥ and 3♥.

 

My tendencies here are to swing low, persuading myself that my spades are wasted (in hearts), RHO may overruff in that suit, my trump spots are horrible and so on. But at least on the forum I am going to make the call that I think is the technically best: 3♥.

 

I reject 1N altho I think that when it is right, it rates to be very right. I just feel that there is too much chance that we belong in hearts, and that we can't get there from 1N.

[Yu18772]

I think I would bid 1NT - if partner can invite, I will still have time to bid ♥, and my hand is in the upper limit of 1NT, but its within that limit imo.

If partner made an agressive t/o X 1NT may be our best spot. 2H seems an underbid, 3H just takes lots of space and 2NT is overbid imo.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu

[aguahombre]

3H opposite my partner's double. Close between 1N and 2H opposite a modern expert.

[PhilKing]

Two Hearts - showing 7-10 the way I play it!

[aguahombre]

Two Hearts - showing 7-10 the way I play it!

Really? You give up a natural constructive 1NT advance to a double, in favor of a lebenish 1NT? Or do you just never hold zero points?

[PhilKing]

Really? You give up a natural constructive 1NT advance to a double, in favor of a lebenish 1NT? Or do you just never hold zero points?

 

1NT response is 0-6 any or a normal 1NT response. Doubler continuations are surprisingly simple:

 

pass = normal (when 1NT is terrible, they rescue us). And there's another way of looking at it - say we have a normal minimum double and normal minimum two-of a suit response - the situation basically doesn't exist, because 90% of the time they will compete in spades.

2♣ = a raise to 2NT

2♦+ = the same as if we continued over a 2♣ response, except that 2NT is 19-21 bal.

 

A hand from the Premier league on Saturday illustrates the benefits. You hold ♠Axx ♥Aqxx ♦A ♣qjxxx and they open One Spade in third seat. Playing this method you can double with a clear conscience. If partner responds 1NT you bid 2♣ (3+ clubs 16-18), and if he bids 2♦ (0-6 nat) you now bid 2♥ showing real clubs. If partner is 4342 with a bust, you have scrambled rather efficiently, and if he is 4243 he can go back to clubs. As it happens, partner had a 3433 pipless 7-count with four hearts and would scrape up 2♥ and you would bid 4. Our opponents overcalled 1NT and played there making 11 tricks.

[jogs]

2♥. The QJxx in spades does not help much toward 4♥.

[lalldonn]

Joe Grue likes to play 3♥ promises at least 5, and with 4 he bids 2♥ or cuebids with no in between. I don't have much experience with that style myself, just mentioning it.

[bluecalm]

We passed hand here so I think 2S->3H can't be forcing but maybe our hand is still too weak for that ?

[gnasher]

2NT. RHO hasn't raised, so partner is quite likely to have a doubleton spade. If he does, we probably belong in notrumps even if we have a 4-4 heart fit.

[the hog]

1NT for me. The hand is balanced. My spades are unlikely to be useful in a ♥ contract. Looks easy to me. I can live with 2H but think it is an inferior call.

[SteveMoe]

With my partners, 1N tends to deny 4 ♥s. I will bid 2♥. Too many slow values in their suit for more now.

[JLOGIC]

textbook jeff reubens 1N heh. The idea being you at least show some values, as opposed to bidding 2H which has a much wider range and takes up more room as well. It will work well if partner is passing 2H but bidding over 1N.

[JLOGIC]

 

 

I reject 1N altho I think that when it is right, it rates to be very right. I just feel that there is too much chance that we belong in hearts, and that we can't get there from 1N.

 

I disagree, we can still find hearts if partner bids 2N we can bid 3H and he will be able to work out our hand type. If partner has enough to bid 3N over 1N, then we will probably make no matter what, our hand is quite good. If partner is passing 1N, 1N is probably just as good of a partial as 2H most of the time.

 

Thats why I prefer 1N to 2H. Of course since you're choosing to invite it's all moot :P

[jogs]

What about the portion of boards where opponents compete with 2♠? Think we want partner to lead hearts.

[bluecalm]

I bid 1N and it was winning action as even 2H was already down and it was +180 for us. Partner had 9x ATx K98x KQJx. I now wonder if 2N is better than 1N though; maybe QJ9x of spades would make it so?

I don't like the idea of forcing the bidding to what is often 7 trump 3 level partial with wasted values in spades ; I think we're often going down there on hands where there is easy 90/120 available; seems like clear mistake to me but none of my friends agree with me on this one.

[jogs]

Granted 1NT is clearly the winning action when the doubler has only three hearts. 1♠ - X. On which percentage of the boards does the doubler hold only three hearts? What's the histogram for doubler's heart holding?

[aguahombre]

Granted 1NT is clearly the winning action when the doubler has only three hearts. 1♠ - X. On which percentage of the boards does the doubler hold only three hearts? What's the histogram for doubler's heart holding?

Thinking wrong there. It is not the heart count that is particularly relevant. It is doubler's likely spade count (two on the auction) and the orientation of the advancer's hand. Looks like it belongs in NT if we play it, and the 1NT advance shows about 8-10. That is not a double-dummy evaluation.

[bluecalm]

I think the question is how often we miss 4H after 1NT which we wouldn't after 3H or 2S->3H and how often we miss 3NT/4H after 2H which we wouldn't after 1NT (I think both happens).

I also think it's clear 1NT will make more way more often than 3H and probably about as often as 2H. I have trouble believing partner has nice hand with 4 hearts which passes 1N but which bid 4H after 3H often enough to offset worse partials and NT games. 2 spades are not guaranteed though so such hands do exist (x AQxx xxxx KQJx or something) though it just seems to me they aren't that frequent.

[JLOGIC]

I bid 1N and it was winning action as even 2H was already down and it was +180 for us. Partner had 9x ATx K98x KQJx. I now wonder if 2N is better than 1N though; maybe QJ9x of spades would make it so?

I don't like the idea of forcing the bidding to what is often 7 trump 3 level partial with wasted values in spades ; I think we're often going down there on hands where there is easy 90/120 available; seems like clear mistake to me but none of my friends agree with me on this one.

 

2N is foreign to me, but I and my partners are all on the super aggressive side of the scale when it comes to making white takeout doubles, so no doubt years of this has significantly impacted my judgement. It still feels wrong to me, we have no spot cards other than the ten of diamonds which is in our doubleton. Your idea about the 9 of spades is getting closer, but I'd still want more.

 

If game trying I like 2N a lot more than anything else

[jogs]

Thinking wrong there. It is not the heart count that is particularly relevant. It is doubler's likely spade count (two on the auction) and the orientation of the advancer's hand. Looks like it belongs in NT if we play it, and the 1NT advance shows about 8-10. That is not a double-dummy evaluation.

 

 

When doubler has only one spade, it increases the chances of opponents competing with 2♠.

 

Both heart and spade length matter. Estimating tricks is multi-way ANOVA. You are on to something in that when doubler has two spades, it is much less likely that we can make over one more trick in hearts than notrumps.

[Fluffy]

QJxx is very good for NT, so for me the decision is close between 1NT and 2NT. I think my partners make more agressive take out doubles after I am a passed hand so 1NT would be my choice, if I was unpassed it would be very close, but depends on who is partner.