Sanity check

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&n=s853h642dt752cj42]133|100[/hv]

 

1♥-X-P-?

[broze]

I would always bid 2♦ and consider it obvious. Whether that view is normal, I don't know.

[MrAce]

1♠ for me. In fact i would not even consider anything else but i know i may be in minority on this.

[lalldonn]

I'm not smart enough to not bid 2♦.

[the hog]

1 would always bid 1S and i consider this obvious. I doubt you are in the minority MrAce. I think anything else is a joke.

[SteveMoe]

With MrAce and The Hog. 1♠ has the 1 level recommending it - strongly.

[ggwhiz]

1♠ here too but I need to watch the company I keep. Maybe hang in bars where it's 7 bucks a pint? :) Naaah....

[wyman]

I always bid 1S with this hand too. I'm not sure if my partners do that, nor am I sure that they are aware that I do that, though.

[zasanya]

2♦ for me . A question for those who always bid 1♠ with this or similar hands. Do you or your regular partner alert it?

[wank]

2♦

 

4>3 and when it's right to play 1♠ you always end up playing 3 or 4 possibly doubled.

[Finch]

If I could bid 1S and force partner to pass it, I would, but as I can't, I would bid 2D

[mike777]

fwiw does this really matter?

 

 

1s or 2d?

 

I mean is this an important point?

 

so far no one says so...

[twoshy]

The fact that we would bid a three card suit with 3433 does not mean we should look for opportunities to bid 1♠ on 3. Partner will raise spades more aggressively than he would raise diamonds. Even if this is only to the two level, you've lost the one advantage of 1♠ (playing a level lower), especially since the hands on which partner will raise 1♠ to 2♠ do not overlap with the hands on which partner will raise 2♦ to 3♦. What are the 1♠ bidders intending to rebid over partner's cuebid? I can't see a surefire way of avoiding landing in a 33 non-fit.

[Cyberyeti]

fwiw does this really matter?

 

 

1s or 2d?

 

I mean is this an important point?

 

so far no one says so...

It matters a lot in this case:

 

Partner's hand is:

 

AKxx

x

KJxx

AKQx

 

3♦ is easy, 4♦ makes, even 2♠ is tricky (although I doubt you'll stop there) and partner misplayed spades and only made 6 tricks without any spectacularly bad breaks, both blacks 4-2, diamonds 3-2 Q onside.

 

I said everybody bid 2♦ on this, clearly I wasn't right on that, but I do think it's much the better bid.

[mike777]

It matters a lot in this case:

 

Partner's hand is:

 

AKxx

x

KJxx

AKQx

 

3♦ is easy, 4♦ makes, even 2♠ is tricky (although I doubt you'll stop there) and partner misplayed spades and only made 6 tricks without any spectacularly bad breaks, both blacks 4-2, diamonds 3-2 Q onside.

 

I said everybody bid 2♦ on this, clearly I wasn't right on that, but I do think it's much the better bid.

 

 

 

yes it is clear to say everyone or other bids 2d is wrong but what is your point?

[Cyberyeti]

yes it is clear to say everyone or other bids 2d is wrong but what is your point?

My point was that partner said 1♠ was normal, I said 2♦ was normal, was trying to find out what other people did.

 

I note that all the people I know to be Brits bid 2♦, interested to see a lot of votes from elsewhere for 1♠.

[MrAce]

It matters a lot in this case:

 

Partner's hand is:

 

AKxx

x

KJxx

AKQx

 

3♦ is easy, 4♦ makes, even 2♠ is tricky (although I doubt you'll stop there) and partner misplayed spades and only made 6 tricks without any spectacularly bad breaks, both blacks 4-2, diamonds 3-2 Q onside.

 

I said everybody bid 2♦ on this, clearly I wasn't right on that, but I do think it's much the better bid.

 

Hold on a second, before you say jambo mambos please explain me things that doesn't add up.

 

What do you mean by 3-2 ♦ Q onside ? Qx onside ? Qxx onside ? AQx onside ? Because you are right we can't stop in 2♠ but no way you will stop in 3♦ either. And wtf is wrong with RHO ? Did he pass double with ♦A and 3-4 card ♥ support ? But regardless, of course we all wanna play in diamonds when pd holds that, i will not argue with you on that.

 

But as you said it matters only for this hand. Your pd is allowed to hold a shape like below. Even more he is allowed to hold less strength than 20 hcp. Where stakes will be between playing 2♠ and 3 ♦ and if you wanna simulate go for it, i bet 2♠ will come on top more often than 3♦. Just make sure simulation recognizes 1♥ doubler will have 4 card spades MUCH MORE often than he holds 4 or more diamonds. (Idk how you do that in simulation though, but at least it will know spades will play always 1 level lower than diamonds)

 

AKxx

xx

KJx

AKQx

 

 

 

Having said that, i don't think 2♦ is ridicilious, imo not even close to be ridicilious. It is actually the legit bid. You can't call ridicilious to the only legit bid even if you totally dislike it. Whether you are right or wrong doesnt matter either. Idk why Hog reacted the way he did but he sees things, especially the ones that he doesn't agree with, ridicilious most of the time.

 

I agree with Mike777, regardless of what you choose to bid over x, it is not as important as you all make out of it. Again, i don't think bidding 2♦ is ridicilious and i don't think bidding 1♠ is insane and i don't think you should check yours or your pds sanity, at least not with this hand. You may even convince me that 2♦ is a better bid, you will not convince me that 1♠ is insane though. But yes, 2♦ is the normal bid if this is what you meant by sanity check.

[rhm]

Hold on a second, before you say jambo mambos please explain me things that doesn't add up.

 

What do you mean by 3-2 ♦ Q onside ? Qx onside ? Qxx onside ? AQx onside ? Because you are right we can't stop in 2♠ but no way you will stop in 3♦ either. And wtf is wrong with RHO ? Did he pass double with ♦A and 3-4 card ♥ support ? But regardless, of course we all wanna play in diamonds when pd holds that, i will not argue with you on that.

 

But as you said it matters only for this hand. Your pd is allowed to hold a shape like below. Even more he is allowed to hold less strength than 20 hcp. Where stakes will be between playing 2♠ and 3 ♦ and if you wanna simulate go for it, i bet 2♠ will come on top more often than 3♦. Just make sure simulation recognizes 1♥ doubler will have 4 card spades MUCH MORE often than he holds 4 or more diamonds. (Idk how you do that in simulation though, but at least it will know spades will play always 1 level lower than diamonds)

 

AKxx

xx

KJx

AKQx

 

 

 

Having said that, i don't think 2♦ is ridicilious, imo not even close to be ridicilious. It is actually the legit bid. You can't call ridicilious to the only legit bid even if you totally dislike it. Whether you are right or wrong doesnt matter either. Idk why Hog reacted the way he did but he sees things, especially the ones that he doesn't agree with, ridicilious most of the time.

 

I agree with Mike777, regardless of what you choose to bid over x, it is not as important as you all make out of it. Again, i don't think bidding 2♦ is ridicilious and i don't think bidding 1♠ is insane and i don't think you should check yours or your pds sanity, at least not with this hand. You may even convince me that 2♦ is a better bid, you will not convince me that 1♠ is insane though. But yes, 2♦ is the normal bid if this is what you meant by sanity check.

 

I beg to differ.

Bidding 1♠ is clearly asking for trouble.

It is true of course that partner is more likely to hold 4 cards in spades than diamonds.

But this is the reason you should avoid bidding a three card major in response to a takeout double, particularly if you are broke.

Of course if the bidding would likely stop in either 1♠ or 2♦, 1♠ would be a far safer choice than 2♦. 2♦ could be a disaster.

What you know is the bidding will not stop in 1♠ and you know you have no spade fit and you know you will get too high if you bid 1♠ and a final penalty double is looming just round the corner.

But partner does not know and partner will get much more excited, if he "knows" about a major suit fit than about a minor.

It is easy to claim that partner must reckon with such a hand. The truth is that partner can not cope with all hands you might have between this one and hands just short of a 2♠ response to the takeout double.

The takeout doubler will often want to raise spades particularly in competition with little extra values just to confirm he has 4 cards in spades.

This may be theoretically unsound, but if he doesn't you will get stolen blind far too often.

I rather bid 2♣ than 1♠.

What do you do if you respond 1♠ and partner next cue-bids 2♥?

1♠ here shows a lack of foresight.

After 2♦ and 2♥ by partner you can bid 2♠ and an intelligent partner should realize you are bidding a three card suit, probably out of desperation.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

I beg to differ.

Bidding 1♠ is clearly asking for trouble.

It is true of course that partner is more likely to hold 4 cards in spades than diamonds.

But this is the reason you should avoid bidding a three card major in response to a takeout double, particularly if you are broke.

Of course if the bidding would likely stop in either 1♠ or 2♦, 1♠ would be a far safer choice than 2♦. 2♦ could be a disaster.

What you know is the bidding will not stop in 1♠ and you know you have no spade fit and you know you will get too high if you bid 1♠ and a final penalty double is looming just round the corner.

But partner does not know and partner will get much more excited, if he "knows" about a major suit fit than about a minor.

It is easy to claim that partner must reckon with such a hand. The truth is that partner can not cope with all hands you might have between this one and hands just short of a 2♠ response to the takeout double.

The takeout doubler will often want to raise spades particularly in competition with little extra values just to confirm he has 4 cards in spades.

This may be theoretically unsound, but if he doesn't you will get stolen blind far too often.

I rather bid 2♣ than 1♠.

What do you do if you respond 1♠ and partner next cue-bids 2♥?

1♠ here shows a lack of foresight.

After 2♦ and 2♥ by partner you can bid 2♠ and an intelligent partner should realize you are bidding a three card suit, probably out of desperation.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

This basically says what I wanted to say, I think 1♠ is horrible.

 

To Mr Ace - I expect to make 3♦ most of the time barring really bad breaks. 1♥-X-P-2♦-P-2♥-P-2♠-P-3♦ would be my auction of choice.

 

In spades, I need no more than xxxx(x), xxx, x, xxxx(x) to make 4♠, so if the auction goes 1♥-X-P-1♠-2♥-2♠ I'll have another go and we'll be at the 3 level also.

 

The actual holding was AQ onside, but Qx does just as well and makes 10, Qxx/AQx you may still make 10 but 9 is more likely.

 

Also more likely if I'm 4234 with a 20 count is that I have Ax/Kx in hearts and can rebid 1N.

[Fluffy]

I know many people in my area for whom having 2 diamonds for a double is better than having only 3 spades. All of them are poor players in my opinion, but not because of this, they simply don't play very well overall.

[Finch]

Just make sure simulation recognizes 1♥ doubler will have 4 card spades MUCH MORE often than he holds 4 or more diamonds.

 

 

It is true of course that partner is more likely to hold 4 cards in spades than diamonds.

 

Why is this so obvious? It looks completely wrong to me, given our hand.

Yes, when the auction starts 1H dbl then, a priori, partner is likely (but not MUCH MORE) to have 4 spades more often than 4 diamonds.

 

But here it is pretty obvious that partner has a strong hand. If he has a strong hand then all bets are off on his shape.

If he has a strong hand with a long suit it probably doesn't matter much what we do; if anything we should avoid bidding his long suit. If he has clubs, 1S will work better because he can jump to 3C.

If he is strong balanced he's going to bid some number of NT next, in which case if he doesn't have four spades we're better off bidding 1S because we can pass 2NT; if he is strong balanced with 4D he'll still rebid in NT while with spades he'll probably raise spades, so it's a bit random which bid will work better.

If he has a super strong take-out double, he's just as likely* to have 4 spades as 4 diamonds, and we're much better off bidding diamonds.

 

*OK, not quite, because we have more diamonds than spades, but only for that reason.

[ArtK78]

For what it is worth, I would bid 2♦. But I can understand bidding 1♠.

 

The only thing I think is wrong is those who think that 1♠ is right and 2♦ is horrible or vice versa.

[lalldonn]

I've tried to understand 1♠. I can think of one advantage, which is it lets partner rebid 1NT (assuming he doesn't have four spades) instead of 2NT if that's what he is doing. But I can not think of any other significant advantages, and certainly nothing that adds up to the fact that virtually any time partner has four spades we are going to end up in a really stupid contract at too high of a level. (And that is far from the only disadvantage of course, but it's the biggest one.)

 

Bidding a three card suit here is something that should be done out of necessity, not out of choice.

 

Idk why Hog reacted the way he did but he sees things, especially the ones that he doesn't agree with, ridicilious most of the time.

Welcome to the bbo forums!

[SteveMoe]

Can we infer we are talking about MP Pairs? If so the Major suit bias weighs heavily.

 

When the auction starts 1♥-double-pass, I expect partner to hold soemthing like HJxx x HJxx Hxxx. The minimum I look for is 10 WHCP and 4=1=4=4. Let's not have the rare hand AKxx x KJxx AKQx cloud the deliberation ("Resulting Alert"). Opposite partner's expected minimum 7 LTC, we hold 12 LTC and rate to be down 3 tricks in ♦.

 

By bidding 1♠ we are choosing a 7 trick contract over an 8 tricks contract because we are starting with a negative expectancy already.

 

Yes it is uncertain/unlikely that we will ever be allowed to play in 1♠ but there are other benefits:

 

1♥-double-pass-1♠

Pass-2♥-pass-2♠ is a clear warning to PASS and play 2♠. It is also safer now to introduce ♦. Partner will not expect more than 4=4.

 

-or-

 

1♥-double-pass-1♠

2♥-double-pass-2♠ is also a clear warning to pass.

 

-or-

 

1♥-double-pass-1♠

double-pass-pass we have the option to play 1♠X when they are likely cold for game.

 

With the given hand, partner has a very strong 3.5 loser perfect shape double - a rare holding. We rate to make 8.5 tricks in our 8 card fit.

 

I think 1♠ is a standout call on xxx xxxx xxx xxx and offers a better expectancy opposite partner's likely holdings with xxx xxx xxxx xxx / xxx xxxx

[Trinidad]

What do you think is easier to play? A 3-4 spade fit with a singleton next to the 4 card suit or a 4-3 diamond fit with a singleton next to the 3 card suit? I would say that the singleton next to the 3 trumps will take about one and a half tricks more.

 

So even if the doubler has only 3 diamonds and 4 spades, 2♦ is expected to go down less than 1♠.

 

And then I am not even mentioning the possibility that the doubler could have 4 diamonds... or 3 spades... or 4 diamonds and 3 spades.

 

Rik