ATB - missed grand over undiscussed multi

[lowerline]

The meaning of West's pass is relevant. If his pass asks East's major, North can afford to pass with a hand without a 5crd suit. If West's pass shows diamonds, North must bid if cannot stand 2Dx.

 

Steven

 

 

[Zelandakh]

Does anyone actually play that Pass asks for the major here? I have seen both XX for this and 2♥ P/C but having Pass as anything less than an offer to play diamonds surely has to be bad.

[gnasher]

I think it's normal to play pass as diamonds, redouble as asking for the major, and 2M as a hand that wants to compete in the other major.

[Jinksy]

On the OP hand, it seems to me that North should respond 2NT, planning to bid 3♠ over 3♣. When doubler shows a big hand with spades instead we are off to the races. Without any agreements whatsoever (not even basic Dixon?!) it seems churlish to assign any blame at all when a making slam has been reached.

 

We had 'basic Dixon' in the sense that the X had a specific range, other bids natural and limited.

[Zelandakh]

My understanding of basic Dixon is that any action by Doubler after (2♦) - X - (P) - 2M; (P) shows the big hand. I do sympathise with not knowing whether an unknown partner has any notion of this though.

[Jinksy]

I would assume that much, but it still leaves in question how big the big hand is. I can't have partner passing because he thinks I have a 19-21ish count and he doesn’t have enough for game. Given what PhilKing thinks about 2S being right on the hand he had, there’s at least some possibility he has a very wide range, sufficient that 3S might be an invite.

[PeterAlan]

Disclaimer: The OP was posted in "Expert Class Bridge", so I've got to respond there, but nothing I'm about to say should be regarded as expert in any way :) ... in particular, I'm not about to offer any technical solutons to Jinksy's problem.

 

Further information: I don't think Jinksy's mentioned that the hand arose at IMPs rather than MPs - in fact, in an English regional (mainly one county) teams-of-8 league match between one of the city's bridge club teams and a team representing its university bridge club. So fuddy-duddies vs juniors ...

 

I gave the variant auction earlier on because I thought it might provide an initial, simpler way into Jinksy's more difficult problem. It was at our table; I held Jinksy's cards (S) and the auction proceeded with very much the same structure: (P) P (2♥) X ; (P) 2♠ (P) 6♠ All Pass. (I believe that essentially this also happened at the one other table that got to slam; the fourth stopped in game.)

 

My thoughts on that, at the time and after the event, were:

 

(1) As I indicated, our X of 2♥ doesn't give a very precise characterisation of S's hand - it shows 4+ ♠s and a hand that wants to get into the auction (thin opening upwards). Having said that, opposite a X that shows 4+ ♠ and an opening hand, I think there's a good case, vulnerable at teams, for bidding 4♠ and not just 3 on N's cards. (The 5th ♠'s a big card; think how much worse the hand could be.) We don't have elaborate continuations available for either N or S (we'd probably muddle or forget them).

 

(2) I bid 6♠ as S partly because I felt that if two young E/Ws had nothing more enterprising to say at the vulnerability than an un-raised 2♥ then partner must have something in reserve. I know we have at least 9 trumps, and I'm prepared to assume that they're likely to play without loss; the ♣s are likely to be worth 4 tricks either through force or by an ruff in partner's hand; I'm pretty sure we're not missing both ♦A and ♦K in addition to the ♥, and partner's playing the hand, so if she has just ♦K x etc it's protected on opening lead; and such additional values as she has must be usefully placed in the red suits. Making the broad assumptions I did about the black suits, I can see 10 tricks in my hand and I'm prepared to play partner for the other 2 without keycard enquiries, which won't help me much with a final decision. Yes, I can find out whether partner has ♠Q (what I can't do is find out if partner has 5 ♠s as an alternative to ♠Q) and can enquire either about red Ks or the ♦KQ (but not both), but I'm not sure the extra information to me is worth the extra information to the defenders, so with all the above I judged to bid the small slam and leave it at that.

 

(3) This route probably gives us the best chance of getting to 7, if partner argues that there's no reason to suppose I'm void in ♦s, so if I can bid 6 then she's got enough extra - in particular, ♦A - to go to the grand. I don't think we're at all likely to get there on a more scientific sequence but, as others have said, getting to slam is the important result and I don't think we should lose too much sleep over stopping at 6.

 

In your case, the multi opening and the 13-15 balanced option for the double make the auction much less easy, in my opinion, than ours. In this context, I too would bid 3♠, but not 4, on the N cards. It's worth knowing whether W's pass of 2♦ X is saying anything specific or merely done in the knowledge that E has another bid, but, for obvious reasons, I have more sympathy than others here with your jump to 6♠, which seems a very pratical bid despite E/W arguably being perhaps less limited than at our table - it's interesting to see the various suggestions for more extensive methods, but at the table you didn't have them available to you. Similar comments apply to the possibility of N now bidding 7, but on your auction there's more reason to allow for, say, a possible ♦ void and ♥K x in S's hand, so settling for 6 seems natural enough.

[dake50]

Blast to 6S AND assign the blame for missing grand???

Am I hearing this question correctly?

Didn't 6S blast accept might miss a grand, might be a wild guess???

[lowerline]

I think it's normal to play pass as diamonds, redouble as asking for the major, and 2M as a hand that wants to compete in the other major.

 

Playing multi myself, pass is diamonds and rdbl forces a 2♥ bid to play in responder's suit. That way all the other responses can stay the same.

 

When I started playing multi years ago, rdbl showed diamonds and pass was just 'nothing to say'. Still, I think that pass showing diamonds must be alerted.

 

Steven

[PhilKing]

Still, I think that pass showing diamonds must be alerted.

 

Steven

 

It's natural, showing a desire to play in 2♦, so clearly it should be alerted.

[han]

I think it's normal to play pass as diamonds, redouble as asking for the major, and 2M as a hand that wants to compete in the other major.

 

I don't like this defense as it doesn't allow you to play 2H when partner has spades.

 

I think it's normal to play pass as diamonds, redouble as asking for the major, and 2M as a hand that wants to play 2M.

 

I think it's better to play pass as diamonds, redouble as a puppet to 2H (a hand that wants to play 2M) and 2H/2S as pass/correct.

 

The differences are small and probably won't matter. The most important part is to play pass as diamonds, as you also said.

 

I would also interpret 3H in the OP's auction as a spade raise. Mikeh is right that is an agreement that one should be careful with absent discussion. However, it is a nearly universal agreement in the Netherlands where many (perhaps most) pairs play multi. And if you are going to play against multi-pairs without making agreements, it is going to cost you.

[han]

Maybe the OP should change his double style. I doubt that the need to show balanced hands with 13-15 is useful.

 

It is by far the most common defense here among strong pairs. It is often played against a variety of 2-level openings that show (as the weak option) a weak hand lacking the suit that's bid.

 

When you double you are either 13-15 balanced or you are very strong, so it is not a problem to play 2S as 0-9. When doubler is 13-15 he'll pass. When doubler is very strong he'll bid, just as he was planning to in the first place.

 

My experience with other methods is very limited, so I cannot honestly compare them. I do like the method though. The 13-15 balanced hand is probably the most common (positive) hand type, and it leaves partner in a good position to compete for the partscore or bid game. Usually the opponents bid 2M, after which it is common to play negative doubles and transfer lebensohl.

 

The downside compared to some other methods is that you have to pass initially with (not very strong) takeout doubles. In my experience you usually get to double at the 2-level on the next round, and occasionally at the 3-level.

[han]

.

[Codo]

It is by far the most common defense here among strong pairs. It is often played against a variety of 2-level openings that show (as the weak option) a weak hand lacking the suit that's bid.

 

When you double you are either 13-15 balanced or you are very strong, so it is not a problem to play 2S as 0-9. When doubler is 13-15 he'll pass. When doubler is very strong he'll bid, just as he was planning to in the first place.

 

My experience with other methods is very limited, so I cannot honestly compare them. I do like the method though. The 13-15 balanced hand is probably the most common (positive) hand type, and it leaves partner in a good position to compete for the partscore or bid game. Usually the opponents bid 2M, after which it is common to play negative doubles and transfer lebensohl.

 

The downside compared to some other methods is that you have to pass initially with (not very strong) takeout doubles. In my experience you usually get to double at the 2-level on the next round, and occasionally at the 3-level.

 

In my opinion, you have hree problems:

1. If partner competes into a 5 card suit, he may plays it as a 5-2 fit at the third level. Is this really a imp winner?

2. If you play the double as balanced, you need to pass over 2 ♦ with a 1444 hand. If the opps do just bid 2 spade, you are in perfect shape. But if they compete to 3 ♠ espacially whith an inivitational sequence, you get problems. There is no way to find your fit anymore.

3. If your left opponent is strong, you may have no place to go.

 

So, this defence was extremly common here 15 years ago and maybe it is still the most common one.

 

But I prefer a double as a take out of spades-(or the strong hand)

This gets you in against spades at the lowest possible level, has three suits to choose from in case of an extra strong LHO and partner can easily compete- knowing about the fit.

Of course you cannot show your balanced weak NT anymore- one of the most common hand types. But maybe not one of the hand types which you need to show over a one suiter...

[Zelandakh]

In my opinion, you have hree problems:

1. If partner competes into a 5 card suit, he may plays it as a 5-2 fit at the third level. Is this really a imp winner?

The situation is not dissimilar from bidding 2NT over a weak 2 except that we are here more likely to find 3 card support opposite.

 

 

2. If you play the double as balanced, you need to pass over 2 ♦ with a 1444 hand. If the opps do just bid 2 spade, you are in perfect shape. But if they compete to 3 ♠ espacially whith an inivitational sequence, you get problems. There is no way to find your fit anymore.

In the method given (Dixon), an overcall of 2♥ shows a limited takeout of spades. Not everyone likes this since you lose the (important) natural 2♥ overcall. Assuming you are not playing that, the chances of them being able to compete directly to 3♠ when you have heart length are fairly slim. LHO will normally have short hearts and be forced to respond 2♥ and then you can double RHO's 2♠.

 

 

3. If your left opponent is strong, you may have no place to go.

That may be but if LHO is that strong then they may well have game on - and 2♦X is not game...

 

 

But I prefer a double as a take out of spades-(or the strong hand)

As in the ACBL defence, or the Italian one? I am sure the Italian defence is a good option although I have never played it. I am not convinced by (the 2♥ overcall in) the ACBL one. I do very much like the various multi-double defences but they are probably too complex for the average partnership, especially if you are only meeting a multi 2♦ opening a few times per year.