Breaking the rules

[lmilne]

[hv=pc=n&s=st98764h9dk7ckt32&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2sp3s4h]133|200[/hv]

[billw55]

No way. Pass and not close.

[Trinidad]

The fact that I broke the rules on the previous round does not mean that I need to do it on this round too.

 

Rik

[Codo]

Well,I may think about X to get partner away from 4 ♠, but I would just pass.

 

If I play weak twos with a wide variety of possible hands and honour concentration (or the lack of it)- and I do- you have to pay a price for this. This hand is an example...

 

 

[mikeh]

Either your opening was within partnership expectations or it wasn't.

 

If it was, then you have zero reason to bid again, since your hand is within what partner will expect, and he chose to bid only 3♠. For all you know, he made that choice hoping that they'd bid and he's happy. If he's unhappy, and wants to save over 4♥, he shouldn't have bid 3♠.

 

If your bid was not within partnership expectations, then you presumably did it because you felt that it was an experiment worth trying.

 

Either it worked, and they are in the wrong contract, or it didn't. You can't tell. Maybe they should be in 3N. Maybe they should be in slam. Maybe they are in the contract they'd have reached had you passed. IOW, there is no reason for you to think that your action has created a very bad situation for you. There is therefore no reason for you to take desperate action. Bidding 4♠ has one way to win and many to lose. Bear in mind, partner didn't bid 4♠ white v red, so he won't usually have the hand you need him to hold.

 

Finally, if you bid anything now, with any decent partner, you risk ending that partnership. It's ok, in most partnerships, to step out once in a while, as you did with 2♠. It becomes intolerable to many when you compound your masterminding by taking a second unusual and anti-percentage action on the very same hand in the absence of compelling reason.

[Cyberyeti]

If I'm theoretically playing classical weak 2s, this is an easy pass.

 

For me this is an easy 4♠ as I have 2 spades and 2 kings more than I might have by our methods and this has a substantial effect on what partner's 3♠ is likely to look like.

[JLOGIC]

lol, I am in the camp that it is ok to bid here sometimes (via X), but with so much defense and such a bad suit this does not appealto me at all

[mikeh]

lol, I am in the camp that it is ok to bid here sometimes (via X), but with so much defense and such a bad suit this does not appealto me at all

Do you have that agreement in your partnership? I mean, doesn't this approach require that 3♠ be different that it might otherwise be? To me, and I appreciate that I am a dinosaur, 3♠ tells opener to stay quiet. I can certainly see that it is playable, and maybe better, that 3♠ involve partner, especially if what partner is allowed to do is double to show a unexpected hand.

 

This does mean that responder ought not to be raising to 3♠ on a bad hand with Hxx in spades. I suspect, from previous threads, that you're not big on that sort of raise either (nor am I, unless at favourable. Am I interpreting you correctly?

[wyman]

I thought that the modern approach was that raising to 3M was ambiguous and wide-ranging. It doesn't involve opener, but if opps bid a game anyway, and opener's hand has changed due to the fit or opps' bid, he can X to show "I would like to sac, but if you have a defensive hand and you think they stepped in it, by all means, let's rip it."

[Alik1974]

Partner had a chance to bid 4♠ himself. He will have another one too.

[gnasher]

I think it's OK to act here, but I'd need a hand like K10xxxx x xx QJ10x, or a 6-5. If partner happens to have a bad hand with ♠Hxx, that's not a disaster, because we probably go for 500 against a vulnerable game.

 

There aren't many hands that fall into this category, though, because I'd usually have opened 3♠. To justify bidding here you need poor defence and good shape. To justify not having bid 3♠ initially, you need mediocre spades.

[jogs]

[hv=pc=n&s=st98764h9dk7ckt32&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2sp3s4h]133|200[/hv]

 

Change the hand to

♠ K98764

♥ 9

♦ T7

♣ KT32

 

I would bid 4♠.

Are you familiar with the East player?

If East is conservative, bid 4♠. If not, pass.

[the hog]

No one in a serious partnership, (unless you wish to end it), would bid 4S on this hand. The pass is automatic.

[lmilne]

[hv=pc=n&s=st98764h9dk7ckt32&w=sa52hq5d98632cq76&n=sqj3h876djt54caj8&e=skhakjt432daqc954&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2sp3s4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Partner had a relatively boring hand and didn't want to dive for fear that it would either be expensive or a phantom.

 

My hand was completely within partnership expectations and it would shock my partner if I passed with this at first seat favourable. 5-card suits aren't uncommon at this vulnerability for us either.

 

I'm sure there will be some posts about how poorly my partner bid when I next check back on this thread, but I can't help but feel that my lack of action with extra offensive power was to blame for losing 11 here. Thoughts?

[JLOGIC]

Next time your partner won't have a double fit. Imagine if he had AJx of diamonds and Jxxx of clubs heh. It is impossible to always get these right, and when your values in the 2nd suits mesh very well sometimes youll miss a good save.

[han]

I doubt that this hand would have been posted if 4H and 4S were both down. On the forums, it will usually be right to bid.

 

The title of this thread comes from an era where weak twos were descriptive bids. When a weak two promised a strong 6-card suit and little outside strength, it was very sensible to let partner be captain afterwards. We had shown our hand so we could sit back and let partner make the decisions.

 

In modern bridge our hand can be more wide-ranging, especially when white against red. How wide-ranging depends upon partnership agreements. Particularly if you can be both 6-1-2-4 and 5-3-3-2, it becomes awfully hard for partner to make all the decisions afterwards. The old captaincy agreement is no longer good for partnership harmony, but bad for partnership results.

 

Consider you hold K109xxx x xx K10xx, and you decide that your suit is too poor to open at the 3-level. Now when partner bids 3S, our hand improves dramatically. If I had to guess between pass and 4S I would certainly bid 4S. You don't need a special agreement about 3S. Of course it could work out poorly on occasion, but in the long run bidding 4S would be a winning decision. If partner ends our partnership because of us trying to make a good bridge decision, we are probably better off without this partner.

 

The agreement that double shows this kind of hand is even better. Now we are showing our hand type and partner is still the one to make the final decision. Good for partnership harmony, and good for our results!

 

I think that we should double as a preemptor only with the most offensive hands, so quite rarely. I would not double on the given hand, as all the outside strength gives it a lot of defense. Moving the king to spades as I did makes double much more attractive. Notice that with that hand we would very much like to be in 4S, even if you switch the minors as Justin suggests.

[Cyberyeti]

Next time your partner won't have a double fit. Imagine if he had AJx of diamonds and Jxxx of clubs heh. It is impossible to always get these right, and when your values in the 2nd suits mesh very well sometimes youll miss a good save.

Or indeed the Q and 8 of hearts will be swapped and 4♥ is down at least one.

[lmilne]

I doubt that this hand would have been posted if 4H and 4S were both down. On the forums, it will usually be right to bid.

 

It's usually a guess between whether OP passed and 4S was a good dive/make, or OP bid and both contracts were down, or whether OP got in an argument and wants to prove a point...

[PhilKing]

It's usually a guess between whether OP passed and 4S was a good dive/make, or OP bid and both contracts were down, or whether OP got in an argument and wants to prove a point...

 

Well, it was unanimous for not bidding 4♠. Does that settle the argument?

[JLOGIC]

Do you have that agreement in your partnership? I mean, doesn't this approach require that 3♠ be different that it might otherwise be? To me, and I appreciate that I am a dinosaur, 3♠ tells opener to stay quiet. I can certainly see that it is playable, and maybe better, that 3♠ involve partner, especially if what partner is allowed to do is double to show a unexpected hand.

 

This does mean that responder ought not to be raising to 3♠ on a bad hand with Hxx in spades. I suspect, from previous threads, that you're not big on that sort of raise either (nor am I, unless at favourable. Am I interpreting you correctly?

 

Sorry didn't see this post first time around.

 

I would raise with basically every hand with Hxx of spades at this vul (I probably raise less than others with truly shitty hands when vul, and I think it's right to pass hands where they have no game and you're likely to buy it at the 2 level sometimes like Axx KJxx Qx Qxxx or something, but I still like to raise the preempt).

 

That said, when you hold a hand like KJxxxx --- QJxx xxx do you really feel that selling out to 4H w/r when your partner has raisedis likely to be right? Maybe this is a 3S opener to you at this vul, adjust it slightly or pretend it's white/white if you want if that is the case.

 

Now, sure, we don't want to bid in front of partner who might have hearts stacked. That's why I think the best way to play double, which would almost never be used otherwise, is a hand like this, a super offensive hand that got better upon discovering a fit, but giving partner the option to pass if he has a great defensive hand.

 

I basically think it is a somewhat old fashioned idea that you cannot preempt and bid again when your partner has raised, maybe because of the changing standards of preempts, or maybe because doubling was not defined this way and it is much better than bidding in front of partner obviously. This is not because of differing standards from the raise though imo.

 

Also, I do want to add that I think people use this bid too much when they hear about it. This kind of X is not a liscense to be undisciplined and wild, more it is just to cater to the rare hand types that are extremely offensive outside of the normal range and light defensively, where the raise has increased the value of the hand even more. It's not like I am routinely preempting and bidding again or something heh.

[MrAce]

I would not DBL or bid 4♠ with this hand. However my ideas are similar to Justin and Andy when it comes to this situation. To me, opening a weak 2 does not mean i am done for the rest of the hand, but i admit these are not frequent actions. This hand does not fit in it.

 

PhilKing summed it all, when he said there was nobody who advocated 4♠ and that this should tell you something (I am not a forum veteran but i know from my own experience that this is a rare situation in BBF). Han pointed (or implied) that this hand would not make its way to forums if bidding 4♠ was not a winning bid for this particular deal. Which i can not agree more. It is like one of those movies, when it starts you know exactly how it will continue and the good guy will die at the end.

 

By all this, however, i did not mean to say that it was a bad movie. I find "your turn to bid" topics like this, even when they are very predictable, much more enjoyable than some of the other topics where the title starts with a convention name and ends with "does it worth it ?" But this is a matter of taste, i have to admit there are a lot of members who loves that type of topics and i respect that. Not trying to say those other topics are bad, rather saying that they are not my cup of tea.

[cherdano]

lol, I am in the camp that it is ok to bid here sometimes (via X), but with so much defense and such a bad suit this does not appealto me at all

Do you have that agreement in your partnership?

No offense, but we do live in different worlds. I would assume this agreement without discussion with any expert partner who isn't eligible for senior events.

[han]

No offense, but we do live in different worlds. I would assume this agreement without discussion with any expert partner who isn't eligible for senior events.

 

When did you last meet an expert at a bridgeclub who wasn't eligible for senior events?

[mikeh]

When did you last meet an expert at a bridgeclub who wasn't aligible for senior events?

Hey! I only just turned 60....until last month, when asked by friends to play with them in Senior's events, I had to explain that all I was eligible to do was caddy.

 

Even middle-aged players can become out of date, well before they become senileors

[Cyberyeti]

When did you last meet an expert at a bridgeclub who wasn't aligible for senior events?

Last time I walked into one, I'm 47 till tomorrow and a lot of the regular UK posters on these boards haven't got their bus passes yet.