Pass the double?

[Hanoi5]

White vs Red, imp's:

 

♠x

♥9xx

♦Axx

♣AKTxxx

 

1♣-(Pa)-2♥*-(3♠)

Pa-(Pa)-X-(Pa)

???

 

*13+, could be balanced with no 4-card Major, Solid/Semisolid Hearts or Club support

 

Partner's double shows the balanced type but unsuitable for 3NT, your call...

[the_clown]

I cant imagine passing. Partner has at most 3 spades with no double stop or Kxx. I would start with 4♣ (forcing since 2♥ was already GF), hoping to reach 6 if partner cooperates.

[gszes]

Are we sure 4c is forcing here--many play game forcing as meaning

3n or the 4 level since there is quite a bit of difference between 5 of

a minor and 3n/4M. When p cannot bid 3n your hand improves

significantly and I have to admit I would now bid

 

4s

 

to show my interest in slam. I pretty much have to be doing this with

long clubs since at these colors I would generally be more than happy

to p 3sx with 3 spades and a balanced hand. Using this sytem I would

use a 4h bid to also show slam interest but deny a spade control.

 

Is your partnership on form ground about 4c being forcing or not?? Most of

mine play it as non forcing. Sometimes you just have to get to safest spot

possible when the bidding dictates it.

 

 

[ggwhiz]

Just to be contrary I'll start with 4♦ as the most likely to turn pards hand on and assuming their balanced hand can include 3-3-5-2 shape.

 

Expecting to land in some number of clubs but passing never occurred to me.

[the_clown]

Are we sure 4c is forcing here--many play game forcing as meaning

3n or the 4 level since there is quite a bit of difference between 5 of

a minor and 3n/4M. When p cannot bid 3n your hand improves

significantly and I have to admit I would now bid

 

4s

 

to show my interest in slam. I pretty much have to be doing this with

long clubs since at these colors I would generally be more than happy

to p 3sx with 3 spades and a balanced hand. Using this sytem I would

use a 4h bid to also show slam interest but deny a spade control.

 

Is your partnership on form ground about 4c being forcing or not?? Most of

mine play it as non forcing. Sometimes you just have to get to safest spot

possible when the bidding dictates it.

 

I think when the one hand opens and the other hand shows 13+ HCP it has to be forcing to game. I dont really believe in forcing to game or 4m, it is right one in 5 times and it creates a lot of confusion in your forcing auctions.

[rhm]

I think when the one hand opens and the other hand shows 13+ HCP it has to be forcing to game. I dont really believe in forcing to game or 4m, it is right one in 5 times and it creates a lot of confusion in your forcing auctions.

One time in five is an exaggeration

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

This hand has grown up, especially if we draw the inference that partner has little wastage in spades. Give partner even modest extras and slam is probably pretty fair. Qxx AQx KQxx Qxx is an ugly hand, with some spade wastage and yet slam is decent: a hook in hearts that rates to win most of the time, no 4-0 trump (and if partner has Q9x we may survive that), and either diamonds coming home or a (quite possible) red suit squeeze on LHO.

 

It's not that we're getting there opposite that hand, but more that we have a far better hand, now, than we did when the auction started.

 

Therefore I am going to set trump via 4♣, and intend to cue 4♠ over a red suit bid by partner.

 

I'll leave it to him to make the running thereafter: I think this sequence is stronger than a jump to 5♣ and hence shows slam interest.

 

Btw, I would prefer a method in which, over my contemplated 4♠, 4N by him isn't keycard but is simply showing interest in slam (too much to bid 5♣) but not enough to commit.

 

Experience suggests that this usage is far more valuable than using keycard in these crowded auctions in which the partners have had relatively little opportunity to describe the key features of the hands. However, I appreciate that this approach, while hardly unique to me, is not standard.

 

I would sign off over 4N, since I have already made my slam try.

 

I'd expect partner to correctly see that a chunky 3=3=4=3 is worth more than a chunky 3=3=3=4.

[the hog]

Bid 4C gf of course, and then change the methods - the silly 2H convention - after the match.

[CSGibson]

Bid 4C gf of course, and then change the methods - the silly 2H convention - after the match.

 

The 2♥ convention is useful, don't change it. But bid 4♣, you aren't close to doing anything else IMO.

[Winstonm]

There is a lot of "unexplained" here - and a lot of assuming that is unjustified IMO. I would think partner could easily hold Axx, Kxx, KJxx, Qxx and be concerned to bid 3N. If my opponents are not idiots (and I assume they are not), then I am unsure if I can beat 4 vulnerable spades, much less 3.

 

I would bid 5C and forego any speculative slam tries.

[gszes]

I think when the one hand opens and the other hand shows 13+ HCP it has to be forcing to game. I dont really believe in forcing to game or 4m, it is right one in 5 times and it creates a lot of confusion in your forcing auctions.

 

Lets use 25 power as enough for game forcing auctions

as an average boring hand facing boring hand with or

without a trump fit.

 

When we have a major suit fit we do not worry too much

about how much power it takes to make game in a minor.

The real problem is we need to search for 3N with the same

gusto we search for a M game. Now if our search for 3N fails

and we decide to use the same standards for 5m we used for

3n an interesting problem occurs. The opps began life with

15 hcp. Those 15 HCP needed to take 5 tricks to defeat 3n.

In 5m they need to take only 3 that means the defense needs

to take 40% less tricks to defeat your contract.

 

Even if ten of those 15 hcp lie in the danger suit (why we avoided

3n and assuming we have only 2 losers in the dange suit) the opps

still have 5 hcp left vs our 25 and we now need to score up 11 of 11.

While I am not sure what the % is of scoring up 11 of 11 is at this

point the odds of opps taking 1 trick with AJ 95% (probably closer to

100) KQ 85% KJJ 70% QQJ 60% QJJJ 45%. This means the chances

of scoring up all 11 tricks is approximately 27%

 

Using the same calculations for the opps taking 2 tricks with the same

holdings AJ 15% KQ 20% KJJ 15% QQJ 10% QJJJ this means making

4m is around 85% vs 27% for making 5m. I submit to you that this difference

is so huge that not trying to account for it borders on suicide. This is when

both hands are minimum -- the closer we get to 29 the higher the odds of

making 5m under these conditions. If we use 26 vs 25 HCP our chances

increase significantly and when we hit 27 we are close to 60%. The point

is that many of us use a number lower than 25 for 3n and to use that same

standard for 5m borders on folly.

[mikeh]

There is a lot of "unexplained" here - and a lot of assuming that is unjustified IMO. I would think partner could easily hold Axx, Kxx, KJxx, Qxx and be concerned to bid 3N. If my opponents are not idiots (and I assume they are not), then I am unsure if I can beat 4 vulnerable spades, much less 3.

 

I would bid 5C and forego any speculative slam tries.

If he has the hand you post, we play in 5♣ anyway: no way is he cooperating with a mild slam try by us. At most, using 4N as forward going rather than keycard, we'd see 4♣ 4♦ 4♠ 4N 5♣ P. Meanwhile, he could have a much better hand....remember, he has shown 13+, not '13' or '13-14'.

 

I'd bid 5♣ with say x QJx Kxx AQxxxx. Our hand is far more slam-suitable than that so it seems to me to be a serious error. Otoh, many partnerships really struggle with cooperative slam bidding (which both explains and imo arises in part from the fact that for 90% of the bridge playing population, they are unable to bid slams without asking for keycards). If your partnerships lack the judgment or the tools to allow mild slam tries, rather than blunt slam forces, then I'd agree with 5♣.

[the hog]

The 2♥ convention is useful, don't change it. But bid 4♣, you aren't close to doing anything else IMO.

 

So, a convention that shows 3 totally separate hand possibilities and has no agreements regarding bidding in competition is useful? Yes, sure, Chris!

[EricK]

So, a convention that shows 3 totally separate hand possibilities and has no agreements regarding bidding in competition is useful? Yes, sure, Chris!

The "convention" might have agreements even if the partnership in question do not appear to. I am sure there are plenty of pairs who play eg Michaels cue bids, or Unusual NT and don't have a clue what to do in competition. But that doesn't mean the convention itself is not (potentially) useful.

[the hog]

The "convention" might have agreements even if the partnership in question do not appear to. I am sure there are plenty of pairs who play eg Michaels cue bids, or Unusual NT and don't have a clue what to do in competition. But that doesn't mean the convention itself is not (potentially) useful.

 

 

Perhaps, however a bid that shows "balanced with no 4-card Major, Solid/Semisolid Hearts or Club support" has 3 totally different hand types. I generally find that these home grown ideas have little merit. I have tried to work out why these 3 types are included when none of them is difficult to show in a normal auction and have not been able to do so.

[CSGibson]

So, a convention that shows 3 totally separate hand possibilities and has no agreements regarding bidding in competition is useful? Yes, sure, Chris!

 

 

I've played similar methods successfully, and have seen this particular treatment gain traction among successful ACBL district 6 players in particular (FWIW, I am district 20, 3000 miles away. I see this treatment most frequently at nationals).

 

It appears that the players did discuss what to do in competition - thus the detailed description of what double means. As it turns out, it is my experience that it is fairly easy to make agreements about what to do in comp BECAUSE there are such distinct hand type.

[CSGibson]

Perhaps, however a bid that shows "balanced with no 4-card Major, Solid/Semisolid Hearts or Club support" has 3 totally different hand types. I generally find that these home grown ideas have little merit. I have tried to work out why these 3 types are included when none of them is difficult to show in a normal auction and have not been able to do so.

 

 

Its very easy to see the merit for me - now they can use those bids for something else or make negative inferences that these are not the hands held. Like using a jump to 2N as inv, bal, a jump to 3N as 16-18 bal, and 2H can include 13-15 or 19+ bal if they like, making it very easy to show a hand-type that others tend to struggle with. Or, if they play multiple ways of showing a heart game force, responder knows that the hearts are not good enough to play opposite x - or that slam may not be in the picture opposite xx even with appropriate outside controls since he didn't go through 2H. Having a way of raising clubs GF frequently at the 3 level also has great merit.

 

You really only get into some trouble with those methods opposite interference, and since these methods are all showing game forcing hands opposite an opening hand, interference is less likely, and can be easily countered with simple discussion.

 

This particular problem is not a methods problem - normal methods might be to bid 3N with partner's hand, off the first 7 spades. It's a problem of judgment. In this case, I think judgment puts reasonable players in the camp of the club game, with an option for a club slam since there does not appear to be significant wastage opposite our spade shortage.

[straube]

I'd have some misgivings about using 1C-2H for 3 such different meanings. It puts a lot of pressure on opener to use an asking bid of 2S which means that the partnership will forego 1C-2H, 2N or 3C etc sequences a lot of the time. Sure, opener may not always rebid 2S, but even if he doesn't, responder will usually want to use his rebids to clarify which hand he actually holds instead of reacting to opener's descriptive rebid.

 

Even on this auction the 2H bid didn't empower opener to do anything with his distributional hand until he understood the meaning of 2H. What if 3S had been raised to 4S? Responder's double then might be made with the balanced hand, the heart hand, or the club hand. I'm not saying this convention doesn't have its good points. Just pointing out possible hazards.

[CSGibson]

I'd have some misgivings about using 1C-2H for 3 such different meanings. It puts a lot of pressure on opener to use an asking bid of 2S which means that the partnership will forego 1C-2H, 2N or 3C etc sequences a lot of the time. Sure, opener may not always rebid 2S, but even if he doesn't, responder will usually want to use his rebids to clarify which hand he actually holds instead of reacting to opener's descriptive rebid.

 

Even on this auction the 2H bid didn't empower opener to do anything with his distributional hand until he understood the meaning of 2H. What if 3S had been raised to 4S? Responder's double then might be made with the balanced hand, the heart hand, or the club hand. I'm not saying this convention doesn't have its good points. Just pointing out possible hazards.

 

I consider this argument unconvincing, especially coming from a precision player - where even less defined auctions have an even greater chance of being preempted. Here we are protected by only having 3 hand types, having a relatively high entry point into the auction, and having already established a game force, giving us options with forcing passes et all. We are vulnerable like a 2C opener is vulnerable, except that the cost of entry into the auction is even higher, and our hands are more defined.

 

Also, there is no indication that 2S would be required on this - in fact, I think 3C (or 3S, if you have the agreement that shows shortness & a fit for hearts) is standout. And having responder describe their hand is not a bad thing, especially when the description is so tight.

 

For example, imagine the standard equivalent for these auctions - with 13-15 bal, 1C-3N (2H is ahead). For the single-suited heart game force with good hearts, 1C-1H-2C (options diverge here depending on methods, but jumps to 4H are possible, as well as going through a nebulous 2D followed by 3H). For the club GF, 1C-2C*, and then maybe 2D or 3S, depending on how aggressive you feel.

 

So for those 3 hand types, 1 has the standard method preempting the auction way more, the 2nd has standard methods sometimes preempting the auction way more, and the 3rd has standard methods give you more room, but does not establish a game force until past 3C anyway.

[straube]

I consider this argument unconvincing, especially coming from a precision player - where even less defined auctions have an even greater chance of being preempted. Here we are protected by only having 3 hand types, having a relatively high entry point into the auction, and having already established a game force, giving us options with forcing passes et all. We are vulnerable like a 2C opener is vulnerable, except that the cost of entry into the auction is even higher, and our hands are more defined.

 

Also, there is no indication that 2S would be required on this - in fact, I think 3C (or 3S, if you have the agreement that shows shortness & a fit for hearts) is standout. And having responder describe their hand is not a bad thing, especially when the description is so tight.

 

For example, imagine the standard equivalent for these auctions - with 13-15 bal, 1C-3N (2H is ahead). For the single-suited heart game force with good hearts, 1C-1H-2C (options diverge here depending on methods, but jumps to 4H are possible, as well as going through a nebulous 2D followed by 3H). For the club GF, 1C-2C*, and then maybe 2D or 3S, depending on how aggressive you feel.

 

So for those 3 hand types, 1 has the standard method preempting the auction way more, the 2nd has standard methods sometimes preempting the auction way more, and the 3rd has standard methods give you more room, but does not establish a game force until past 3C anyway.

 

Not sure I understand the Precision reference. We absolutely get preempted sometimes, but I don't see the connection to what we're discussing here. I mean we would have opened x 9xx Axx AKTxxx 2C and been ahead on this particular deal, but that is neither here nor there.

 

When we take up space, we try to give partner distributional information on which he can act. This bid of 2H takes up space but gives no distributional information. Great that it establishes a GF, but I think it should offer more than that.

 

For example, we borrow from IMPrecision so that our 1C-2H bid shows that responder has about 5-11 hcps and a 3-suited hand short in spades. Opener can 1) relay with 2S or 2) declare a misfit with a nf 2N or 3) try to sign off in a suit. That's a lot different use than 1C-2H as GF bal, GF good hearts or GF club support. We are set up nicely, too, for a competitive auction.

 

It's of course good to avoid 1C-3N (bal 13-15). Saying that 1C-2H as possibly GF bal is ahead here doesn't really negate what I was faulting in it. Just because one thing is better than another thing doesn't mean it's a good thing.

 

There must be a better way. Like off the top of my head, couldn't 1C-2H be bal 11+ and 1C-2N be a GF club raise and maybe 1C-3D would be GF solid hearts? Even if that is poor, there must be a good way to disentangle these very different sorts of distributions one from another.

 

So I thought you defended their 2H bid very well and only wanted to offer a concern I have about it. I'll look to see if you have any further comment, but I don't think I have much else to say about it. Oh, we ought to get a team game going soon.

[Fluffy]

4♣ looks obvious