Imps vul against white

[benlessard]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq5hjtd96532cjt53&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1dd1sp2s3c3d]133|200[/hv]

 

EW play a weak NT and 2S was alerted as always 4 trumps and can be 15-17 balanced.

3D is a game try in spades.

[akwoo]

Would 3H also be a game try in spades, and if so, what would be the difference between the two game tries?

[Free]

4♣, courtesy raise

[gszes]

read post below

[Zelandakh]

I do not think 4♣ is a curtesy raise in this spot but rather a constructive move. It looks like we have a small majority of the points but not enough for game. So I am passing for now.

[ArtK78]

Pass.

 

I would be surprised if your opps explanation of 2♠ was fully accurate. It should show either a balanced strong NT with 4 spades or an unbalanced hand with 4 spades.

 

In any event, I have nothing but 4 clubs so I pass. I am not going to invite partner to bid on.

 

This is not a courtesy raise.

[mikeh]

I think that the passers are being too lazy: they are not trying to construct hands consistent with the auction.

 

In particular, the auction strongly suggests serious diamond shortness in partner's hand, along with only (at most) 3 spades.

 

LHO might be 4=4=3=2, but all other shapes that he might hold will give us a diamond void in partner's hand.

 

Now, start thinking about what kind of hand partner should have to double and then bid.

 

I'd suggest that a very likely shape is 3=4=0=6, yet he didn't start with 2♣, intending to double next time (if appropriate) so he won't be weak...he'll have a good hand.

 

Start playing around with good hands that are 3=4=0=6 and you'll soon see that game is a heavy favourite on most of them, yet partner won't be able to bid over 3♠ by LHO and will almost never be able to raise our presumed balancing 4♣ to game (assuming the opps don't bid 4♠ ahead of us.

 

I think it is mandatory to bid here, and I am torn between 5♣, the contract I want to be in opposite my posited 3=4=0=6, and 4♣, which is probably where we want to be should partner be, for example, 3=3=1=6. On that last note: what is our style with that shape? Most opening hands, including some with extras, would (in my partnerships and I think this is standard) overcall then double, rather than double then bid.

 

If I were playing opposite a clone of me, I'd bid game. If I were playing opposite an expert who was more aggressive than I am, in the N seat, I would bid 4♣,but be really worried I was underbidding again.

 

Pass, to me, suggests that we didn't look at any part of our hand or, if we did, that we didn't pay any attention to the auction.

 

Btw, if I am right about this, I will be very grateful to RHO for telling me about partner's diamond shortness, tho I wouldn't say anything (a good opp will know what damage his call did when dummy comes down).

[ggwhiz]

The problem to me is that the opponents have road mapped my spade shortness to partner and I'm not as short as might be expected. Partner is allowed to pre-balance knowing of my shortage with good hands not huge ones that look to be defending 2♠ otherwise (they can't see the game try coming yet) but a lot depends on your initial doubling style.

 

lho having a strong notrump opposite a game try doesn't compute so I'll pencil lho in for a stiff club (or worse, a void) in which case they may well have 3 spades instead of 4 as explained.

 

I agree that 4♣ is a waste of time as in our diamond holding indicates an auto game try accept by lho and I'm not willing to invite pard to the 5 level. On these colors at imps I would rather try to beat them in 4♠ on the J♥ lead opposite a likely honor 3rd of trumps and heart card(s) that should play on defense (especially if the opps are 4-4 in diamonds) than hang partner for having less than the strongest perfecta.

 

If the opponents explanation is correct, rho can only be 4-3-?-? with no holding where I can imagine making 5♣. It's a red flag as to what partner is up to that rho has made a flatish game try unless partner is prone to doubling with crazed distributions.

[karlson]

I would bid 4♣

[JLOGIC]

Seems way too good for 4C, I would at least bid 3S but tbh I'd probably just bid 5C.

[JLOGIC]

I think that the passers are being too lazy: they are not trying to construct hands consistent with the auction.

 

In particular, the auction strongly suggests serious diamond shortness in partner's hand, along with only (at most) 3 spades.

 

LHO might be 4=4=3=2, but all other shapes that he might hold will give us a diamond void in partner's hand.

 

Now, start thinking about what kind of hand partner should have to double and then bid.

 

I'd suggest that a very likely shape is 3=4=0=6, yet he didn't start with 2♣, intending to double next time (if appropriate) so he won't be weak...he'll have a good hand.

 

Start playing around with good hands that are 3=4=0=6 and you'll soon see that game is a heavy favourite on most of them, yet partner won't be able to bid over 3♠ by LHO and will almost never be able to raise our presumed balancing 4♣ to game (assuming the opps don't bid 4♠ ahead of us.

 

I think it is mandatory to bid here, and I am torn between 5♣, the contract I want to be in opposite my posited 3=4=0=6, and 4♣, which is probably where we want to be should partner be, for example, 3=3=1=6. On that last note: what is our style with that shape? Most opening hands, including some with extras, would (in my partnerships and I think this is standard) overcall then double, rather than double then bid.

 

If I were playing opposite a clone of me, I'd bid game. If I were playing opposite an expert who was more aggressive than I am, in the N seat, I would bid 4♣,but be really worried I was underbidding again.

 

Pass, to me, suggests that we didn't look at any part of our hand or, if we did, that we didn't pay any attention to the auction.

 

Btw, if I am right about this, I will be very grateful to RHO for telling me about partner's diamond shortness, tho I wouldn't say anything (a good opp will know what damage his call did when dummy comes down).

 

I see we are on a different planet than some other posters. I like your analysis but if partner has 3406 we are almost certainly cold for a game opposite any reasonable hand that would X first (if he has no spade honors he has the round suit honors, if he has a spade honor that is fine). I guess 2416 is the only issue with AKQ AKQ and we are off 3 tricks. May I ask why you rejected 3S if you are not bidding 5C? Maybe that sounds too much like a 3N try but partner will be more likely to bid game over that than 4C imo.

 

ETA: Also, LHO basically cannot have 4432 imo, there are not enough points. I mean LHO has 15, partner has 16, we have 4, that leaves RHO 5 points for his game try, and that is giving everyone else their bare minimum. Seems like LHO will def have 4 diamonds but RHO might have only 3. Even so are we expecting partner to bid game over 4C with Kx AQxx x AKxxxx or something? I would never do so, in fact I would never X first with that hand (I assume you wouldn't either).

[mikeh]

May I ask why you rejected 3S if you are not bidding 5C? Maybe that sounds too much like a 3N try but partner will be more likely to bid game over that than 4C imo.

 

Because, tbh, I didn't think of it....I like it now that I think about it, but as I implied, if I trusted my partner (I'd always trust a clone of mine, lol) I'd bid game....but if not, then 3♠ is clearly far better than 4♣

[gszes]

the bidding seems to make it clear the opps are going to bid 4s (and probably make it) and we do

not want p to x 4s since only we know how useless their clubs are on defense and how useless our

diamonds are on defense. The only question seems to be can 5c possibly be a reasonable call???

(4c being a waste of time and prefer saving 3s for hands that actually contain controls and useful

hcp)

 

If we trust p unfavorable bidding 5c has to have some kind of reasonable play or be just short.

(see Mikeh or Jlogic for example hands. The big advantage of an immediate 5c is that is is

preemptive in nature (bypassing any chance of 3n for ex and failing to make any sort of cue bid).

This means if the opps decide to compete to the 5 level we can trust p has been forewarned

concerning the uselessness of their club honors and that they cannot expect much if any defense

from us and we will have no trouble passing any x p might make of 5s.

 

Will the passers have any confidence in 4sx?? or will they belatedly pull?? if they pull should that not

be a stronger rather than a weaker hand????? just a thought.

 

 

It is possible that 5cx could be -500 but not a big loss opposite the expected -420 (590?) but what a huge

gain if 5c makes:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[benlessard]

Im surprised at some of my old post getting resurrected,

 

The only thing I remember is having a AQxx of hearts and AK(Q?) 7th of clubs. The K of H was onside and partner led a H. My partner was "proud" to defeat 4S by getting a H ruff. I think that if partner didnt lead a H the hearts would go away on the D and they make 4S (im not sure about this however).

 

I told him that 5C was cold and no expert would ever pass instead of bidding 4C here. I still think bidding 4C is automatic.

 

I remember telling him to reread the M.Lawrence chapter about requirement to X and bid, I remember thinking he described very well how strong you need to X and bid with a singlesuiter minor.

[JLOGIC]

 

It is possible that 5cx could be -500

 

I was thinking about this, and I cannot come up with 1 reasonable hand where 5C is down 2. Like, let's start with 2 small spades and a stiff diamond (unlikely but possible on the bidding). In that case, we have the rest lol. Maybe xx AKQx Q AKxxxx with 3-0 clubs off but even that is impossible with a 3D bid... opener must be 4450 with a club void so that's down 1.

 

How about xx AQxx x AKQxxx and the heart hook off? Doubt anyone is doubling and bidding clubs with that.

 

The fact that there is no hand where 5C is down 2 means there is no hand where 4C is not making, so not bidding it must be pretty terrible. I invite all posters who passed to construct a hand where 4C is even down. I do not remember ever making a partscore bid where I thought I was about 100 % to make lol.

[ggwhiz]

The only thing I remember is having a AQxx of hearts and AK(Q?) 7th of clubs.

 

Different strokes. Anything in the neighborhood of a Bergen style just can't have that hand for the first double but I guess the 3♦ game try is a clue that this kind of hand is happening.

 

ps. I passed the game try but if it happens to go 3♠ back to me, NOW I'm in for 4♣. I pass first because I think there is an auto game try accept coming and bidding 5♣ right away has more merit than 4 but I'm trying to protect a plus with near zero expectations of a club game as per the initial double style. Not interested in good red on white dives and a 4♣ bid may get us to a bad one.

 

Doubling 1♦ with short spades on these colors is leading with your chin imo.

[Winstonm]

4C mainly to help partner guage that not many club tricks are available to the defense.

[cherdano]

I am really curious whether the 4♣ bidders have much lower standards for double-then-bid than I (or Mike or Justin) do, or whether they were just too lazy to construct hands.

[the hog]

I would bid 5C on this. 5C should have some sort of play.

[benlessard]

Doubling 1♦ with short spades on these colors is leading with your chin imo.

 

Well partner may have the K of H and some clubs and ive got 11 tricks, so imo doubling a bidding clubs is much better than bidding 2C and guessing later. Also note how fun it is if partner can bid H.

[ggwhiz]

too lazy to construct hands.

 

So how about constructing a hand where the initial double makes any sense whatsoever in light of the 3♦ game try if it's not too much trouble. They only have 8 spades with partner showing some in my world, not as worried about hearts as diamonds to make the try in that suit.........

 

Good luck but kibosh that lazy bit. It applies just as much to the bidders. The only thing I'm sure of is rho or partner is waay out there.

[cherdano]

So how about constructing a hand where the initial double makes any sense whatsoever in light of the 3♦ game try if it's not too much trouble. They only have 8 spades with partner showing some in my world, not as worried about hearts as diamonds to make the try in that suit.........

 

Good luck but kibosh that lazy bit. It applies just as much to the bidders. The only thing I'm sure of is rho or partner is waay out there.

 

To be honest I didn't understand your earlier post at all. You said something about pre-balancing based on my presumed spade shortness - that does not make sense to me: if partner bids 3♣ on that auction, it means he was always planning to X-and-bid-clubs. That shows a strong hand.

 

But in any case, "lower standards" or "too lazy to construct hands", it is clear that you are in the former category.

 

As for the 3♦ "game try" - I have seen people overbid with shapely hands before. But I will rely on my partner having a double-and-bid-hand when he shows a double-and-bid-hand.

[Winstonm]

I learned the game using lower standards so I could visualize xxx, AKx, x, AKQJxx that has no play in 5C. If you counter that this should be a 2C overcall, I would not disagree, but that is not the issue here. I think the issue of the OP is to find out the consensus of most players - the minority view is clearly out of favor. Regardless of style, though, it is clearly right to bid at least 4C.

[ggwhiz]

 

As for the 3♦ "game try" - I have seen people overbid with shapely hands before. But I will rely on my partner having a double-and-bid-hand when he shows a double-and-bid-hand.

 

I don't even play what I said in my first post (the pre=balance bit) but it was the only thing that made sense to me. Both opponents are short to very short in clubs and sniffing a game.

 

Ben mentioned ♥AQxx ♣AK(Q) 7th in the doublers hand and from the start I'm guessing that whatever it is it's not a hand I would ever have doubled 1♦ with

[gszes]

I was thinking about this, and I cannot come up with 1 reasonable hand where 5C is down 2. Like, let's start with 2 small spades and a stiff diamond (unlikely but possible on the bidding). In that case, we have the rest lol. Maybe xx AKQx Q AKxxxx with 3-0 clubs off but even that is impossible with a 3D bid... opener must be 4450 with a club void so that's down 1.

 

How about xx AQxx x AKQxxx and the heart hook off? Doubt anyone is doubling and bidding clubs with that.

 

The fact that there is no hand where 5C is down 2 means there is no hand where 4C is not making, so not bidding it must be pretty terrible. I invite all posters who passed to construct a hand where 4C is even down. I do not remember ever making a partscore bid where I thought I was about 100 % to make lol.

 

 

I was imagining hands like Ax Axx K AQxxxxx where one loser in each suit is possible---I totally agree that down 2 would

be a unlucky result. It is also this type of hand where I would be very afraid to leave 4sx in if that came back to me thus I

opted for 5c which might have a chance to make and I would be a whole ton happier to sit if p x 5s:)))