Easy decision?

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq3hakj53dkt76c65&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp3s]133|200[/hv]

 

Teams, 3♠ preemptive

[P_Marlowe]

Sure.

 

Just because one of them preempted, does not mean, that they are weak,

or that we are stronger.

Move the Queen of spades to another suit, and have only a single or a

void, than we may start talking, but even than, ... are we really strong

enough to play on the 4 level vs. nothing?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[jillybean]

delete

[ggwhiz]

Easy pass for me but with a reason.

 

After more typical auctions like a 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠ start went wrong we discussed and agreed on our default position barring things like extra trumps or shape the decision ALWAYS belongs to pass out seat.

 

Either one of us (especially pard) is capable of bidding over 3♠ - p - p on this auction with not much more than shape and ignore the possibility of balancing them into a game that they didn't bid on their own steam. Miss some good dives when they do bid game but that's a long shot.

[mikeh]

Not easy at all, if by 'easy' you mean 'comfortable', but this seems like a clear pass.

 

What can we do?

 

Our hearts aren't long enough to bid at the 4 level.

 

Our clubs aren't long enough to make a takeout double with minimal hcp

 

Our spades are absolutely the worst they could be...ok, maybe QJ tight would be worse ;)

 

Not only is our spade Q almost certainly worth nothing at all, but they are hcp in the opps's suit that they don't have for their bidding, which means that they have those values in one of the side suits.

 

When we are looking at hcp in their suit or suits, such that there is little chance of these values taking a trick, then it is not just that we should not count these hcp in our valuation, but that we should actually give them a negative value, since our possession of them means that the opps possess cards outside their suits. When we are looking, on this auction, at xx, we can reasonably hope that the opps have 9-10 hcp in spades and less outside, whereas we now know that they have at most 8 in spades, and thus more outside.

[aguahombre]

No, it isn't that easy a decision, IMO. Are the colors correct? Is Partner prone to light takeout doubles? However:

 

Waltzing in at the 4-level with a 5-bagger can lose in multiple ways; even if it is the winning decision at the table, it could lose.

 

A mentor, way back in the 70's, had many sayings. One was, "When we hold a stiff or doubleton Quack in their suit, partner will not have what we need for offense." It seems to bear out.

 

So, I don't.

 

Edit: Oops, Mikeh beat me in with much more eloquence.

Edited October 30, 2013 by aguahombre

[Lord Molyb]

easy pass

[CSGibson]

Pass. Reasons stated previously by others. Obviously bidding could work on any specific hand, but the risk/reward ratio appears to be skewed towards the risk end of things. You have a 7 loser hand, and no reason to believe that partner has the values to cover them.

[jillybean]

I passed but it was a hand that generated some discussion with my partner.

Thanks for the infomative comments.

[neilkaz]

Would pass also. That doubleton Q is likely worthless on offense and certainly convinced me to not chance a light bid here.

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq3hakj53dkt76c65&w=sak874h84d52caqt8&n=s95hqt762daq8ck74&e=sjt62h9dj943cj932&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp3sppp]399|300[/hv]

[CSGibson]

Funny thing is that I would have considered doubling with your partner's hand, but I don't think it is close to bidding with yours.

[the hog]

I would ask your partner why she did not make the obvious double of 1S.

[mikeh]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq3hakj53dkt76c65&w=sak874h84d52caqt8&n=s95hqt762daq8ck74&e=sjt62h9dj943cj932&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp3sppp]399|300[/hv]

You can't win every board.

 

You and your partner adopt a style and a method, and in doing so you choose, amongst other things, whether your partner should bid with her hand over 1♠.

 

Traditionally, one didn't, but in more recent times I think you'll find that more and more experienced players opt for double here, in part because the opps often play methods that fix you once you pass. In the old days, East would be unable to pre-empt, because 3♠ would have been a limit raise (and even earlier, a forcing raise), so N could afford to be a little conservative, being virtually assured of a chance to bid at the 2-level when the opps were weak.

 

There will be times when passing as North will work better than a double, for a variety of reasons. Responder may start with a business redouble and they can cart you out on a stretcher or in a bodybag, and that is less likely if you were a 1=4=4=4 13 count, as an example. Or your partner may push too hard, expecting a better hand or, conversely, when you do have a better hand, partner may pull back, guarding against this sort of double.

 

Thus it is never a simple calculus when deciding on style here.

 

What I think is clear is that no matter what style you choose for the initial action, S cannot bid in the given auction. You have to just accept that this sort of hand will hit the seams in your methods. That is a price you have to accept, just as, if you choose a style on which partner ought to have doubled 1♠, there will be hands where you get killed after doubling. C'est la vie.

 

Personally, I lean towards the initial double, but don't feel strongly about it.

[Endymion77]

The above post is very good.

[jillybean]

Thanks MIke, your responses are always thorough, informative and give me more to think about.

 

I didn't post the full hand as an "ATB" exercise, I had not really focused on my partners hand until after I posted the full hand. I was most interested in my pass which did cause me some pause for thought.

[kenberg]

I am coming into this late, but I also pass. East's bid of 3♠ is likely to be on only four. This is because four is enough for the bid, we get dealt four more often than we get dealt five, and at least with some five card holdings he would bid 4♠ rather than 3. So it is very likely that you will be losing the first two spade tricks. And there are a lot of ways to imagine two more losers. Even with the great support that N has, just trade the ♦ Q from that hand for the ♣Q in the W hand and I don't see ten tricks. And certainly N does not have to have such a fine hand.

 

I note that there are 19 total trumps, 9 in their spades and 10 in your hearts. There are 19 total tricks, 10 in your hearts and 9 in their spades. But at your turn to bid, there is no way to know this. Given their presumed 9 card fit you have to have 22 cards in the other suits and so at least an 8 card fit somewhere. but 8 is a long way from 10.

 

It's easy to say I would have doubled with the N hand, I'll just say that I might have. I definitely would pass with the S hand opposite a silent partner.

[ArtK78]

A problem that has not yet been addressed.

 

You are North in this hand. The bidding goes (1♠) - P - (3♠) - P; (P) back to you. What do you think of coming back in with 4♥ or a double now? Assume that partner did not hesitate over 3♠ beyond the normal amount of time over a preempt.

[aguahombre]

A problem that has not yet been addressed.

 

You are North in this hand. The bidding goes (1♠) - P - (3♠) - P; (P) back to you. What do you think of coming back in with 4♥ or a double now? Assume that partner did not hesitate over 3♠ beyond the normal amount of time over a preempt.

You mentioned the possibility of a BIT killing this possibility; but, even so I surely don't like doing something at the 3-level which would put us at the 4-level when I could have done something at the 1-level propelling us to the 2-level.

[wyman]

You mentioned the possibility of a BIT killing this possibility; but, even so I surely don't like doing something at the 3-level which would put us at the 4-level when I could have done something at the 1-level propelling us to the 2-level.

 

Without saying whether I agree/disagree with your decision to pass this out, I think your explanation is overly simplistic. When you passed at the 1-level, you had less information; LHO had not yet revealed the nature of his hand. Had I allowed you to act over 1S while telling you either "LHO has a weak raise to 3S" or "LHO is going to bid 2-GF-hearts if you pass," you might choose different actions.

[aguahombre]

Al Roth was quite successful at shunning early competition which would bring partner into the picture and unilaterally coming in later. I am not him, and Pard doesn't enjoy sitting there like a Stone.

[kenberg]

As North, if 3♠ is passed around to me, I would pass. If i had a stiff spade or possibly even better three spades, make that three small spades, I might act. Not with two spades. And with one spades and comparable values I would have acted firt round. So I guess I am saying that if you change a small club to a small spade I might give it a shot. Also I might not. At least it would be a closer.decision.

[cherdano]

A problem that has not yet been addressed.

 

You are North in this hand. The bidding goes (1♠) - P - (3♠) - P; (P) back to you. What do you think of coming back in with 4♥ or a double now? Assume that partner did not hesitate over 3♠ beyond the normal amount of time over a preempt.

 

As Mike said, it's a very close decision whether to play a style that allows for a double of 1♠. But passing 3♠ is not a close decision. You have a balanced hand. You need a better reason than a balanced hand with xx in their suit to force partner to the four-level. If you think the law tells you not to let the opponents play 3♠ just because they have 9 trumps, you should go to law school again.

[MrAce]

I would have bid exactly the same as NS did. Pass over 1♠ and pass over 3♠.

 

As they said passing over 1♠ is debatable, but passing over 3♠ is clear by both N and S imo.

[the hog]

A problem that has not yet been addressed.

 

You are North in this hand. The bidding goes (1♠) - P - (3♠) - P; (P) back to you. What do you think of coming back in with 4♥ or a double now? Assume that partner did not hesitate over 3♠ beyond the normal amount of time over a preempt.

 

This problem is impossible. As i stated Nth has a double and it is clear.