A sense of impending doom

[Jinksy]

Teams, unfavourable. LHO opens 1S (SAYC), and partner overcalls 2S, Hs and a minor, wide-ranging strength. You try to look confident as you gaze down at:

 

AT8xx

x

KJ98xx

x

 

Given that you hadn’t discussed continuations here (beyond a forcing 2N), what’s your call (and how do you expect P to take it)?

 

Given the same meaning of 2S, would you choose something different than what you’d expect an average reasonable strength P to take as your response structure?

[helene_t]

I would bid 3♦ and expect (well, hope) p to take it as weaker than 2NT followed by 3♦.

 

I don't really see any alternative, other than guessing that p would take 2NT followed by 3♦ to show my strength better. Pass might work but it is not an option when vulnerable.

[kenrexford]

2NT, planning to pass 3♣. I think that this sequence is least likely to be doubled. Plus, partner has six clubs more often than six hearts. Plus, if I panic, I can pull 3♣ doubled with blood dripping down their chin to 3♦, and partner will be in on the impending doom as well.

 

Plus, there is a strange possible auction type:

 

 

1♠-2♠-P-2NT

P-3♣-P-P

X-P-P-3♦

X-3♠!!!

 

Partner might just have 3-5-0-5, where 3♠ might be the best three-level contract. If he thinks this through, there is a reason why you did not bid 3♦ initially. That sounds like perhaps a spade-diamond two-suiter, eh?

 

Even better, perhaps:

 

1♠-2♠-P-2NT

P-3♣-P-P

X-XX

[Fluffy]

I play 3♦ as invitational to 4♥, so out of the picture, I´d bid 3♣ and run to 3♦ if I must.

[the hog]

I would bid 3♦ and expect (well, hope) p to take it as weaker than 2NT followed by 3♦.

 

I don't really see any alternative, other than guessing that p would take 2NT followed by 3♦ to show my strength better. Pass might work but it is not an option when vulnerable.

 

You cannot bid 3D of course. This shows a hand willing to play in Ds if that is what pd has, or invit in Cs. 2NT is forcing and asks pd to describe his hand and strength. The only bid to make is 3C.

 

To Jinsky - why play methods like this when you don't discuss the continuations?

[nige1]

Teams, unfavourable. LHO opens 1S (SAYC), and partner overcalls 2S, Hs and a minor, wide-ranging strength. You try to look confident as you gaze down at:

♠ AT8xx ♥ x ♦ KJ98xx ♣ x

Given that you hadn't discussed continuations here (beyond a forcing 2N), what's your call (and how do you expect P to take it)?

Given the same meaning of 2S, would you choose something different than what you'd expect an average reasonable strength P to take as your response structure?

IMO 3♣ (Pass/Correct) = 10, Pass (Desperation) = 9, 2N (Constructive relay) = 6, 3♦ (Invite if partner has ♣) = 1.

For many, 2N is dangerous, because it encourages partner to show extra values or shape.

I've bumped Pass, after reading Mr Ace's post.

Edited November 8, 2013 by nige1

[MrAce]

Seems like no one has a magical method to suggest diamonds w/o encouraging pd. I don't either.

 

How about PASS 2 ♠ cuebid ? I know it sounds a bit crazy but we have some spades to play it there if not doubled. Most pairs have defends vs Michaels which requires responder to pass over 2♠ and then take action. This will force opener to dbl. Playing 3♣ undoubled is worse than 2♠ imo, and this si what we will likely to play if we bid 3♣

 

If they double we then bid 3♦ ? The danger is, if pd is sitting with a giant of course.

[helene_t]

Seems like no one has a magical method to suggest diamonds w/o encouraging pd. I don't either.

 

How about PASS 2 ♠ cuebid ? I know it sounds a bit crazy but we have some spades to play it there if not doubled. Most pairs have defends vs Michaels which requires responder to pass over 2♠ and then take action. This will force opener to dbl. Playing 3♣ undoubled is worse than 2♠ imo, and this si what we will likely to play if we bid 3♣

 

If they double we then bid 3♦ ? The danger is, if pd is sitting with a giant of course.

Even if p has a very good hand we probably don't have game with this misfit. I would be more worried about going for -200 or -300 when 3♦ could have made.

 

But ok, this is IMPs and maybe it is better just to limit the loss. My 3♦ bid could easily lead to -1100 if partner takes it as stronger than I meant it. Or even as a paradox response as Ron suggest - ugh!

 

Last monday we got a -2200 against air when p forgot a conventional redouble - fortunately it was matchpoints.

[rhm]

Seems like no one has a magical method to suggest diamonds w/o encouraging pd. I don't either.

 

How about PASS 2 ♠ cuebid ? I know it sounds a bit crazy but we have some spades to play it there if not doubled. Most pairs have defends vs Michaels which requires responder to pass over 2♠ and then take action. This will force opener to dbl. Playing 3♣ undoubled is worse than 2♠ imo, and this si what we will likely to play if we bid 3♣

 

If they double we then bid 3♦ ? The danger is, if pd is sitting with a giant of course.

I agree except for the last sentence.

I am not keen driving the bidding higher until being doubled. Any contract not doubled is now an accomplishment.

On average 3♣ will not be any better than 2♠ and it is more likely not less to get doubled.

3♣ must play 2 tricks better than 2♠ before showing a profit.

If 3♦ is bid after 2♠ doubled this makes it very clear what to expect from other strains.

It is the same old story: Head for the exit when a misfit is apparent. This is not desperation, it is sound tactics.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[dake50]

"impending doom"?

Doesn't your partner always have S - HAxxxx DQxx CAxxxx

for his bid?

I try 3D as good hands go thru 2Nt ask.

I got an A+K in-the-bank if partner goes uppity.

[mr1303]

I'm going to pass this as well. We all know partner isn't really going to sit for 3D. At least 2S isn't doubled (yet).

[aguahombre]

My 3♦ bid could easily lead to -1100 if partner takes it as stronger than I meant it. Or even as a paradox response as Ron suggest - ugh!

Ugh! is right. Ron did not suggest 3D might be a paradox response; he said it IS that.

 

It isn't that for us, nor is 2NT asking for strength, nor is 3C P/C. But, then again 2S isn't wide-ranging for us either. The 2S bid is competitive within normal attention to vulnerability or huge. So, we can have 3D here as a desire to play in Diamonds opposite a H/C 2-suiter.

 

OP doesn't have the luxury of discussed continuations, so it seems he has little choice but to roll the dice (probably Timo's suggestion of a Pass for now and worry later). 3C, if taken for the desire to play in clubs regardless of Pard's minor, could launch more doom..as could anything else taken wrong. It could also locate our 1-1 club fit instead of our 6-6 Diamond slam.

[ggwhiz]

I would try 2nt and cross my fingers and aim for a post-mortem (autopsy?) as follows. The Hog is right that any convention works best if you play all of it.

 

Our agreement is that a direct 3♦ bid is stronger than going through 2nt so getting to 3♦ the slow way is a suggestion to play there that will normally be overruled by a 6 card heart suit though. Going through 2nt on trouble hands gives the opps the tiniest extra chance to bid and take you off the hook in that opener can double it, partner can pass with 5-5's giving rho a chance come in and by the time we get to 3♦ it's pretty clear we want to play there.

 

It's also remotely possible to bail in 2nt doubled in an emergency.

 

Also, given our michaels style, passing 2♠ ends the partnership. x, AKQxxx, x, AKT9x looks like michaels (and a decent game) to me.

[jogs]

PASS. 2♠ undoubled probably wont costs as much as a run out.

 

If they double 2♠, then bid 3♦. If pard saves you from

3♦X, you need a new pard.

[wank]

3c and run away if doubled.

 

if partner is sitting there with void akqxx qx akjtxx or some such (RHO passed so partner can easily have a mountain, especially given the vulnerability), he's unlikely to be very understanding when he's left to chalk up -300 in 2♠.

 

you have diamonds and spades well stopped. it shouldn't be so hard to imagine making 3nt.

[the hog]

Ugh! is right. Ron did not suggest 3D might be a paradox response; he said it IS that.

 

It isn't that for us, nor is 2NT asking for strength, nor is 3C P/C. But, then again 2S isn't wide-ranging for us either. The 2S bid is competitive within normal attention to vulnerability or huge. So, we can have 3D here as a desire to play in Diamonds opposite a H/C 2-suiter.

 

OP doesn't have the luxury of discussed continuations, so it seems he has little choice but to roll the dice (probably Timo's suggestion of a Pass for now and worry later). 3C, if taken for the desire to play in clubs regardless of Pard's minor, could launch more doom..as could anything else taken wrong. It could also locate our 1-1 club fit instead of our 6-6 Diamond slam.

 

AGH in 2 suited openings, 3D is a paradox response unless your partnership plays something non standard, in other words something YOU have changed from the norm. There is no indication of that in Jinsky's post. Far from it, the failure to discuss continuations is evidence that this partnership should not be playing these openings.

As you know, I am in favour of these bids, however I strongly believe in the notion that if you do not know your system you get a procedural penalty.

By the way, NEVER pass these bids; sorry but that is really a beginner's mentality. You destroy partnership morale, and imagine if partner actually DID have a D suit!!!!

[aguahombre]

Here, we have a two-suited overcall. I do understand that wide-ranging Michaels cue's might necessitate different "standard" advances than would be standard if the expected range is X.

 

We do have agreements which I believe to be standard if the Mike bid is treated as a preempt within the vulnerability at hand..and those agreements are 2NT to locate the minor suit, but 3m instead being to play regardless of overcaller's two suits. This is why we can bid 3♦ with the given hand; of course if Pard's second suit happens to be Diamonds, we will be launching. We don't need strength-asking bids by advancer, because if overcaller is out of range, he will be WAY out of range and will break all by himself.

 

Timo's response here, and those of some others, acknowledge that there is no range for Mike nor any agreements about continuations ---thus no call can be anti-partnership, including pass; they are just trying to cope with the conditions.

 

Paradox advances or responses, IMO, refer to pass/correct calls which force a higher level if the bid does not hit Pard's suit.

 

3N (broken Minor preempt) ---4♦, willing to play 4D or higher in clubs.

2D (Multi) 2♠, willing to play higher in hearts.

 

Over Michaels, 3♦ willing to play higher in Clubs could be agreed; but it isn't by the OP or by you...OP's fear should be that the overcaller plays it that way or as a strength showing bid with heart tolerance.

[rhm]

Also, given our michaels style, passing 2♠ ends the partnership. x, AKQxxx, x, AKT9x looks like michaels (and a decent game) to me.

I suggest to nominate you for the dreamer of the year award.

 

Why not x AKQJxx - AKQJxx, surely part of your style, and a grand looks quite reasonable.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

Ron, I don't know why you think that paradox responses are standard. If I want to for to the 4 level opposite clubs I could bid 2NT and then raise 3♣ but pass 3♦. I can see some logic of playing 3♦ as "pass if you have diamonds and are minimum". But then why not play 2NT as showing some values and 3♣ as a drop-dead p/c ? Looks to me as if it achieves the same.

 

A google on

michaels cuebid paradox response

gives a few hits but none of them address this issue. Bridgeguys and wikipedia just say that a new suit is nonforcing but don't go into details.

[Trinidad]

AGH in 2 suited openings, 3D is a paradox response unless your partnership plays something non standard, in other words something YOU have changed from the norm.

You are overbidding your hand by about 2 aces.

 

• 
   
  
• Henry Francis, Alan Truscott, Dorthy Francis, The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, 5th edition, 1994, p.282:

  If partner does not fit the cue bid major, he can bid notrump as a request to the cuebidder to show his minor suit. [No mention of paradox responses]

  
  
• Marty Bergen, Better Bidding with Bergen, Volume Two, Competitive Bidding, Fit Bids, & More, 6th print, 1995, p.22

  After 1♥-2♥-Pass
  2♠ = non constructive
  2NT = asking for minor
  3♣,♦ = Natural, signoffs but good suits
  3♥ = invitational in spades
  3♠ = preemptive
  4♠ = To play, usually based on fit
  

• Max Hardy, Two over One Game Force, Revised - Expanded, Updated for the 1990s, 5th print, 1995, p. 232

  If his partner wishes to know which minor the cue bidder holds he artificially bids two notrump to ask the cue bidder to name his minor suit. [No mention of paradox responses]

   
  

 

Far from it, the failure to discuss continuations is evidence that this partnership should not be playing these openings.

If you agree to play Michaels cuebids, the standard response structure (as given e.g. by Bergen, above) can be assumed.

 

After all, there are more important things in life (and in bridge) than discussing follow-up sequences where there are good standards.

 

And BTW, paradox responses are not standard in response to two suited openings, such as Muiderberg, either.

 

Rik

[dake50]

I suggest to nominate you for the dreamer of the year award.

 

Why not x AKQJxx - AKQJxx, surely part of your style, and a grand looks quite reasonable.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

*** Then wouldn't "impending doom" become "impending glorious"?????

[dake50]

OP doesn't have the luxury of discussed continuations, so it seems he has little choice but to roll the dice (probably Timo's suggestion of a Pass for now and worry later). 3C, if taken for the desire to play in clubs regardless of Pard's minor, could launch more doom..as could anything else taken wrong. It could also locate our 1-1 club fit instead of our 6-6 Diamond slam.

 

*** So commenters should/should not suggest what those "luxury of *to be discussed* continuations" SHOULD BE and why?

This is an expert forum, so should have diverse and useable suggestions justified.

[aguahombre]

OP doesn't have the luxury of discussed continuations, so it seems he has little choice but to roll the dice (probably Timo's suggestion of a Pass for now and worry later). 3C, if taken for the desire to play in clubs regardless of Pard's minor, could launch more doom..as could anything else taken wrong. It could also locate our 1-1 club fit instead of our 6-6 Diamond slam.

 

*** So commenters should/should not suggest what those "luxury of *to be discussed* continuations" SHOULD BE and why?

This is an expert forum, so should have diverse and useable suggestions justified.

 

Dake: IMO, contributors should try to answer a posted problem or question within the conditions facing the OP. Those who do that and then provide useable suggestions to avoid the problem are the most helpful ---whether others agree with them or not.

 

Those who focus solely on recommendations to avoid the problem often have valid points but are not being entirely responsive to the question.

 

Then, there is another group :rolleyes:

 

Ideally, in these cases, once the OP has received answers/suggestions directly related to his post, and the focus of the thread has moved off topic to the pros and cons of other related agreements...then a new thread would be linked and referenced. That isn't likely to happen very often.

[ggwhiz]

OP doesn't have the luxury of discussed continuations, so it seems he has little choice but to roll the dice (probably Timo's suggestion of a Pass for now and worry later). 3C, if taken for the desire to play in clubs regardless of Pard's minor, could launch more doom..as could anything else taken wrong. It could also locate our 1-1 club fit instead of our 6-6 Diamond slam.

 

*** So commenters should/should not suggest what those "luxury of *to be discussed* continuations" SHOULD BE and why?

This is an expert forum, so should have diverse and useable suggestions justified.

 

All I did was gamble 2nt, say why and include what the discussion might look like AFTER the hand on the theory that we would continue to play and my opinion that it's not happening if you unilaterally pass 2♠.

[MrAce]

I do not think OP is asking our methods over michaels. If he did, he would not have post a hand. Instead he would have posted the auction and asked what would all bids over 2 ♠ mean.

 

The way i read it, OP is giving us his methods and agreements (or lack of agreements) and also giving us the hand and the auction and asking how would we try to slip through this scary situation.