(1S) - P - (3S) - X - P - ?

[Mr Rat]

This hand came up in a bidding forum question, you hold:

 

EDIT: Trying to use the hand editor since the original format caused some confusion for some.[Question: how to get it to show a ? under West's 2nd bid]

 

IMPs. Dealer South. None Vul.

 

[hv=pc=n&w=st8hkj2dk863ckt76&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp3s(Pre-emptive)dp]133|200[/hv]

* 3♠ = Pre-emptive

 

You are West, your bid.

 

A number of alternative bids were given, Pass, 4m, 4H, 4S, 4N.

 

I find anything beyond 4H as being a bit nuts tbh with a balanced 10-count. Pass also seems manic, since their 3S suggests 9 trumps (although the discussion was in a 4cM area, it doesn't really matter I think since they are suggesting a 9-card fit whatever their basic system) and the LTT tells us that 3S-X is likely to be a good score for them however it turns out. Essentially Pass should have a surprise for them in trumps along with some values.

 

That leaves a choice between 4C & playing 4H on a possible Moysian. I plumped for 4H at IMPs, but would probably go for 4C at MPs - even though that could be a 0 count from partner's viewpoint.

 

The discussion around this seems to centre on two areas:

 

1. How many hearts does partner guarantee for the X?

2. What does 4S mean and does that affect what 4N means? (N.B. Not saying that they're sensible on this hand, just to discuss what they mean systemically).

 

For 1, there is a question as to whether partner is obliged to bid 4H with any 5-card or longer holding, even say Q9xxx (or even 65432?). If so, does the X suggest that he has only 4 hearts. And does it promise 4 hearts? Note that in this we're ignoring the possibility that he may have a very strong hand that needs to start with a X, since that will not be a problem hand.

 

If they were bidding hearts then we would of course expect partner to bid 3S with 5+ cards and X with 4, but we're in a different boat now that 4H may end the auction and we may play a 5-1 fit.

 

Re question 2, there were all sorts of suggestions re these bids - some saying that 4N is rkc for hearts, some that it's a general force, some saying any 2-suiter with hearts goes that way so 4N is minors. If it has hearts then it must be a slam try to go beyond 4H, so... I thought it would be interesting to see what people here think. The 3S pre-empt certainly causes some problems for people.

[gszes]

lets picture the auction from your partner hand

1s p 3s and its up to you. Partner has passed what is the

minimum holding you would need to x in order to essentially

force your passed partner (probably not due to a ton of spades)

to bid on the 4 level?????????????????????? There is no vulnerability

mentioned which has a heavy bearing on quality/power so we are going

to have to assume this x is an attempt to make something while realizing

your lho has still not limited their hand and can be quite strong.

 

would you x with say void xxxx xxxxx xxxx void Axxx xxxxx xxxx

void Axxx xxxxx Axxx void Axxx Axxxx Axxx and stronger ??? go to

the lowest possible strength you would use for such an x and then go

take a look at the problem hand provided. Making a bid such as 4c or 4h

with this much power borders on criminal. Not only are both bids unilateral

for no reason in particular both vastly understate the power of this hand.

 

IMHO the only bid that comes close to this hand both in power and shape is

 

4N

 

asking p to pick a minor at the 5 level. This bid shows this hand well allows

us to play in whichever minor we have the best fit in (vs guessing) and shows

the power of this hand. Drop the equivalent of a K from the problem hand and

I would be a ton less unhappy having to bid 4c.

[ArtK78]

I would bid 4♥, expecting partner to have 4, but it is not out of the question that partner does not have that many.

 

Many years ago I played in a Regional Swiss Teams and preempted 3♠, playing it there for -100, only to find out that the opps did not have a game. At least, I thought they did not have a game, as they could not make 3NT or 5 of a minor, and their "heart fit" was a 3-3 fit. My teammates came back to the table +620 in their 3-3 heart fit!

[Mr Rat]

lets picture the auction from your partner hand

1s p 3s and its up to you. Partner has passed what is the

minimum holding you would need to x in order to essentially

force your passed partner (probably not due to a ton of spades)

to bid on the 4 level??????????????????????

The pass can be a decent hand, up to a balanced 14 count - bearing in mind that partner passed in the overcalling position, not as dealer. On that basis, the double simply shows opening values and may even be shaded, since any partner worth their salt, holding a shortage in opps suit, will strive to make a t/o X realising that the other hand may have too many spades to have a sensible bid.

N.B. As a bidding test question, unless otherwise stated, standard methods are assumed. Disciplined players will pass with a "weak NT" type of balanced 12-14 hand.

 

There is no vulnerability

mentioned which has a heavy bearing on quality/power so we are going

to have to assume this x is an attempt to make something while realizing

your lho has still not limited their hand and can be quite strong.

IMPs, none vul. Now fixed in the OP - the formatting turned out as badly as I feared :(

 

would you x with say void xxxx xxxxx xxxx void Axxx xxxxx xxxx

void Axxx xxxxx Axxx void Axxx Axxxx Axxx and stronger ??? go to

the lowest possible strength you would use for such an x and then go

take a look at the problem hand provided. Making a bid such as 4c or 4h

with this much power borders on criminal. Not only are both bids unilateral

for no reason in particular both vastly understate the power of this hand.

The lowest possible hand is about a 10-count with a spade void, for the reasons stated above.

 

IMHO the only bid that comes close to this hand both in power and shape is 4N

asking p to pick a minor at the 5 level. This bid shows this hand well allows

us to play in whichever minor we have the best fit in (vs guessing) and shows

the power of this hand. Drop the equivalent of a K from the problem hand and

I would be a ton less unhappy having to bid 4c.

Ok, I think that was based on the misunderstanding of the maximum strength of the passed hand - perhaps that's why the bidding test put these bids in as possible answers.

[ahydra]

I guess you can't have a proper gszes post without twenty-five question marks, seventeen unnecessary line breaks and a hand with sixteen suits. B-)

 

To the OP - may I suggest you use the hand editor next time? Click the canadian-flag-with-spade symbol (to the right of the smiley face) when creating/editing a post.

 

Here we really want to make a TOX of partner's TOX. Anything could be right. Partner really should have 4 (possibly 5) hearts, so I'd choose 4H as probably the least of evils, and would think it is quite likely to come in.

 

ahydra

[Mr Rat]

I would bid 4♥, expecting partner to have 4, but it is not out of the question that partner does not have that many.

 

Many years ago I played in a Regional Swiss Teams and preempted 3♠, playing it there for -100, only to find out that the opps did not have a game. At least, I thought they did not have a game, as they could not make 3NT or 5 of a minor, and their "heart fit" was a 3-3 fit. My teammates came back to the table +620 in their 3-3 heart fit!

Yes that probably sums it up re the heart position - I suspect that nobody has agreements about how many hearts the doubler may have - the bid is made under extreme pressure so sometimes you play a silly contract... and sometimes you make a silly contract :)

 

That's the downside of pre-empts - you can push the opposition into bidding something that they'd never have done by themselves, and all too often it makes. I often feel that pre-empts work at their best when they go beyond the opps likely game contract (e.g. opening 4m cuts out any possibility of them playing 3N). I gave up playing Lucas 2s for that reason - you push them into a game in the other major, then better players count out your hand and make the contract. Like the multi 2D, such bids work best versus weaker opposition, but we want to design our system to work against strong opps.

 

In this example, playing a Moysian doesn't seem a bad idea - after all the hearts are rather good and will fit well if pard has QTxxx / Q9xxx and perhaps even if he has a card less. Given your example of making a 3-3 fit, perhaps Moyse was a pessimist! ;)

[Mr Rat]

I guess you can't have a proper gszes post without twenty-five question marks, seventeen unnecessary line breaks and a hand with sixteen suits. B-)

 

To the OP - may I suggest you use the hand editor next time? Click the canadian-flag-with-spade symbol (to the right of the smiley face) when creating/editing a post.

 

Here we really want to make a TOX of partner's TOX. Anything could be right. Partner really should have 4 (possibly 5) hearts, so I'd choose 4H as probably the least of evils, and would think it is quite likely to come in.

Thanks - I didn't know about the flag thing, the above was my first ever post here. I was tempted to quip about not being able to bring myself to click the Canadian flag but I have nothing against Canada and it might not be taken in jest. I think most would plump for 4H as you did.

[ArtK78]

To the OP - may I suggest you use the hand editor next time? Click the canadian-flag-with-spade symbol (to the right of the smiley face) when creating/editing a post.

ahydra

Canadian-flag-with-spade symbol? Love it!

[Trinidad]

I would pass. I know the Law tells us to bid to the four level, and I believe in the Law (to a certain extent ;) ). But the Law can't tell us what suit to play in at the four level. If we pick the wrong one, the Law is not on our side anymore.

 

If I would bid, I would bid 4♥ and radiate confidence. There are these opponents who look at 4 small hearts and conclude that their partner will be short in hearts and bid 4♠. (They forget that if their partner is short in hearts, he can see that for himself.)

 

Rik

[cherdano]

I would pass. I know the Law tells us to bid to the four level, and I believe in the Law (to a certain extent ;) ). But the Law can't tell us what suit to play in at the four level. If we pick the wrong one, the Law is not on our side anymore.

I think the Law tells us to pass if 3S is going down, and to bid if 3S is going to make.

[gwnn]

I have come back to this thread several times, hoping to know what to bid next time. I will use the good old adage "If you don't know what to bid, pass." (a cousin of "If you don't know what to bid in a slam auction, bid the lowest call.") which is pretty awful most of the time but maybe it makes sense in this case?

[helene_t]

Let's say declarer has five trumps and a side ace. He might be able to make two ruffs in dummy. That's eight. He could have a nineth trick somewhere but then again he might only have one ruff in dummy.

 

I pass. It would have been easier at MP since 4♣ feels a bit safer at IMPs. I'm not going to bid 4♥. I have more clubs, and with both red suits partner can still convert to 4♦. Besides, 4♣ is less likely to get doubled.

 

On a bad day, partner has a good hand with five hearts and 4♥ would make.

[Mr Rat]

Let's say declarer has five trumps and a side ace. He might be able to make two ruffs in dummy. That's eight. He could have a nineth trick somewhere but then again he might only have one ruff in dummy.

 

I pass. It would have been easier at MP since 4♣ feels a bit safer at IMPs. I'm not going to bid 4♥. I have more clubs, and with both red suits partner can still convert to 4♦. Besides, 4♣ is less likely to get doubled.

 

On a bad day, partner has a good hand with five hearts and 4♥ would make.

It's good to see someone make the case for 4♣. As mentioned in my OP I see that as a candidate bid, and certainly I want to go plus and that may be the best way/only to do it.

 

There's a key issue - if we have two balanced hands and our only playable strain is a minor, then we will need around 28-29 total points to make 5m. Our hand has only 10 hcp so partner needs to be contributing the other 18-19. And if he has that then he will bid again. If he has shape he will probably do something over 4C.

 

The thing is that 4C (or 4D) may be our only playable spot. I wonder how many people would consider X then 4D by partner to be forcing though - or at least very close to it, expecting a bid with anything but a near-bust (which 4C might be).

[Mr Rat]

I think the Law tells us to pass if 3S is going down, and to bid if 3S is going to make.

Well, I think the Law tells us that 3♠-X will be an ok score for them however many tricks it makes - unless they have misjudged or there are surprises in the distribution for them. However, that may already be a done deal - perhaps the optimum contract is 140 for 3♥ or 110 for 3♣ by us and 3♠-X is -100 as the par. It's hard to tell, but if 3S is making then we need to bid on and the risk of not doing so at IMPs is very great. At MPs it's just a bottom.

 

But since we have no surprises for them, no trump length, not a particularly good defensive hand etc, there is no reason to believe that 3♠-X will be a bad score for opps, so bidding on at IMPs looks by far the safest choice. Far better than letting them make a game at this table and maybe another plus at the other table.

[cherdano]

Well, I think the Law tells us that 3♠-X will be an ok score for them however many tricks it makes - unless they have misjudged or there are surprises in the distribution for them.

Why that?

[Mr Rat]

Why that?

Because it wouldn't exist as a law unless it said that. They are advertising a 9-card fit and contracting for the same number of tricks as their fit because the LTT says that will be a decent score for them (unless there's something skewed about the hand).

 

Yes, there are exceptions of course, but they're spotted in post-match analysis, at the table we can only assume that they have a 9-card fit and that means we have a fit - we just don't know where and we also don't know if we still have space to find it or if we're already too high. That's what pre-empts are supposed to do.

 

What we do know is this: whatever the total number of trumps/tricks may be, if they are getting 9 of them in 3♠-X then we will get a bad score. So the risk of passing is too great without someone having trump length (and we know that neither of us has that) - therefore I feel that bidding on is clear-cut here, not even a close decision on this hand.

[cherdano]

Because it wouldn't exist as a law unless it said that. They are advertising a 9-card fit and contracting for the same number of tricks as their fit because the LTT says that will be a decent score for them (unless there's something skewed about the hand).

 

Yes, there are exceptions of course, but they're spotted in post-match analysis, at the table we can only assume that they have a 9-card fit and that means we have a fit - we just don't know where and we also don't know if we still have space to find it or if we're already too high. That's what pre-empts are supposed to do.

That's not what the law says. They probably have a 9-card fit, we have an 8-card fit on average (if we bid, we will sometimes play in a 9-card fit, sometimes in an 8-card fit, sometimes a 7-card fit). That makes 17 total tricks. For which number of undertricks in 3S is it better to bid on?

 

What we do know is this: whatever the total number of trumps/tricks may be, if they are getting 9 of them in 3♠-X then we will get a bad score. So the risk of passing is too great without someone having trump length (and we know that neither of us has that) - therefore I feel that bidding on is clear-cut here, not even a close decision on this hand.

I agree with that. (Thinking.) In fact, isn't this pretty close to

I think the Law tells us to pass if 3S is going down, and to bid if 3S is going to make.

which someone other posted wrote above?

[Mr Rat]

That's not what the law says. They probably have a 9-card fit, we have an 8-card fit on average (if we bid, we will sometimes play in a 9-card fit, sometimes in an 8-card fit, sometimes a 7-card fit). That makes 17 total tricks. For which number of undertricks in 3S is it better to bid on?

They "probably" have a 9-card fit? In a bidding poll question it's reasonable to assume that we're not playing lunatics - they will have a 9 card fit. We should base our decisions on that.

But it doesn't really matter - as I said before, however many total tricks are available the risk of them getting 9 is too great to pass here. We know relatively little for an auction about to enter the 4-level.

And btw - 7 cards is not defined as a fit in LTT terms, any pair with at best a 7-card combined holding in any suit is defined as a mis-fit.

 

I agree with that. (Thinking.) In fact, isn't this pretty close to

<Bid if 3♠-X is making but pass if it's not>

which someone other posted wrote above?

Errr... no. At least not unless clairvoyance is available to our side. If we could put a card on the table that says "I pass if 3♠ is going down but I bid 4♣ if it's making" then that would be a fine strategy indeed. We don't get it so easy - we have to decide what to do based on statistics, any useful rules of thumb such as LTT, experience etc etc.

[cherdano]

Oh dear - you don't even specify system in your original post, and now you lash out at me for assuming a "probably 9-card fit" rather than "certain 9-card fit". They could have a 4=4 fit (almost nobody needs 5 trumps to jump to 3M in a 4-card major system), they could have a 5=3 fit (you didn't tell us what 3S shows), they could have a 6=4 fit, they could have a 5=5 fit. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

In any case, passing is certainly right against some opponents and certainly wrong against others.

[MrAce]

I know there is one bid that I would not even consider and it is 4♥

 

If I decide not to pass then I bid my cheapest 4 card suit. I already doubled 1♠ and if pd has 4 hearts he can bid it over my 4♣ anytime. This way you do not play a 3-3 or even 3-2 fit if opponents are joking with 8 cards and pd has 3244 10+hcp http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

[Mr Rat]

Oh dear - you don't even specify system in your original post, and now you lash out at me for assuming a "probably 9-card fit" rather than "certain 9-card fit". They could have a 4=4 fit (almost nobody needs 5 trumps to jump to 3M in a 4-card major system), they could have a 5=3 fit (you didn't tell us what 3S shows), they could have a 6=4 fit, they could have a 5=5 fit. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

In any case, passing is certainly right against some opponents and certainly wrong against others.

Lash out? Lol you'll know it when I lash out. It's clear that you don't understand the basis of this discussion so I'll trouble you no further.

 

If you'd read the OP properly you would see that it notes that the base system is not relevant, and why, but that may go over your head if you don't know what a pre-emptive 3♠ looks like and how it differs from an invitational 3♠. I'm not here to explain the difference in a forum that's labelled as being for expert players - and as a matter of policy I don't help people who rant at me.

 

I bear you no animosity, but I don't want to discuss this with you any further. If being on your "ignore list" means that I don't have to waste any more of my time on this standard of discussion, then I welcome that.

[Mr Rat]

I know there is one bid that I would not even consider and it is 4♥

 

If I decide not to pass then I bid my cheapest 4 card suit. I already doubled 1♠ and if pd has 4 hearts he can bid it over my 4♣ anytime. This way you do not play a 3-3 or even 3-2 fit if opponents are joking with 8 cards and pd has 3244 10+hcp http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

I've edited the OP to use the hand editor, since the formatting seems to have caused some confusion.

West has not 'already doubled', he has passed over 1♠, then hears a pre-emptive 3♠ on his left, double from (unpassed) partner, pass from opener... to you.

[PhilKing]

It's probably best to play 3NT as pick a minor here, but you could also make a pretty good case for Lebensohl.

 

Playing "the gadget" you can get the best of both - a direct 4♦ is constructive. With a bad diamond hand we bid 3NT (minors) and remove clubs to diamonds, showing the weak hand - not diamonds and hearts.

 

So my choice here is 4♦ constructive.

[Mr Rat]

It's probably best to play 3NT as pick a minor here, but you could also make a pretty good case for Lebensohl.

 

Playing "the gadget" you can get the best of both - a direct 4♦ is constructive. With a bad diamond hand we bid 3NT (minors) and remove clubs to diamonds, showing the weak hand - not diamonds and hearts.

 

So my choice here is 4♦ constructive.

Interesting. Since this gadget means that you're giving up the ability to play 3N here (when West has something like ♠AQ ♥xxx ♦KTxx ♣JTxx), presumably that's in the belief that West will rarely have sufficient stoppers in their 9-card suit to make it worthwhile playing 3N in its natural sense on these auctions?

[PhilKing]

Interesting. Since this gadget means that you're giving up the ability to play 3N here (when West has something like ♠AQ ♥xxx ♦KTxx ♣JTxx), presumably that's in the belief that West will rarely have sufficient stoppers in their 9-card suit to make it worthwhile playing 3N in its natural sense on these auctions?

 

I consulted my database and no one has ever bid 3NT to play in this auction within the last decade in top-level championship play. A couple of illustrative hands did catch my attention:

 

Gavin Wolpert held: ♠J2♥T62♦K964♣7432

 

He guessed to bid 4♦ and got smacked for 500. Partner held a less than ideal ♠T4♥AQJ8♦52♣AQJ85 on which 4♣ makes ten tricks. And no, they could not make 4♠.

 

On another hand Jassem held:♠93♥K♦T9763♣J9862

 

He did not guess - he bid 3NT for the minors and conceded 300 in 5♣ against a vulnerable making game.

 

Widening the search slightly to include 1♥-pass-3♥-x-pass, Bertens held: ♠A95♥AJ4♦J8543♣J4. He cued 4♥ and converted 5♣ to 5♦ down 2. The winning action was 3NT, but maybe that was not an option. If that is true he had another chance - pass would have gathered an easy 500.