Comments on this bidding?

[whereagles]

NV vs V, imps, RHO expert and LHO average.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sjthakxxxxdxxcatx&w=sakxxxhqjt9dtxcxx&e=s9hxxdkqj9xxxxcxx&s=sq87xxhxdackqj9xx]399|300|Scoring: IMP

See below for auction.[/hv]

Bidding:

 

North East South West

1♥.......3♦......X...pass

3♥.....pass....3♠..pass

4♠.....pass..pass...X

pass..pass..pass

 

The questions:

1. Do agree with South's dbl on 1st round?

2. What do you think 3♠ means, after the double?

3. Should North have bid 4♣ instead of 4♠?

4. Should North or South have taken out to 5♣?

[inquiry]

The questions:

1. Do agree with South's dbl on 1st round?

No, I do not agree with the double.

 

2. What do you think 3♠ means, after the double?

 

A hand not good enough to bid a forcing 3♠ on the first round of bidding, and unsuited to play in hearts.

 

3. Should North have bid 4♣ instead of 4♠?

 

North probably should have passed instead of bidding anything, because his partner can't possible be this strong. South, however, should have bid 4♣ instead of 4♠

 

4. Should North or South have taken out to 5♣?

 

Well, north has no reason to pull. South on the ohterhand, must be living in la-la land to bid like this. He probably should pull and be willing to apologize to north for his bidding choices

[flytoox]

Tough one. I dont blame north much for his 4S. After all, he has prime card and JT trump support. If pd has 6 spades and some 10HCP hand, 4S should have some play.

 

Perhaps south should try 3N after 3H. I dont like bidding 3S with such bad suit as 3S is not forcing and pd will often have nowhere to go.

 

I think I may run to 5C after the double. It is difficult for sure, but at least the trump suit is good.

[pclayton]

NV vs V, imps, RHO expert and LHO average.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sjthakxxxxdxxcatx&w=sakxxxhqjt9dtxcxx&e=s9hxxdkqj9xxxxcxx&s=sq87xxhxdackqj9xx]399|300|Scoring: IMP

See below for auction.[/hv]

Bidding:

 

North East South West

1♥.......3♦......X...pass

3♥.....pass....3♠..pass

4♠.....pass..pass...X

pass..pass..pass

 

The questions:

1. Do agree with South's dbl on 1st round?

2. What do you think 3♠ means, after the double?

3. Should North have bid 4♣ instead of 4♠?

4. Should North or South have taken out to 5♣?

1. Playing Robson, double is kind of foisted on me (4♣ is fitted)

2. 3♠ shows a hand not quite good enough for a direct 3♠ (which is not fitted). Probably a weak 5-5 I guess.

3. I don't see why.

4. No.

 

If South's spade spots are decent, 4♠ is rolling home with careful play.

 

The only change I'd make is a 4♣ call over 3♥, and then 4♠ over 4♥. North corrects and there you are.

[luke warm]

The questions:

1. Do agree with South's dbl on 1st round?

2. What do you think 3♠ means, after the double?

3. Should North have bid 4♣ instead of 4♠?

4. Should North or South have taken out to 5♣?

1. yes

2. short hearts and spades

3. no (below for reason)

4. how? the x should show spades but doesn't *necessarily* have to show clubs

 

i agree with phil, over 3H i'd bid 4C... partner supposedly knows i'm 2 suited and will correct more willingly to 4S than to 5C... and if he bids 4H now, i'd probably bid 4S (tho pass enters the picture on the bidding)

[ochinko]

1. Yes, South's double makes perfect sense if you play a negative double till 3Sp. It means "partner, please pick up one of the two remaining suits". With these lengths I'd double even weaker.

 

2. 3Sp mean suit quality 9 (cards + honors in the suit). A nice rule by Ron Klinger. So the bid would only be justified if clubs and spades are swapped. South has expressed his distribution. Unless a fit is found from now on he can only contribute to the bidding with penalty doubles.

 

3. No, 4Cl would be a bad bid from North. If we assume that partner has equal lengths in the black suits, then 4Sp should be just as easy/hard as 5Cl. But we than add to this partner's preference of spades, it's again spades. Then we add the fact that because of the club ace opps can't quickly ruff a club if spades are trumps, whereas if clubs are trumps a fast ruff of a spade can be expected. So, again 4Sp.

 

4. No. North can't expect such weak spades from his partner, and South can't expect spades to be broken that bad. Yes, they make, but the bidding space was exausted first from the preempt, then from the insistance from North to his hearts, and finally the wrong bid of 3Sp from South.

[mike777]

1) Prefer 4C not X, then rebid 4s over North rebid. I think my hand will be more useful as declarer.

[ochinko]

1) Prefer 4C not X, then rebid 4s over North rebid. I think my hand will be more useful as declarer.

Yes, but this depends on the system. Look at pclayton's post. You can't bid any new suit in this position if you play Andrew Robson's style because it would promise a heart fit as well.

 

You didn't deny hearts, you didn't show both suits. What if West jumps to 5D after your 4C? Your partner can't make an informed decision now, neither can you. Opps have a superfit so you should either have one too, or have two fits. But where?

[hotShot]

1. Do agree with South's dbl on 1st round?

Depends if it's agreed to be penallty, takeout, negative or support.

If it's negative, i'll agree. Otherwise i don't.

2. What do you think 3♠ means, after the double?

Depends on the the agreement about dbl. Without agreement i would now expect the dbl to be negative, No ♥ support, 5+♠, no ♦ stopper, at least 4♣. And I expect it to be game forcing.

3. Should North have bid 4♣ instead of 4♠?

Only if he likes to play 3-3 fits on the five level. No!

4. Should North or South have taken out to 5♣?

No, how could they know?

 

5. Should south bid 4♣ instead of 3♠?

Yes! You have 6 cards there and the suit quality is better. Even with partner holding only a small single or double you can make it.

[mike777]

1) Prefer 4C not X, then rebid 4s over North rebid. I think my hand will be more useful as declarer.

Yes, but this depends on the system. Look at pclayton's post. You can't bid any new suit in this position if you play Andrew Robson's style because it would promise a heart fit as well.

 

You didn't deny hearts, you didn't show both suits. What if West jumps to 5D after your 4C? Your partner can't make an informed decision now, neither can you. Opps have a superfit so you should either have one too, or have two fits. But where?

1) Robson style is not assumed in the question. Perhaps a reason not to play that style if I cannot bid my longest suit natural. P should assume I would cue or raise H, here If I had them, otherwise I am just showing game force hand with long clubs at this point. Note failure to make negative x at this point may clue them into weakness in spades or at the very least give them pause in the suit.

2) On this hand I would X 5D if my p passes. 4C is a game force bid, my P better be able to figure out where most of my HCP are.

3) P knows we are bidding under pressure, so should not go leaping to wild slams.

[whereagles]

Funny. I see just about everyone has his own opinion as to what the bidding shows :)

 

But I think the problem simply boils down to whether South holds

 

KQJxxx

x

xxx

Kxx

(A spade negative free bid)

 

or

 

KQxxx

x

xx

AKxxx

(A game forcing 55)

 

Now.. playing natural (no fancy competitive stuff like equality, NFBs or whatever), we would all agree that the auction

 

1C....1S....X...pass

2C..pass..2H

 

obviously shows a heart negative free bid: 5-6 cards, not enough hcp for a direct 2H. The point is up to what level should this philosophy hold? Let's look at a few examples:

 

1D....1H....X...pass

2D..pass..3C

 

The 3C probably shows a hand close to a NFB, since pard can pass or correct to 3D.

 

1D....2H....X...pass

3D..pass..3S

 

Now, does it still make sense that 3S is a NFB? Not really. To force to the 3 level, pard cannot have less than 11-12 points. With those 11-12 he might as well have bid a direct 2S. But he didn't do so. So he must have some interest in clubs, thus pard's bidding shows a 5-5 in the blacks. Since responder gave finding a club fit as much importance as finding a spade fit, I'd even dare to say 3S is slammish.

 

1H....3D....X...pass

3H..pass..3S

 

Finally, our example is the borderline case: on the one hand South couldn't have bid 2S. On the other hand he's forcing the 3 level. The first argument points at a NFB with very nice spades (after all, it's the 3 level...), the second at a game forcing black 55. Since with a nice spade holding South might have streched to bid 3/4S the first round, I am inclined to place South with the forcing 55.

 

In this case, the correct bidding is clear:

 

1H....3D....X...pass

3H..pass..3S...pass

4C..pass..5C (or RKCB)

 

North's 4S on the 5-2 fit is passable, but after the double, I think bidding 5C is somewhat safer.

 

Anyway, at table both players interpreted 3S as the 55. In the end the "correct" meaning to 3S depends on what you agree with pard. But what I claim is that bidding "rules" (in this case dbl + suit = NFB) only apply up to a point. In a practical situation one should put prejudice aside and think. Things aren't always what they seem...

[inquiry]

Funny. I see just about everyone has his own opinion as to what the bidding shows :)

 

But I think the problem simply boils down to whether South holds

 

KQJxxx

x

xxx

Kxx

(A spade negative free bid)

 

or

 

KQxxx

x

xx

AKxxx

(A game forcing 55)

Not me... south hand should look like the first one, not the second for this auction for me. If I had the second hand I would bid 3S over 4♦. In fact the given hand is too strong for double in my opinion. BTW, equality only apply through interference at the level of 2♠ or below. Over 2NT Misho and I play unusual versus unusual, and for 3♣ through 3♠ inteference we play META (so the bid on this hand would have been 4♣ to show long clubs, and a spade suit, or double to show clubs and ask for diamond stopper).

 

I have come to very much like the THRUMP double at the three level. But if you duble with the hand held, and partner rebids 3♥, your choices seem to be 3NT or 4♣, not 3♠. That FIVE card spade suit is not biddable over 3♥.

 

Ben

[whereagles]

I don't understand your last sentence, Ben. Care to elaborate? :)

[inquiry]

I don't understand your last sentence, Ben. Care to elaborate? :)

Ok.. the last sentence was... That FIVE card spade suit is not biddable over 3♥.

 

On the hand from this post, the spade suit was.."♠Q87xx " When you make a negative double on teh auction.. 1H-3D-DBL, your partner (who opened 1♥, will tend to bid 3♠ EVEN WITH THREE CARD support, especially strong three card support. So your suit simply isn't good enough to double and then rebid 3♠. It lacks the quality to introduce at the three level with a non-forcing 3♠ bid. BTW, this auction (DBL then 3S) is non-forcing so anyone who bids this hand that way needs to rethink their bidding structure.... much better to shoot 3NT and hope partner has a diamond stopper too or the club Ax(x), or running hearts than risk 3♠ going all pass.

 

Ben

[whereagles]

1. I agree opener will sometimes bid 3S on 3 cards after the double. But I don't think he will skip a decent 6 card heart suit to bid 3S on Hxx. Therefore I think opener can still have Hxx or HHx in spades if he bids 3H over the double.

 

Also, if you have specifically agreed the 3S rebid is a black 55, you should still do it even with tame spades. Just because you find it unlikely spades is the best fit, it doesn't mean you should skip your obligation of describing the hand. Especially at such a high level of bidding.

 

2. If you want to apply the 'dbl + suit = NFB' principle at any level of bidding, fine. But I disagree when you claim it's the only and correct way of playing. Common sense supersedes conventions and the case I showed is pretty much borderline.

[inquiry]

Also, if you have specifically agreed the 3S rebid is a black 55, you should still do it even with tame spades. Just because you find it unlikely spades is the best fit, it doesn't mean you should skip your obligation of describing the hand. Especially at such a high level of bidding.

 

But I disagree when you claim it's the only and correct way of playing. Common sense supersedes conventions and the case I showed is pretty much borderline.

Well, if you require the double to be 5-5 in the black suit, or the 3♠ rebid to be 5-5 in the black suit, you will have a lot hands you simply can not bid (Good, long spades, no heart fit, not enough to force to 4♠ (so not good enough for immediate 3♠).

 

I highlighted the part in your last paragraph. I never said this was the only and correct way of bidding it. In fact, the bidding would NOT go that way with most of my partners... In fact with a fair number of them I would bid 4♣ over 3♦ forcing one round and showing the black suits. With others I would double and then rebid a forcing 3♠ suggesting not a good suit (as with a good suit I would have bid 3♠ to begin with. There are many ways to play this, what is best is open to speculation. But if 3♠ is passable (as I said), that can't be right. And bidding a forcing 3♠ here suggest better spades in almost all partnerships where double ask for partner to bid spades.

 

Ben

[whereagles]

Well, you did say this

this auction (DBL then 3S) is non-forcing so anyone who bids this hand that way needs to rethink their bidding structure

But ok, perhaps this is just a misunderstanding.

 

In any case, let me tell you what happened at table. I was South and was playing in the 'dbl + suit = NFB' way, with no further agreement. After 3D my initial reaction was to bid a forcing 3S. But then I wondered...

 

"What if pard bids 4H? Do I stick to it or bid 5C??"

"If I bid 5C, will pard take it as a cue of hearts, denying diamond control, or as natural?"

"No, it must be wrong to bid 3S here. Besides, it's not even certain we have a fit."

 

Then it went...

 

"How about double? Pard will probably bid 3H, which I correct to 3S. If he bids something else, I'm in good shape."

"Will pard take dbl + 3S as a NFB of spades? Could be.. but heck, pard should see I'm forcing the 3 level. I can't be that weak, and if I'm not weak why didn't I bid 3S?"

"No, if pard is alert, he'll understand this must be some strong 55."

"In any case I prefer to risk him passing the 3S correction than me overbidding in the direct seat."

 

And so I bid 3S. Regardless of the merits of way A or B of bidding, one thing is certain: in some cases you have to realize you're facing (undiscussed) exceptions. I think I have a solid enough case that the situation at table is exceptional from the point of view of the bidding scheme I was using. It's not iron-cast as the case

 

1D 2H dbl pass

3D pass 3S

 

but it's defendable.

[the hog]

"Now.. playing natural (no fancy competitive stuff like equality, NFBs or whatever), we would all agree that the auction

 

1C....1S....X...pass

2C..pass..2H

 

obviously shows a heart negative free bid: 5-6 cards, not enough hcp for a direct 2H. The point is up to what level should this philosophy hold? Let's look at a few examples:

 

1D....1H....X...pass

2D..pass..3C

 

The 3C probably shows a hand close to a NFB, since pard can pass or correct to 3D.

 

1D....2H....X...pass

3D..pass..3S "

 

Uh, no!

 

1C....1S....X...pass

2C..pass..2H

In the above auction - if you play -ve free bids, an immediate 2H would be non forcing, therefore this auction is forcing.

 

1D....1H....X...pass

2D..pass..3C

Similarly as 2C would be non forcing in -ve free bids, 3C here is forcing.

 

If you DON'T play -ve free bids, the reverse holds true, the above auctions are nf whereas an immediate bid would have been forcing.

 

Most players I know who play -ve free bids play them through the 2 level only - bids at the 3 level are gf whether you play nfb or not.

 

An adjunct you may care to use is that after an opp overcalls at the 2 level, 2NT is a form of Lebensohl, forcing 3C from an average opener, which can be passed or corrected - an example

1D (2S) 2NT (P)

3C (P) 3H this is to play, whereas an immediate 3H would be a gf

 

Obviously this 2N Leb is more useful in a limited opening system, but you can use it in 2/1 provided that opener is aware not to just make a nn thinking acceptance of a Leb bid if he has a hand better than min - eg 16 points or so.

 

On the hand you posted, I would have bid C first, After the expected 4H bid by opener, 4S should show something similar to what I actually hold.

 

A more interesting problem would have been what to bid over a 4D overcall, (which is the bid I would have made at this vulnerability if not playing a Leaping Michaels bid here).