Check or Raise

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=shqt743dk64ckqt64&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1n(15-17)2c(clubs%2Ba%20major)p2h(pass%2Fcorrect)p]133|200[/hv]

Do you bid again? Eight-board Swiss teams with good partners.

[mike777]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO

[the_clown]

Never in a million years

[mgoetze]

Check/fold.

[akwoo]

Partner has some way to invite (specifically in hearts, or with both majors), right?

 

If yes, pass - you're not making game if partner can't even invite.

 

If no (yes, people do play such conventions without discussing followups), bidding has some merit.

[lamford]

Partner has some way to invite (specifically in hearts, or with both majors), right?

 

If yes, pass - you're not making game if partner can't even invite.

 

If no (yes, people do play such conventions without discussing followups), bidding has some merit.

Our agreements were that 2NT was a strong enquiry, at least invitational, 2♦ and 2♠ were natural (for better or worse and gnasher thinks 2♦ might be better played as artificial) and 3H was also pass or correct.

[Bbradley62]

If 2♥ and 3♥ are both "pass or correct", then I think I'd like to know your definition of "pass or correct".

[mikestar13]

"You gotta know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em ..." it's time to FOLD! (Bold caps intentional).

[whereagles]

Canonical pass, wtp?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=shqt743dk64ckqt64&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1n(15-17)2c(clubs%2Ba%20major)p2h(pass%2Fcorrect)p]133|200|Do you bid again? Eight-board swiss teams with good partners.

[/hv]

IMO Pass = 10, 3♣ = 5.

[Manastorm]

I pass. Partner didnt show support or values. If we cash 11 tricks in hearts, perhaps we should pass with trash more often.

[aguahombre]

If 2♥ and 3♥ are both "pass or correct", then I think I'd like to know your definition of "pass or correct".

It means what it means. The person wants to be in 3H if partner has clubs and hearts; he wants to be in 3S or more spades if partner has clubs and spades. If the two club bidder "corrects", advancer will pass 3S or bid more.

[paulg]

I raise to 3♥ because the fifth heart and ten of clubs make this quite a good hand.

[lamford]

I raise to 3♥ because the fifth heart and ten of clubs make this quite a good hand.

You would be successful. I passed, and partner had S KJxx H KJxx D QTxx C x and did not like her singleton club. Game was reasonable (48% on a simulation with Bridge Analyser of 1000 deals) despite the lack of fit in the black suits. Partner did not bid more than 2♥ because of her singleton club and presumed wasted values in the side-suits. We have changed our meaning of 2♦ to a "mixed pass or correct" 2♥ now, but that would be of no use if I had diamonds instead of clubs. Team-mates were disappointed to lose IMPs when they found the -500 4♠ sac.

 

I was surprised to see such a big majority for Pass, my choice at the table, as I thought it was very close. I thought partner might have bid 3H on her hand too.

[broze]

Need to know the shape constraints of the 2♣ bid before making an honest answer. But tbh I doubt I would ever be bidding on here.

[lamford]

Need to know the shape constraints of the 2♣ bid before making an honest answer. But tbh I doubt I would ever be bidding on here.

5-4 either way or 5-5 is the agreement. Double would be artificial. 2M would be natural.

[billw55]

I was surprised to see such a big majority for Pass, my choice at the table, as I thought it was very close. I thought partner might have bid 3H on her hand too.

If anyone should, it is partner. You have shown pretty much all your values, whereas she could have nothing.

 

Even so, missing game with a combined 20 count, badly misfitting black suits, and no aces isn't going to keep me up at night. IMO arguing for a bid here is flagrant resulting.

[gszes]

I am late sigh but I admit I would have bid 3d.

 

Lho did nothing over 2c (which was about to be passed out for all they know)

so it seems reasonable to assume they are generally balanced and have a max

power of around 6. If opener has 16 that leaves p with almost a minimum of 8

and if those 8 are reasonably placed we might have play not just for 4h but

5d (not very likely) also. The point being is that unless p hand is really

a mismatch with ours (lots of spade power) the 3 level should be pretty safe

and who knows how big the payoff might be.

 

If we switched our dia and spade holdings I would probably pass since I had

no good way to invite but with the hand set up we have here 3d makes a great

invite with not much risk. With any luck p will like Qxxx Kxxx QJx xx enough

to bid 4h and they could do the same w/o the spade Q.

[johnu]

Obviously partner doesn't know how to bid his hand, so I bid ...... No, wait, I got rid of that partner last week.

[PhilKing]

The problem here is that you play a method designed to maximise the number of hand types you can interfere with over a strong no trump. This extra strain creates ambiguity as to the relative suit length, and that is what hurt you here.

 

If partner knew you had a fifth trump (as they would if you were playing Multi Landy, for instance) then you would no doubt have sailed into a thin game.

 

Anyway, I think I have mentioned before that I think this is a bad defensive structure regardless of who invented it. If you are still playing double as majors, minors or diamonds, I think you should reevaluate. How useful do you thing the second and third hand types are in a partscore battle? I have just about completed a monster file of every competitive hand in my database where it started 1NT-X, separated out into those where double was penalties and those where it is conventional, and the successes for the minor suit hands can be counted on the fingers of one foot.

[aguahombre]

I wonder how that monster database would shake out on the success of two-suited bids (known, partially known, or unknown (CRASH, etc.) where the suits were always 5+5+ --- treating 5-4 as one-suit and 4M-5m as no bid.

 

This seems to give advancer better information to make better advances, while breaking the hearts of players to hate to use the green card.

[lamford]

The problem here is that you play a method designed to maximise the number of hand types you can interfere with over a strong no trump. This extra strain creates ambiguity as to the relative suit length, and that is what hurt you here.

 

If partner knew you had a fifth trump (as they would if you were playing Multi Landy, for instance) then you would no doubt have sailed into a thin game.

 

Anyway, I think I have mentioned before that I think this is a bad defensive structure regardless of who invented it. If you are still playing double as majors, minors or diamonds, I think you should reevaluate. How useful do you thing the second and third hand types are in a partscore battle? I have just about completed a monster file of every competitive hand in my database where it started 1NT-X, separated out into those where double was penalties and those where it is conventional, and the successes for the minor suit hands can be counted on the fingers of one foot.

I think that double as three-way is basically Meckwell, with a Bridge World suggested change. I have never been that happy with it, and play Multi-Landy over a weak NT. Your advice to re-evaluate is welcomed, but I recall that Gold-Cope at Brighton played double of even a weak NT as artificial and we avoided a penalty against them. They are not a regular partnership I know, and I did not have a chance to ask them of the merits of their methods. Does your database indicated the best use of double against different NT ranges?

[PhilKing]

I think that double as three-way is basically Meckwell, with a Bridge World suggested change. I have never been that happy with it, and play Multi-Landy over a weak NT. Your advice to re-evaluate is welcomed, but I recall that Gold-Cope at Brighton played double of even a weak NT as artificial and we avoided a penalty against them. They are not a regular partnership I know, and I did not have a chance to ask them of the merits of their methods. Does your database indicated the best use of double against different NT ranges?

 

I don't really know yet. It doesn't really work that way, but I will have a somewhat subjective answer backed up with a few well-chosen hands fairly soon. B-)

 

We had a similar escape against Allfrey/Robson when we were playing a mini NT in the Camrose. I just don't get it, although there have to be some plus hands as well.

[mgoetze]

I wonder how that monster database would shake out on the success of two-suited bids (known, partially known, or unknown (CRASH, etc.) where the suits were always 5+5+ --- treating 5-4 as one-suit and 4M-5m as no bid.

 

This seems to give advancer better information to make better advances, while breaking the hearts of players to hate to use the green card.

Of course you will have more success when you do break out your 5+5+ bid. The question is how much you lose when you pass.

[mcphee]

A pass is what I would make, if partner thinks I could be less than 5/5 unlucky. After seeing the hand that responded 2H I think that is cleary not looking at the hand they have. I would bid 4H rather than 2, although I would prefer to have some way of being on play in the major as responder,in game. We are playing imps, not pairs.