What do you bid?

[ochinko]

Why is dble rediculous?

First, you pretend to have at least three hearts, then your bid means you have no 6-card suits when you have a 7-card suit. How are you going to convince your partner afterwards that the clubs in your line are better than the hearts when your LHO jumps to 4Sp after your double?

 

Look at the actual hand. Is it likely that your partner is going to leave you in 6C instead of correcting to 6H? East leads a small trump, and you're down in 6H while 6C is cold.

[HeartA]

Why is dble rediculous?

First, you pretend to have at least three hearts, then your bid means you have no 6-card suits when you have a 7-card suit. How are you going to convince your partner afterwards that the clubs in your line are better than the hearts when your LHO jumps to 4Sp after your double?

 

Look at the actual hand. Is it likely that your partner is going to leave you in 6C instead of correcting to 6H? East leads a small trump, and you're down in 6H while 6C is cold.

When I dbl, pd could assume I have support for ♥. But after I bid MY suit, I am telling my pd, I have a strong one suiter hand, and (usually) denies support for pd's suit. When I bid ♣ at 4-level (or even 5 level), if pd still insists on ♥ with ♣Kx support, he wouldn't be my pd anymore. Does this make sense to you?

[flytoox]

Fly it might surprise you to know that some people need values to bid, not just 13 cards. Give opener a slightly above minimum hand and as you have 22 points to the opps 18, and c are likely 3-2, the likelihood of the opps bidding again is very remote.

Anyway if you want to be pedantic, add one extra S and one fewer red card.

This is not the excuse. You want me to give you a hand pd wont be happy to see? What if he holds: xxxxx,kx,kqx,kxx. Do you expect he to raise to 7C after your 5C?

 

Should not you bid 5C with: --,x,xx,AQJtxxxxxx? What pd should do? He willnot know.

[ochinko]

When I dbl, pd could assume I have support for ♥. But after I bid MY suit, I am telling my pd, I have a strong one suiter hand, and (usually) denies support for pd's suit.  When I bid ♣ at 4-level (or even 5 level), if pd still insists on ♥ with ♣Kx support, he wouldn't be my pd anymore.  Does this make sense to you?

What matters is whether your bidding makes sense to your partner. The standard meaning of a takeout double is to let your partner pick up the trump suit. Misdescribing your hand, and blaming partner for trusting you doesn't look like a good idea to me. When you failed to bid clubs right away and your partner have chosen hearts 6C from you sound like a simple cue bid pushing your partner towards 7H.

[TimG]

The standard meaning of a takeout double is to let your partner pick up the trump suit.

That's not the end of the story with a takeout double. It could also be the start of a sequence which shows a single-suited hand that is too good for a simple overcall.

[ochinko]

The standard meaning of a takeout double is to let your partner pick up the trump suit.

That's not the end of the story with a takeout double. It could also be the start of a sequence which shows a single-suited hand that is too good for a simple overcall.

If you're in a balancing position after (1Sp) - P - (P) - ? then yes, you double, then bid your own suit to show a stronger hand than a simple overcall. But here you're pressed to describe your hand better because your LHO is likely to jump to 4Sp and your partner will have to be a clairvoiant to pass your 6C after 5H from him.

[inquiry]

Pass is wrong because if it goes 1♠-P-P-your partner, with four or so spades, will know you are short in spades and didn't overcall or double. He will assume you are weak.

 

Ohter than pass, any bid might work out. However, Dbl seems distorted with this hand pattern, I much rather overcall 2♣ and then if they bid to some high level in spades, use double for tekeout. With three aces, if partner chooses to leave double in, then my hand will not be a disappointment even with a void.

 

I don't like 3♣ or 4♣, so forget those. Five clubs being vul is generally bid to make or down on one or two. This hand has a good chance to make five clubs but partner will never understand I have four first round controls. Two clubs is just about perfect. For one thing it is hardly possible for it to go 2♣-all pass... and if it does, my parnter is probably long in spades and short in clubs in which case five clubs is likely an overbid.

 

Ben

[hotShot]

I would bid 4♣, but only because my partner and i agreed that a jump to 4m is RKCB in that suit. So it shows a good length, control in the side suits and i'm told if my partner has anything that may justify a slam try.

[helene_t]

The standard meaning of a takeout double is to let your partner pick up the trump suit.

That's not the end of the story with a takeout double. It could also be the start of a sequence which shows a single-suited hand that is too good for a simple overcall.

It's quite normal here in the Netherlands first to double and then show your own suit without support for (both) unbid major(s). It's less normal in the U.S.

[Free]

Ok, I admit I forgot some higher level ♣ bids... Here's the full hand:

 

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sq5hqjt872dk84ck6&w=sk7643h9d7652cjt9&e=sajt982hk654dqt9c&s=sha3daj3caq875432]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

As you can see, grand is laydown on some finesses (so it's a poor grand), but small slam is a much better contract imo.

 

I think 2♣ is the best bid. At our table, opps screwed the hand up:

1♠ - Dbl - 2♠ - 3♥

3♠ - Dbl - all pass

We played 3S*= in EW, and at the other table our partners played 5♣+2.

[luis]

I have a theory but I don't know if it's sound or just my imagination.

I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.

So with strange hands like this one I'd never make a "normal" bid like X or 2c since that is usually going to misslead pd, specially in a high level competitive decision.

So whenever I pick a strange hand I make a strange bid or I bid what I think it's the best gamble. That's why I picked 6c. Another reason to bid 6c is that I'm 100% sure the bid will terrorize the opponents, LHO won't know if this is to make, a spectacular save or who knows what. If they are still shocked in the play I can even make 6c when I shouldn't.

 

Pattern recognition is part of the bridge judgement that your pd uses, when he faces a decision he samples hands he remembers where you did the same as in this auction and decides what he has to do with his cards.

With the club King and a couple of red suit kings if I bid 5c my pd knows that passing is automatic and he won't be missing a slam. And that's one of my reasons to bid 6c because I don't want to blame pd for passing 5c with cards that he won't know are useful for a slam

 

Maybe it's better to start with X, maybe it's better to start with 2c but I believe your pd judgement can be damaged if he remembers you doubled or bid 2c with a hand like this, for example he will be reluctant to pass 2c when you have a normal 2c overcall just in case you have a hand like this one.

About 5c I have no problem but the next time you bid 1M-5c do you want your pd to go to six with a couple of good cards? Mmmmm....

 

Maybe my theory is a complete nonsense.

[fred]

For those of you who think that DBL is "ridiculous", would you use a different word if you knew that Meckstroth and Rodwell would DBL on this hand?

 

I don't know for sure what they would do (I haven't asked them), but based on my experience playing against them and studying the hands that they have played in many tournaments, I think there is a very good chance that they would choose DBL.

 

As I suggested in my earlier post in this thread, this problem doesn't have a right answer. It is a style and partnership question. In such problems various players will disagree with various answers, but calling an answer "ridiculous" is not much different than calling an answer "right" - none of us know enough about this game to make either assertion.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

I have a theory but I don't know if it's sound or just my imagination.

 

I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.

 

....

 

Maybe my theory is a complete nonsense.

Luis, it sounds very much like you are saying the following:

 

We expect to benefit from incomplete disclosure of methods

We design our bidding system to maximize our chance of creating "special" agreements

 

If true, this is completely disgusting

[joker_gib]

In such problems various players will disagree with various answers, but calling an answer "ridiculous" is not much different than calling an answer "right" - none of us know enough about this game to make either assertion.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

So true !!! :)

[whereagles]

Well, the fact that 7C makes is rather lucky. Interchange West and North's hands and even 5C needs clubs 1-1. I wouldn't bid 6C because it requires more than the average slice of luck to make :) Unless LHO is wiggling in his chair, 5C should do the job better.

[ochinko]

I have a theory but I don't know if it's sound or just my imagination.

 

I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.

 

....

 

Maybe my theory is a complete nonsense.

Luis, it sounds very much like you are saying the following:

 

We expect to benefit from incomplete disclosure of methods

We design our bidding system to maximize our chance of creating "special" agreements

 

If true, this is completely disgusting

I agree whole heartedly. A victory tastes good only if achieved within the rules and ethics of the game. This smells like the players in the local club who listen to the conversations at the other tables in order to take advantage of some cruical extra info.

 

It is expected (perhaps even required) from your partner to alert even normal bids, and explain to your opps that you tend to make psychic bids in a particular position.

[TimG]

I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.

Sounds like you're avoiding full disclosure. Your partner may have more data than the opponents, but he must fully explain your methods (even style and tendencies) so that just this situation does not occur.

[han]

I don't think that Luis is doing something unethical. After all, the opponents can ask his partner about his style. I believe his argument that he doesn't like to bid 2C or double with this hand because he doesn't want partner to expect a hand like this in the future is sound. However, I really dislike bidding 6C here.

 

I would bid 2C, 5C close second (at the table I might very well have chosen 5C). I would never double, and my partners would never expect this hand if I double.

 

I'm not too worried about 2C getting passed out, but if it does, I'd apologize and my partner and team mates would understand; I'm sure of that. What I dislike most about 2C is that the auction might go (1S)-2C-(3C)-p-(4S)-5C, and now the opponents would be much better placed than over a direct 5C.

[luis]

I have a theory but I don't know if it's sound or just my imagination.

 

I try to make my bids as descriptive as possible to my pd so he can remember similar hands where I used similar bids and know what to expect from me. Since he has more data than the opps he will have valuable info to make a good decision.

 

....

 

Maybe my theory is a complete nonsense.

Luis, it sounds very much like you are saying the following:

 

We expect to benefit from incomplete disclosure of methods

We design our bidding system to maximize our chance of creating "special" agreements

 

If true, this is completely disgusting

When did I say that?

I can bid whatever I want and you can ask my pd whatever you want and he will tell you any agreement explicit or not that we have.

Not bidding X or 2c with strange hands is not an agreement it's quite natural, on the other hand bidding 2c or X with an 8th card suit is worth an alert if your pd is aware of that possibility.

I just don't want my pd to imagina I might be holding 3 aces and an 8th card suit when I bid 2c, is that unethical ?

You have to be quite touched to imagine that I'm trying to benefit from not fully disclosing my methods.

Maybe is your comment the one that is disgusting, don't you think?

[Free]

Imo some people are overreacting to Luis' post. I don't think he (or his partner) has bad intentions, but as we all know, partner ALWAYS has more info/data to make a good decision because he knows our style and agressiveness. If you'd keep that for yourselves, that's unethical, but get real! I can easily show some situations where my online partners don't give absolute FULL disclosure, but now they're pointing to someone else...

[pclayton]

There's disclosure and there's disclosure.

 

Who knows more about Meckstroth's tendencies than Rodwell?

 

When Meck opens a precision 2♣, does Rodwell have to disclose everything he knows about Meck's tendencies in this situation? I think you'll be there awhile, and you are probably giving your pard UI along the way with your line of questioning.

 

Luis' idea makes a lot of sense. His pard is the one that will benefit from bidding within defined parameters. The next time the auction starts (1♠) - 6♣, his partner can explain that the bid could contain a fair amount of offense, but is defined as a pressure bid.

[Brandal]

I found the options funny, is somebody going to vote for something else than "other" ?

I think 2♣, pass and dbl are really bad options.

I'm between 5♣ and 6♣ because with some luck in dummy this hand is very playable in a slam at least we don't have 2 quick losers and any red suit king can be fantastic.

 

So I vote 6♣ -optimistic-

To me,6C on that particular hand is saying:

 

"Go play somewhere else partner,

I'd like to play bridge alone"

 

:rolleyes:

[luis]

I found the options funny, is somebody going to vote for something else than "other" ?

I think 2♣, pass and dbl are really bad options.

I'm between 5♣ and 6♣ because with some luck in dummy this hand is very playable in a slam at least we don't have 2 quick losers and any red suit king can be fantastic.

 

So I vote 6♣ -optimistic-

To me,6C on that particular hand is saying:

 

"Go play somewhere else partner,

I'd like to play bridge alone"

 

:rolleyes:

So you are a wonderful pd and will show your pd you have a semi-solid 8 card club suit plus a spade void and two red aces. Go ahead I can't wait to see how you do that.

Your comment applies to hands where a player takes an unilateral decision when his pd could've have helped, when there's no way to let pd take a good decision I prefer to bid what I think I can make.

[Brandal]

I found the options funny, is somebody going to vote for something else than "other" ?

I think 2♣, pass and dbl are really bad options.

I'm between 5♣ and 6♣ because with some luck in dummy this hand is very playable in a slam at least we don't have 2 quick losers and any red suit king can be fantastic.

 

So I vote 6♣ -optimistic-

To me,6C on that particular hand is saying:

 

"Go play somewhere else partner,

I'd like to play bridge alone"

 

:rolleyes:

So you are a wonderful pd and will show your pd you have a semi-solid 8 card club suit plus a spade void and two red aces. Go ahead I can't wait to see how you do that.

Your comment applies to hands where a player takes an unilateral decision when his pd could've have helped, when there's no way to let pd take a good decision I prefer to bid what I think I can make.

I never claimed to have a better suggestion,Luis,

or suggest that your bid is wrong for you.

 

There are obviously hands where I bid where I want to play,

this hand just wasn't one of those.

 

My biddingstyle,if you will,suggests 2C for me.

 

:)

[luke warm]

this concerns luis' earlier post about inferences his partner might make, having seen similar hands/auctions... i agree with phil and hannie on this, there's nothing even remotely wrong here... in a serious match/tourney, we've all had opps ask, or we've asked them, pointed questions... "would he normally bid that way with ______?" i know luis and fred and phil have been asked questions along those lines, and have probably asked similar questions...

 

it's impossible to have a regular partner and not draw inferences from his bids, based on similar past circumstances