High level unfavorable guess...

[foobar]

IMPs, red vs. white, you deal and choose to open with your strong opening (sorry am going to force this on you).

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saq2haqj32dcakj32&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2c(Strong)5dp(weakish, but no specific agreement)p]133|200[/hv]

 

You are up...

[PhantomSac]

Just to clarify, the agreement is pass is weak and X would show something?

 

If that's the case, I'd reopen with a double. We are no lock to make anything and my options are to bid 5H (which seems dumb, partner will always pass and it is not at all a lock that I will make this lol), or to force to slam (maybe increasing the chance we get to the right fit, but even then I'm forcing to slam when my partner is showing a bad hand opp a 2C opener?).

 

Unlike usual spots like this I don't think X is t/o as I cannot pass with a strong balanced hand like if I opened 1x... I am a 2C opener! So I don't expect partner to bid and this is a crapshoot, but I partially blame that on my methods, and mainly blame that on the 5D overcall!

[WellSpyder]

If you play a strong 1♣ you find yourself in this sort of situation more often than those who play a strong 2♣.

 

One of the things I do when faced with this sort of problem is to think about what I would do if the pre-empt had been the first bid of the auction. Usually, I think the same choice I would make then is likely to be appropriate now, though obviously modified to some extent by the greater minimum strength partner will assume I have shown. That means I would double here. I only expect partner to take it out if he has enough shape to think he has a decent chance of making his contract opposite a reasonably balanced hand.

[foobar]

Couple of follow-ups:

 

1) Justin, do you prefer some other agreement over such high level interference playing standard? What do you in in a similar situation in your strong ♣ partnerships (say over 1♣ - (5♦)?

 

2) WellSpyder, as a matter of fact, I do play strong ♣ most of the time and find your comment rather intriguing. Can you please elaborate? IME, we rarely encounter such situations (or such strong hands for the matter).

[ggwhiz]

Just to clarify, the agreement is pass is weak and X would show something

 

A tighter definition would help. We define it as the same as 0-4 no A or K (we reverse it where double shows that and pass is better) so double is easy but without that agreement double is the only cinch plus score and with partner still in the loop.

[WellSpyder]

2) WellSpyder, as a matter of fact, I do play strong ♣ most of the time and find your comment rather intriguing. Can you please elaborate? IME, we rarely encounter such situations (or such strong hands for the matter).

I'm not sure there is much more I can say, really - it is not a deeply worked out theory, I'm afraid. It's more a response to the idea that playing a strong ♣ can give you unsolvable problems over big pre-empts. I usually comment that you can't be any worse off than you would have been if oppo had made the same opening bid in front of you before you had had a chance to show a strong hand at all. And of course in that case everyone might have been faced with the same problem, so they would all have had to come up with some solution or other. If you can decide what would be the normal action in those circumstances, it is likely to be an option here, too....

 

The other part of my comment was simply about how you treat doubles of high-level opening bids. The modern trend, I guess, is to play such doubles pretty much for take-out, in the same way that doubles of slightly lower-level pre-empts are. But I am old-fashioned enough to feel comfortable playing them more as showing transferable values, ie values that should defeat the contract much of the time if we defend, but which should also help partner if he thinks that that makes declaring more attractive - he is only expected to take out the double to a contract that he thinks has a decent chance of making opposite such a hand, so I expect to defend opposite a weak flattish hand for instance.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq2haqj32dcakj32&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2c(Strong)5dp(weakish, but no specific agreement)p]133|200|

IMPs, red vs. white, you deal and choose to open with your strong opening (sorry am going to force this on you).

You are up...[/hv]

IMO Double = 10, 5♥ = 9, 5N = 8. Phantomsac persuades me. I prefer the old protocol: in any forcing-pass context (including this), double by either partner would be for penalties.

[alok c]

Against strong 2c partner would have doubled with minimum value hand.Bidding 5nt may be appropriate for partner to choose a suit to play.

[mikestar13]

If this sequence is a forcing pass situation for your partnership (I think it should be), Pass Double Inversion should apply here:

 

Direct suit bids = long suit.

X = takeout (though often converted at this level)

P =asks partner to double (he will unless he has a freak) then pass for penalties or bid cheapest with two places to play.

 

[mikeh]

I understand that I was forced to open 2♣. I wouldn't have done so, but I am not claiming that my choice of 1♥ would have worked out better on every or even most subsequent auctions...I think 1♥ followed by a jumpshift into clubs doesn't do justice to the hand, especially if partner responded 1♠, but I really don't like opening 2♣ and then having to show a powerful two-suiter, especially if spades isn't one of them (we can usually show spades at the 2-level, since 90% of the time responder bids either 2♦ or 2♥in the methods I play, and I'd expect most pairs would also see at least 2♦ as the most common response).

 

Had I opened 1♥, then I'd still be stuck doubling here, and partner will still be leaving it in most of the time, but once in a while he could pull, successfully, to hearts.

 

As it is, I just don't see 5N as quite doable. It ostensibly shows clubs and a higher, but could it show 4=4=0=5?

 

In any event I am just not willing to commit to slam, so I will take the highly probable plus by doubling.

 

Too bad that partner holds Jxx xxxxxx xx xx :P

[PhilKing]

Playing the agreements as specified, I double.

 

But I strongly prefer that double from partner's side is for "penalties". In that case, he has to double with a balanced yarborough as well as with genuine penalty doubles - so pass shows a suitable hand for bidding on. On that basis I would punt 5NT - pick a slam. I think the pot odds for this choice are pretty good.

[aguahombre]

Side note: We can say we would still have a problem if we opened 1H and 5D came back around. But, Many opponents who would bid 5D over 2C to screw us up would not bid 5D with the same hand over 1H; and we might have had a better shot at getting where we belong.

 

This is another thread asking, "How do we fix what we broke?"

[mcphee]

I am basically on the same page as Mike and would have opened 1H. Opening 2C with a brooks brothers does not work out so well much of the time. Pretty clear to dble now regardless of what the pass means.

[lycier]

Just to clarify, the agreement is pass is weak and X would show something?

 

Yes,yes,the definition of north pass is very important,for me,pass=promises more than 3hcp with 1 king at least,double=0-3hcp,deny 1 king.

My choice is 5N showing two long suiters,and I can comfirm that we can find one suit with good fit at least.

[jodepp]

Take the cash and double. Given the structure that Pass is regressive, Partner is unlikely to yank this unless looking at freakish shape.

 

As a general rule, I gave up trying to be perfect in such preemptive situations - IMO sometimes you are better off simply taking what the opponents give you.

[the_clown]

5N for me with double being close second.

[GrahamJson]

With no clear agreement I think there is little choice but double. Playing traditional Acol Norths pass should show some values (he would double with nothing) so 5nt (choose a slam) comes into the reckoning, but it is close. A forcing pass is clearly best, but I don't think the ruled allow it.

[GrahamJson]

"rules"

[WellSpyder]

A forcing pass is clearly best, but I don't think the rules allow it.

Of course the rules allow a forcing pass - but it forces partner to lead, rather than to bid.....

[zillahandp]

It depends what partners pass means, we play dble says shutup p abid would be a bid and p says nothing to say so now x is only option I expext p to have no d trick no four card major and a king .

On this basis 5hts is lowest available so my choice.

[zillahandp]

Opening One ht on a three losers hand is poor bid in my view, how will you ever catch up?

[manudude03]

Opening One ht on a three losers hand is poor bid in my view, how will you ever catch up?

 

2C auctions tend to be pretty primitive, so when there is a legitimate choice between opening 2C and making a 1-level bid, then the majority vote pretty much always goes to opening at the 1-level. Your rebids are also important. If you have a hand like Ax AKQx AKJxxx x which is 1 point more than the OP and you will still find a lot of people opening at the 1-level.

 

Going back to the OP hand, suppose you did open 2C, the auction may well have gone 2C-2D-2H-3D, now you are likely endplayed into 3NT missing slam opposite xx Kx xxxxxx Qxx. If you bid 4C instead of 3NT, you will likely end in 5C with partner potentially hitting with xxxx x QJxxxx xx or something. That is a worst case scenario, but it's important to cater for it when you can.

 

 

ps. I find double clear.

[jdonn]

I'm not sure about doubling vs bidding, but I'm completely sure 5NT is better than 5♥. It has more ways to win and a bigger payout for being right.

[foobar]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq2haqj32dcakj32&n=skj83h854d64ct974&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2c5dpp5hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Thanks for the responses.

 

The auction shown here happened at the other table. At our table, South opened 1♣ (16+), West jumped to 5♦, North passed (ostensibly showing 0-5, but undiscussed at this level), South choose X (takeout, after considering 5N) and we defended 5♦-X for -300.

 

Both 6♣ / 6♥ come home on the layout, but luckily we lost only 9 since they stopped in game.

[P_Marlowe]

5NT