panic as responder

[ggwhiz]

Dnt like these comments about biddng confidently thats not allowed bid at normal pace in normal tone

 

Normal pace and normal tone IS bidding confidently and all that is suggested. If you bid like a deer in the headlights, the opps but not your partner are allowed to take inference and they will.

[johnu]

Dnt like these comments about biddng confidently thats not allowed bid at normal pace in normal tone

 

Without putting words in other posters' mouths, bidding normally in a normal tone is what I understood from the posts, just like you would if you had an average strength hand for your bid. From a coffeehouse viewpoint, you certainly wouldn't want to suggest to partner that you are on the maximum end of a 1♥/1♠ bid. :P

 

Just don't telegraph your strength and shape by dithering, hemming and hawing, making it clear that you don't have the normal strength and shape for your bid.

[cynac]

I agree with finanzier. 1h is the only bid. It tells the truth. Tryng to bypass that might occas work, but then p starts to wonder in future. The idea that partner will jump to game when the lower range of your bid is zero points seems weird.

[billw55]

At least you weren't dealt ♠K8,xx,♦9xxxxx,♣xxx.

 

At MP a year ago I had this and maybe I should've passed but I felt my chances were better with a 1♠ bid. I didn't want to bid 2♣ on 3 small as T/O X's of minor suits tend to stress the major and on a really bad day I am in a 3-2 fit at the 2 level. Normally, I'd bid 1♥ so if PD bids 1♠ showing a hand too good to O/C I just pass, but since I might be and was left to play a 4-2 fit at the 1 level I bid 1♠. I should've been set 1 or 2 (1 after the opening lead) but these contracts can be hard to defend and the opps had no idea what was going on and let me ruff my way to an OT. Obviously I was hoping to not play this hand when I bid 1♠ and thank God the opps didn't compete so PD couldn't give me a shaky raise with a hand that wouldn't justify a raise with no comp.

With that hand and the auction 1♦-x-p-?, I think I would pass and hope for the best. You don't seem to have considered that at all, I wonder if I am way off base.

 

With your hand with 3 of each major I'd prefer 1♥, but if you bid 1♠ due to the T9 I'd not blame you. One good thing about 1♥ is again that you'll pass PD's 1♠ and if you're X'd in 1♥ you can bail to 1♠

True, in the specific auction

 

1♦-x-p-1♥

p-1♠

 

I will be happy I chose 1♥. But in various auctions where I am forced to bid again, I will wish I had started with 1♠. Consider helene's auction but with 1♥:

 

1♦-x-p-1♥

p-2♦-p-?

 

Now I have to bid 2♠, forcing partner to correct at the 3 level instead of the 2 level. There are other possible auctions that have this feature. For this reason I slightly prefer 1♠.

[1eyedjack]

I like Wank's reasoning, and I have for a long time thought that way, so I upvoted him. Sadly I have never really had the courage of my convictions at the table, and have always bid 1H on these hands in accordance with conventionally received wisdom, secure that whatever disaster befalls I have a chance in the post mortem. In some thousands of hands played in GIB tournaments this has never cropped up, as I am always dealt the strongest hand at the table. While GIB might have the hand in question I cannot force it to bid 2C in order to witness the fallout.

[helene_t]

The problem with 2♣ is that partner is probably not going to pass that either so we will end up at the 3-level.

 

But yes, Wank's reasoning makes sense. And it might go

dbl-2♣

2♦-2♥

pass

[MrAce]

Wank's reasoning is the worst one I have ever seen coming from him, since I am the most up voter of Wank and really have great respect for him and his expertise. There are many reasons;

 

 

-If partner will bid again he will bid over 2♣ as well.

-If he is going to raise, that will be at 3 level instead of 2 level.

-Everyone who played long time knows that the 1 suit above the opponent suit response at 1 level, can be on 3 cards, but not 2♣. So people are more cautious over 1♥ compared to 2♣.

-If pd is going to bid spades, he will bid at 1 level instead of 2.

-If pd decided to cue, we can still stop at 2♥ but not 2♣.

-2M contracts are MUCH harder for opponents to DBL compared to 2♣. In fact opponents LOVE to double 2 minor contracts.

-People start double 1♦ with 4432 doubleton clubs, A LOT!

[zillahandp]

So ggwhizz is it ok to bid nevously when you are strong and if opps take an inference is then their fault or were you cheating? Same pace same tone is de rigeur thats why we have bidding boxes and screens.

[mycroft]

Bidding confidently *is* bidding in the same pace and same tone when you have 3=3=4=3 1-count as when you have a 3=4=4=2 7-count. As I said earlier, "like you don't have a care in the world".

 

Of course it isn't legal to coffeehouse. But nobody is saying you should.

[billw55]

Admittedly, 2♣ does send the message "I have no 4 card major" more strongly than bidding a major does. And we have more escape options if ops try to double us in 2♣ than if they do so in 2M. But it does up the level when partner raises.

 

All in all I would like to hear more about this idea.

[1eyedjack]

Wank's reasoning is the worst one I have ever seen coming from him, since I am the most up voter of Wank and really have great respect for him and his expertise. There are many reasons;

 

 

-If partner will bid again he will bid over 2♣ as well.

-If he is going to raise, that will be at 3 level instead of 2 level.

-Everyone who played long time knows that the 1 suit above the opponent suit response at 1 level, can be on 3 cards, but not 2♣. So people are more cautious over 1♥ compared to 2♣.

-If pd is going to bid spades, he will bid at 1 level instead of 2.

-If pd decided to cue, we can still stop at 2♥ but not 2♣.

-2M contracts are MUCH harder for opponents to DBL compared to 2♣. In fact opponents LOVE to double 2 minor contracts.

-People start double 1♦ with 4432 doubleton clubs, A LOT!

 

I don't think that Wank was expecting the auction to die at 2C. I think that he was simply expecting it to die at a lower level than if you respond a major, notwithstanding that the initial response is higher.

 

You seldom assume that partner has a Yarborough, even if that is systemically possible. Most of the time partner's potential range of values is sufficiently broad, from Yarborough up, that there is no practical way to cater for it with such accuracy. If all you need from partner is a King, and 4 card support for you in the major suit that he has chosen, in order to make 10, are you going to risk an invite? You may very well do so if your "fit" is in a minor, where perhaps you might have taken a fly at 4M.

 

"-Everyone who played long time knows that the 1 suit above the opponent suit response at 1 level, can be on 3 cards, but not 2♣. So people are more cautious over 1♥ compared to 2♣."

 

I expect that he can speak for himself, but I doubt that he would recommend this tactic in a pickup partnership in which it is undiscussed, in the knowledge of the standard treatment. And once it has been discussed this particular objection falls by the wayside.

 

"-People start double 1♦ with 4432 doubleton clubs, A LOT!"

 

Possibly too much. Are we interested in optimising advances to a poor double? They might do so less if they have already agreed to respond 2C to the double on this hand.

 

I don't feel very strongly about it. If I did, then I would have the courage to bid according to my inclination.

[Phil]

2C. if you bid the major you'll likely end up in game. partners become much less excited when you bid the minor.

 

this stuff about not wanting to play at the 2 level when you can play at the 1 level is a total fallacy. partner isn't passing 1M.

 

Don't like the idea over 1D. We want the opponents to bid and help limit our range. Plus partner will have something on the majors. He may be club-handicapped.

[wank]

 

-Everyone who played long time knows that the 1 suit above the opponent suit response at 1 level, can be on 3 cards, but not 2♣. So people are more cautious over 1♥ compared to 2♣.

 

 

well obv there's no point doing this with someone who doesn't play the same way. my way, doubler can rely on the 4th heart and bid accordingly towards 4H or even slam. your way will involve a murkier auction which will sometimes have some issues. not least among those is that there's still no way for advancer to say he's only got 3H.

 

in isolation it's obviously better to make one's major bids more descriptive than one's minor bids. i consider the extra [half of a] level to still be worth it. as helen suggests, a lot of the time you get to bail in 2M after doubler cues 2D.

 

fwiw, this approach has proved very successful for me, albeit from a small sample (it's a pretty rare auction, or rather it's pretty rare to have a 3343 pile of filth on this auction)

[johnu]

Consider helene's auction but with 1♥:

 

1♦-x-p-1♥

p-2♦-p-?

 

Now I have to bid 2♠, forcing partner to correct at the 3 level instead of the 2 level. There are other possible auctions that have this feature. For this reason I slightly prefer 1♠.

 

I don't see why you have to rebid 2♠ over the cue bid. I think that should show real 4+ card suits and I would be dumbfounded if partner did that to show 3-3 in the majors. I have no problem "rebidding" a 3 card suit. Rebidding hearts does not show 4 or 5+ hearts. It only shows that you have a minimum hand for your original 1♥ bid with nothing else to show. That description certainly fits the original hand.

[helene_t]

I don't see why you have to rebid 2♠ over the cue bid. I think that should show real 4+ card suits and I would be dumbfounded if partner did that to show 3-3 in the majors. I have no problem "rebidding" a 3 card suit. Rebidding hearts does not show 4 or 5+ hearts. It only shows that you have a minimum hand for your original 1♥ bid with nothing else to show. That description certainly fits the original hand.

You are probably right. But it means that if partner has a 4324 18-count (probably his most common hand type for this auction), we will be playing 2♥ in a 3-3 fit

[onoway]

Thank you all for your opinions, it's given me something to hold onto if that sequence/hand ever comes up again. The point about bidding like " a deer in the headlights" well taken. :)