Share my pain!

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt83ha7dkckq52&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1s2hppd3hpp]133|200[/hv]

 

Cross IMPs. 2/1 system.

 

A-Do you agree with DBL? If not what would you bid?

 

B-What now?

[PrecisionL]

I would not double, but rebid 3♣ so that over 3♥ you can rebid 3♠. Would this increase your pain?

[alok c]

a)3♣.

b)3♠.

[Kaitlyn S]

a)3♣.

b)3♠.

I prefer double to 3C since if I bid 3C I expect to play 3C. Doubling and correcting 3D to 3S probably shows almost this much.

 

I bid 3S over 3H. That doesn't seem that painful. Did partner not think you were this good for that sequence?

[Phil]

I would have bid 3S/2H.

[Fluffy]

Double is fine and now I hav a clear 3♠

[The_Badger]

hi MrAce,

 

Quite open to admit I don't know the subtle intricacies of 2/1 bidding, but prefer 3♣ to X. I would have thought a new suit at this level would be forcing.

 

As 5-5 ♣+♠ hands should technically be opened 1♣ - although quite a few players do not - by bidding this way 1♠ followed by 3♣, I believe that would show 6♠s + 4♣+ with the HCP count you have.

 

Partner doesn't need much: a singleton ♠, ♦A and ♣Jxxxxx for 6♣ to be on.

[gordontd]

As 5-5 ♣+♠ hands should technically be opened 1♣ - although quite a few players do not -

This comment suggests a universality and currency that those methods don't justify.

[Kaitlyn S]

hi MrAce,

 

Quite open to admit I don't know the subtle intricacies of 2/1 bidding, but prefer 3♣ to X. I would have thought a new suit at this level would be forcing.

A call is forcing if

(a) the call is in a known ridiculous contract (such as a cuebid or Blackwood)

or

(b) the side could have game (or slam if the bid is a game bid) and only partner knows that.

 

As North has only passed, and South didn't open with a forcing opening, South can't need another bid to make sure N-S get to game opposite nothing. (a) also is false; we all think 3C shows clubs.

 

I'm not sure how 3C can be taken as forcing.

[MrAce]

hi MrAce,

 

Quite open to admit I don't know the subtle intricacies of 2/1 bidding, but prefer 3♣ to X. I would have thought a new suit at this level would be forcing.

 

As 5-5 ♣+♠ hands should technically be opened 1♣ - although quite a few players do not - by bidding this way 1♠ followed by 3♣, I believe that would show 6♠s + 4♣+ with the HCP count you have.

 

Partner doesn't need much: a singleton ♠, ♦A and ♣Jxxxxx for 6♣ to be on.

 

With 5-5 reds blacks I always open 1♠ and I do not think I am in such minority as you stated but perhaps you are right.

 

To me bidding 3♣ really deserves

 

a- to play there when pd has 1-3 black suits. (in actual hand it was close to 1-3)

b- to miss a very lucrative penalty and end up trying to go down less at a 3 level misfit misery, doubled or undoubled.

[Zelandakh]

With 5-5 reds I always open 1♠ and I do not think I am in such minority as you stated

I trust you mean blacks but otherwise agree with you. I would like to ask what 2NT would mean too as many would use it artificially here. Of the options given (presumably assuming 2NT is natural) I prefer X to 3♣ but 3♠ is also a decent option if agreed to show a GOSH. If X was correct then we are rather cornered into 3♠ now but I have to admit not feeling as comfortable about it as most of the other respondents.

[Cyberyeti]

hi MrAce,

 

Quite open to admit I don't know the subtle intricacies of 2/1 bidding, but prefer 3♣ to X. I would have thought a new suit at this level would be forcing.

 

As 5-5 ♣+♠ hands should technically be opened 1♣ - although quite a few players do not - by bidding this way 1♠ followed by 3♣, I believe that would show 6♠s + 4♣+ with the HCP count you have.

 

Partner doesn't need much: a singleton ♠, ♦A and ♣Jxxxxx for 6♣ to be on.

 

The 5-5 blacks has been much debated, and in 5 card major land it's usually opened 1♠.

 

We play 4M and still open 1♠ other than a couple of specific hand types which we open 1♣.

[MrAce]

I trust you mean blacks but otherwise agree with you. I would like to ask what 2NT would mean too as many would use it artificially here. Of the options given (presumably assuming 2NT is natural) I prefer X to 3♣ but 3♠ is also a decent option if agreed to show a GOSH. If X was correct then we are rather cornered into 3♠ now but I have to admit not feeling as comfortable about it as most of the other respondents.

 

Yes I meant blacks (and corrected it now) thanks Zel.

 

2 NT would be natural with this partner.

 

I thought this was between 3♠ and DBL. I would bid 3♠ with more play oriented hand, one suiter and less defense, something like

 

AKJxxx

x

AKQ

xxx

 

But I have way too much defense on this hand if pd decides to convert and less playing strength, I also have a side suit that we can play. I actually made the winning bid by starting DBL as my pd had the chance to double them at 3 level. Not sure he should dbl though. Here is the deal.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt83ha7dkckq52&w=sk7hkqt984d4cat86&n=s42hj6532dqjt86c7&e=s965hda97532cj943&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1s2hppd3hpp3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Maybe I am resulting but, I started to consider perhaps I could bail out on 3♥ and pass?

[Fluffy]

Resulting IMO. Partner is going to double on most hands where 3♥ should be the final contract.

[jogs]

Yes I meant blacks (and corrected it now) thanks Zel.

 

2 NT would be natural with this partner.

 

I thought this was between 3♠ and DBL. I would bid 3♠ with more play oriented hand, one suiter and less defense, something like

 

AKJxxx

x

AKQ

xxx

 

But I have way too much defense on this hand if pd decides to convert and less playing strength, I also have a side suit that we can play. I actually made the winning bid by starting DBL as my pd had the chance to double them at 3 level. Not sure he should dbl though. Here is the deal.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt83ha7dkckq52&w=sk7hkqt984d4cat86&n=s42hj6532dqjt86c7&e=s965hda97532cj943&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1s2hppd3hpp3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Maybe I am resulting but, I started to consider perhaps I could bail out on 3♥ and pass?

 

After seeing the results, I like PrecisionL's post even more.

 

I would not double, but rebid 3♣ so that over 3♥ you can rebid 3♠. Would this increase your pain?

 

Partner should double 3♥ to stop you from bidding again.

[MrAce]

@ Jogs and @ Gonzalo

 

Are you guys sure I am the one who is resulting? Why is everyone believing that North has a clear double at IMPs? How many tricks does N have in defense vs a normal opening by pd?

What would happen, god forbid, if pd doubled 2♥ with a normal opening bid and a perfect take out shape? Instead of 19 hcp?

I think double at IMPs deserve something like

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt8h7dak52cj95&w=sk3hakqt94d4cat62&n=s42hj6532dqjt86c7&e=s9765h8d973ckq843&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1s2hppd3hdppp]399|300[/hv]

[rmnka447]

I'm doubling 2 ♥ in the reopening seat and rebidding 3 ♠ over 3 ♥ again in the reopening seat. IMO, this best describes the hand -- strong hand, long good ♠. It doesn't work especially well on this hand. Against the universe of possible hands opposite this hand, I think this bidding will work out best more often.

 

For me, bidding 3 ♣ in the reopening seat over 2 ♥ should shows 5-5 or better distribution. There's too much danger of settling into a bad contract. Give partner something like xx xxxx xxxx xxx and what's partner to do? If a pass is made and you don't guarantee 5-5, you may end up playing in your 4-3 fit. If you preference back to ♠, you may end up in 5-2 ♠ fit when you actually have a 5-3 ♣ fit.

 

I refuse to open 1 ♣ when 5-5 in the blacks. More than a few times, I've seen the auction go something like

 

1 ♣ - 1/2 ♦ - P - 3 ♦

?

 

Now do you have enough to bid 3 ♠ and push the contract to the 4 level if no ♠ fit exists? Even over only a 2 ♦ call, it may be difficult reopening 2 ♠ with a minimum range hand. Even if you get the ♠ bid in, it can get murky about just how many ♠ you have.

[Kaitlyn S]

After seeing the results, I like PrecisionL's post even more.

 

 

 

Partner should double 3♥ to stop you from bidding again.

What if your plan was to double and correct clubs to diamonds showing a huge spade-diamond hand? Partner doubling 3H to stop you from bidding 4D now would be calamitous - with the big club fit the other way, doubling 3H could give you -930 instead of +1370.

 

I think I've agreed with just about everything MrAce has said this thread.

[jogs]

What if your plan was to double and correct clubs to diamonds showing a huge spade-diamond hand? Partner doubling 3H to stop you from bidding 4D now would be calamitous - with the big club fit the other way, doubling 3H could give you -930 instead of +1370.

 

I think I've agreed with just about everything MrAce has said this thread.

Got the hands confused. Thought South had spades/clubs.

[jogs]

MrAce did a switcheroo on me. I was bidding 3C on the original hand.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt83ha7dkckq52&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1s2hppd3hpp]133|200[/hv]

 

Cross IMPs. 2/1 system.

 

A-Do you agree with DBL? If not what would you bid?

 

B-What now?

 

With 5=1=4=3 I would double. But if I had chosen 3♦, partner certainly wouldn't double with his 5 diamonds.

[benlessard]

Both X look totally normal and 3S over a pass look normal.

 

Idk if i would have X 3H with north hand, I think its marginal. Its not like ive got a lot of experience in similar situation. Tough situation.

I feel that ive got some values, a surprise in trump and a singleton to lead (im not going for the QD lead).

 

If this is your painful deal my guess is that you had a good session.

[MrAce]

Both X look totally normal and 3S over a pass look normal.

 

Idk if i would have X 3H with north hand, I think its marginal. Its not like ive got a lot of experience in similar situation. Tough situation.

I feel that ive got some values, a surprise in trump and a singleton to lead (im not going for the QD lead).

 

If this is your painful deal my guess is that you had a good session.

 

I was the one who bid 3♠ (after initial dbl). It was not a good session but this one really got into me, idk why. Perhaps I could have known to pass 3♥. But I think Fluffy is right that I am resulting. Though I also believe dbl of 3 ♥ by N being clear is also resulting.

3♣ did not even occur to me tbh. I thought about 3♠ alternative to DBL. But then I decided I would be more than happy with the defensive tricks and A7 ♥, had my pd decided to convert DBL.

[benlessard]

What was the field results ?

 

Agree 100% that 3C isnt an option. So its really the X or not that can win or lose the board imo. I dont think its reasonable to blame north either way.

 

I know most wouldnt X 3H but I strongly believe people are too chicken when it come to doubling in that type of spot. So i guess there was a lot of 3S contract at the otehr table too.

[MrAce]

MrAce did a switcheroo on me. I was bidding 3C on the original hand.

 

 

 

 

With 5=1=4=3 I would double. But if I had chosen 3♦, partner certainly wouldn't double with his 5 diamonds.

 

 

FYI

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-13729/

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-13728/

 

 

[jogs]

Obviously those readers hadn't read my posts on our tricks.

 

Our tricks

 

E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3

 

The reopening 3♣ bid has a higher lower bound than the reopening double. Therefore after 3♣ partner knows we have half the deck and I have black cards while he has red cards. Bad for offense and good for defense.

 

The same formula applies to their tricks.

 

Their tricks

 

E(tricks) = trumps + (HCP-20)/3

 

With 5 hearts pard knows they have at most 8 hearts. Also after the 3♣ rebid pard knows to lead a club.