Bidding problems for novices part 4

[Kaitlyn S]

Hi - these problems should be very easy for experienced players but a beginner needs to think about the right things in an auction. If you are a beginner and get them wrong, don't feel too bad as long as you understand the rationale for the answers. I'll provide the answers later but I'll put a hint as a spoiler. Try to solve the problem without the spoiler. Also, let me know if you would be interested in seeing more of these from time to time.

 

Assume you are playing standard bridge (SAYC) and nobody is vulnerable.

 

Some background: When your partner makes a takeout double, he can handle anything you bid. Except in the rare event where partner changes strain after your takeout double, which shows a hand too good to overcall (probably 18+ in a suit; 19+ in notrump), your partner should have support for each of the unbid suits (at least 3 cards) and usually has shortness in the suit opened.

 

You, as advancer, have two jobs. You should choose the trump suit, which is any suit except the opponent's opened suit, preferring a major suit, and you should show your strength. We teach beginners that you should jump one level with 11-12 and bid game with 13 (both of these are non-forcing) to keep the ranges consistent with the medium and maximum responding ranges. However, 0-10 is too wide of a range for a non-jump bid and most experts reduce the strength needed to jump to about 9.

 

While you should take the double out even with nothing since letting the opponent play in their one-level contract doubled with many overtricks would be a disaster, if the next player bids, you are "off the hook" and can pass with a bad hand. Bidding typically shows a hand that would have responded to a one-bid.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s62hkqj63d863ca74&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dd2d]133|200[/hv]

 

Do you know what should be trump? Do you have a game? Do both your jobs with this bid. How do you think this hand will play opposite partner's very likely short diamonds?

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj6hkq653dkj4cq72&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dd2d]133|200[/hv]

 

How do you think this hand will play opposite short diamonds?

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk764haqt2da86c95&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dd2d]133|200[/hv]

 

Do you know what should be trump? If not, how could you find out, considering that most of your advances would be non-forcing?

 

[Kaitlyn S]

Answers: (Material that might be confusing to beginners is put in blue)

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s62hkqj63d863ca74&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dd2d]133|200[/hv]

HInt:Do you know what should be trump? Do you have a game? Do both your jobs with this bid. How do you think this hand will play opposite partner's very likely short diamonds?

 

Answer: You are mostly right if you jumped to 3H. If you bid 2H, realize that you could have bid 2H on far less as you should bid 2H to compete with six points and four hearts (as partner with a minimum takeout double has already shown his hand and can't be expected to bid yours also.) You jump to 3H to show your 11 points (I'm counting one for length) and desire to have hearts as trump (partner has support for all the unbid suits.) If you bid 4H, look at the advanced discussion (TL/DR: I love it) ...

 

[What is this hand really worth? You have three small diamonds, and although partner's double tends to show short diamonds, the opponents confirmed it with their raise to 2D. Your partner counted for shortness but wasn't sure how much the shortness was worth since you could have useless diamond honors, but you don't. Partner's shortness is pulling it's full weight - you will gain a ruffing trick opposite a doubleton and you will gain two ruffing tricks opposite a singleton. Also, where your points are matters - partner needs you to have cards in spades, hearts, and clubs; all your cards are working so this hand is worth more than a hand with more HCP but some of the points in diamonds.

 

The third thing this hand has going for it is that partner's cards in the black suits are likely to be sitting over opener's so finesses are more likely to work.

 

I would bid 4H with this hand and be quite surprised if it didn't make if partner has his takeout double.

 

Say partner has a minimum such as Kxxx,Axxx, x, Kxxx. Only 10 HCP but assuming the SA is with the opening bidder, you'll lose only 1 spade and 1 diamond when you trump two diamonds. Even if partner has two diamonds and only three hearts, as in:

Axxx, Axx, xx, KQ10x - you'll make 4H if you can trump a diamond, and if the opponents lead trump at every opportunity, you'll make it if the CJ drops.]

 

What if partner has AKxx, x, Axx, Qxxxx? Then you need to have a long discussion with partner about what a takeout double shows, or find a new partner. Yes, there are a few people that double with minimum opening hands with bad support for one of the unbid suits. Don't be one of them.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj6hkq653dkj4cq72&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dd2d]133|200[/hv]

Hint: How do you think this hand will play opposite short diamonds?

 

Answer: If you said "Partner has an opening hand and I have 13 points counting length, so I should bid 4H", kudos to you if you are a beginner. That's a much better bid than the 2H advance I see so often in classes. Did you consider notrump? Partner is likely short in diamonds and it's better to get a ruffing trick or two with hearts trump than to have one trick in notrump. Think of the play: LHO leads a diamond, you win cheaply, but if RHO can get in, the defenders cash the entire diamond suit. Sometimes RHO has the DA and can win it and return a diamond and your stopper will be gone right away, making both opponents dangerous. In general, play your eight-card major suit fits in that suit, not in notrump. So if you have an opening hand with hearts, and I want you to choose hearts as trump, why am I balking at 4H? Again, it's judgment on how I value this hand.

 

[Partner has already counted 3 points for a singleton diamond or maybe 1 point for a doubleton diamond; and my DK and DJ are almost worthless. Remember that partner is looking for high cards in clubs, hearts, and spades, and I have 4 points in diamonds that even if my diamonds take a trick, it was likely a trick I could have gotten anyway by trumping a diamond if it were a small diamond. However, there's a good chance that opener has the D-AQ and my holding is virtually identical to three small diamonds. Based on the bidding, I don't think this hand is worth the 13 points that I would have counted for it if I was the dealer. However, the diamonds are worth a teeny amount and I think the hand is worth a jump to 3H.]

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sk764haqt2da86c95&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dd2d]133|200[/hv]

Hint: Do you know what should be trump? If not, how could you find out, considering that most of your advances would be non-forcing?

 

Answer: Here, you have enough for game for sure. You could guess 4H, 4S, or 3NT. Given that both my opponents bid diamonds and know to lead them, that would be my last choice; even playing in a 4-3 fit and trumping a diamond in dummy is better than playing 3NT where the opponents can run their diamonds once they set them up.

 

However, it would be better to play in the major suit that partner has four cards in. You might think that would be difficult, seeing as 2H, 2S, 3H, 3S, 4H, and 4S are all non-forcing bids and partner would pass any of them with 3-card support and a dead minimum double. Is there any call that would be forcing? Think of a call that could never mean that you wanted to play the contract that you are bidding.

 

If you aren't coming up with it, think harder. Is there any suit you couldn't possibly want to declare on this auction, regardless of what your hand is?

 

You would never want to declare this hand in diamonds. So a bid of 3D can't possibly suggest that you want to play in 3D; after all, you can defend 2D simply by passing. 3D has been chosen by the experts to make a forcing bid; to say that you are in doubt about the final contract (usually between the two majors or between one major and notrump.) This 3D bid is standard bridge and everybody that has "advanced" or higher marked on their profile should know it (most "intermediate" players know it too, I would guess.) Partner will likely bid a four-card major and you will raise to game with this hand.

 

You use it when you need it. On Hand 1, you didn't need it - if you used good judgment and realized your hand was worth bidding a game, you knew hearts were going to be trump, so you bid 4H - there was no reason to go through 3D. Here, you have a very good reason, that being that you don't know what, if anything, should be trump.

[akwoo]

I'm not sure I'd agree with any of these!

 

On hand 1, I'm a little afraid partner has something like KQxx xxx Kx KQxx (or, worse yet, QJxx Ax xx KQxxx), so I think 3H is enough.

 

On hand 2, I have some liking for pass - if partner can't make a balancing bid, defending might be best. I'd rather defend 3D than play 3H. Actually, I probably wouldn't pass except white vs red.

 

I also have some liking for 3N, particularly if LHO looks like the type who would lead 4th best from their AQxxx of diamonds without thinking about the bidding. It could be the only making game.

 

On hand 3, surely double is better than 3D. If you bid 3D, what does partner do with a 3325 hand and no diamond stopper? Take you past 3N?

[Kaitlyn S]

Your first hand makes 4H with hearts 3-2 and the DA with opener. On an inspired trump lead, I'll need that SAS onside or 3-3 clubs. Note that you chose your hand to try to make 4H a bad contract. I hope that I never am unfortunate enough to have a semi regular partner who would make a takeout double of 1D with two hearts and a minimum opener unless he missorted his hand.

 

On #2 you are defending TWO diamonds if you pass and partner also passes. The opponents have at least eight diamonds and your side has the balance of strength and at least eight hearts. While a minimum takeout double isn't likely to make game, partner doesn't need much extra. For example, Axxx, Axxx, x, KJ10x is practically cold for 4H. You'll make 3NT on a diamond lead unless East has the CA. On that hand, partner probably won't balance, having already shown his hand. If partner has less, East us more likely to have the entry to beat 3NT on a diamond lead where 3H nakes.

 

While I like double on hand 3, I doubt most novices play responsive doubkes. However, if partner can't bid a major or no trump, it's optimistic to hope you have nine running tricks and there's a decent chance partner has a singleton diamond so their diamonds are st least 5-4. I think I would prefer a 4-3 major fit to 3NT. Since the opponents know to lead diamonds, I think I'd prefer 4 of a major even when partner has a doubleton.

[akwoo]

Okay - this is perhaps not a recommended action for a novice, but I don't get what partner is supposed to do with QJxx Ax xx KQxxx over 1D to his left. Pass is wimpy and 2C is extremely dangerous. Yes, double is technically wrong with only 2 hearts, but it's the least wrong bid.

 

Since double can be made on Qxxx Axxx x KJTx, and letting opponents play in 2 of a minor is almost always wrong, I think partner should be balancing on Axxx Axxx x KJTx. What if you had something like Kxx x KJ98x Axxx? You would've passed 2D, and surely you want partner to double so you can collect that penalty.

 

Also, if partner has a singleton diamond, LHO is fairly likely to bid 3D - many modern experts play that 3D shows 5+ diamonds and a minimum hand (to make it harder for your partner to balance).

 

-----------

 

Anyway - I think it's useful to point out that, while in noncompetitve situations, people generally agree on bids (given their bidding system), in competitive situations, good players might try things that might be riskier, particular in the hands of a novice. That's because a better player has the ability to judge not only what their side might be able to make but also what the other side might be able to make.

 

Also, better players realize more the value of obstructing their opponents, and tend to have bidding agreements that make this easier.

[Tramticket]

Okay - this is perhaps not a recommended action for a novice, but I don't get what partner is supposed to do with QJxx Ax xx KQxxx over 1D to his left. Pass is wimpy and 2C is extremely dangerous. Yes, double is technically wrong with only 2 hearts, but it's the least wrong bid.

 

 

Hi Akwoo - in your earlier post you seemed to imply that you would make a take-out double of 1♦ in 2nd seat (with 1♦ on your RIGHT). I'm not sure if you have muddled the auction, but pass is far from "wimpy" and 2♣ is marginally preferable to an ugly mis-shapen take-out double.

 

I'm confused by the rest of your post because your partner is not balancing.

[Kaitlyn S]

Okay - this is perhaps not a recommended action for a novice, but I don't get what partner is supposed to do with QJxx Ax xx KQxxx over 1D to his left. Pass is wimpy and 2C is extremely dangerous. Yes, double is technically wrong with only 2 hearts, but it's the least wrong bid.

IMO, this is not a recommended action for anybody that wishes not to be booted from the table by his "expert" partner. (I don't boot people for errors, but I've seen others booted for a lot less offensive bid.)

 

I meant to specify IMPS but I did not in this thread, so I need to discuss both. At IMPs I would be content to pass, intending to make a takeout double after a 1H response gets raised. If it goes 1D P 2D P P to you, now that partner knows you have a problem with an original double, you can double and correct 2H to 2S; however this is risky since responder might bid 3D over your double and partner, thinking he might have found gold with his five little hearts, might bid 3H.

 

At matchpoints there is value in overcalling 2C. It's not a great bridge bid, but the other side as a tough time handling this bid when the responder has one four-card major, especially when the opener has extras. In IMPs, the risk of a large penalty is too much IMO.

 

Since double can be made on Qxxx Axxx x KJTx, and letting opponents play in 2 of a minor is almost always wrong, I think partner should be balancing on Axxx Axxx x KJTx. What if you had something like Kxx x KJ98x Axxx? You would've passed 2D, and surely you want partner to double so you can collect that penalty.

You are assuming that the opponents bid and raised diamonds with 8 hearts?

 

By the way, the novices IRL play in novice games. If the advancer can be trusted to compete, and doubler holds the above hand, it's more likely that the 2D bidder just made a mistake and 2D is not their optimum contract than that the opponents are in a 4-3 diamond fit. Many novices won't raise diamonds on four. If the opponents just screwed up, you'll do fine defending 2D undoubled on the above cards. I've been in games where I've reopened only to hear the 2D bidder now bid a cold 3NT (almost forgot to bid game, partner!) Essentially when reopening with the above hand, you are only catering to partner having a penalty pass, because otherwise partner should have competed, or you don't belong in the hand.

 

Remember those novices that don't play responsive doubles? Their auction could go 1D X 2D X all pass, so they don't have this hand, and if advancer can be trusted to either double or compete with values, there is no reason whatsoever to balance with 12 HCP. Somebody screwed up and I'm going to assume it wasn't partner.

 

Also, if partner has a singleton diamond, LHO is fairly likely to bid 3D - many modern experts play that 3D shows 5+ diamonds and a minimum hand (to make it harder for your partner to balance).

Sometimes it's responder that has 5 diamonds. And if one of those experts is playing in the novice game, the director hasn't done his job.

 

I'm not sure why you said this, are you trying to point out that partner is unlikely to hold a singleton diamond?

 

 

Anyway - I think it's useful to point out that, while in noncompetitve situations, people generally agree on bids (given their bidding system), in competitive situations, good players might try things that might be riskier, particular in the hands of a novice. That's because a better player has the ability to judge not only what their side might be able to make but also what the other side might be able to make.

 

Also, better players realize more the value of obstructing their opponents, and tend to have bidding agreements that make this easier.

Indeed you are correct. I had no idea that my columns were going to be so controversial, but it does point out that trying to present hand evaluation concepts (i.e. judgment) may be more valuable than I had originally thought. When the opponents are making it tough on you, it's useful to know if your 10 HCP hand is really worth 13 points or 8 points. I haven't seen much of that thinking in material for novice players, but seriously, being able to value your hand is much more valuable for a novice than learning some new convention (like responsive doubles) that are (a) likely to be misused, and (b) sometimes are going to be forgotten by one partner but not the other.

 

Except where I didn't suggest a responsive double that I suspect that most novices don't play, our disagreement largely stems from the fact that you don't agree with my liberal use of hand evaluation. IMO, upgrading small cards and downgrading honors opposite partner's known shortness is a valuable thing to know, yet I would guess that less than 20% of the intermediate bridge students in the USA have been introduced to the subject. [In an advanced class who demanded to be taught conventions (against my better judgment), players learning the splinter bid thought it was awesome to have D-AKQ opposite partner's splinter in diamonds because they got two pitches! Clearly, even though cards opposite shortness was explicitly stated to be bad in the class despite the fact that people wanting to learn splinter bids should already know it, most of the students played a hand in slam that was set up to have a tricky play problem to make four.

 

Did I really talk about splinters in a novice forum? Shame on me! Get the blue ink out.]

[akwoo]

Sometimes it's responder that has 5 diamonds. And if one of those experts is playing in the novice game, the director hasn't done his job.

 

I'm not sure why you said this, are you trying to point out that partner is unlikely to hold a singleton diamond?

 

1) I was assuming a game of all levels of players - since I think it is in general a mistake for any novice who aspires to ever not be a novice to play in novice-only games.

 

2) If RHO has 5 diamonds, I would think he or she bids 3D, not 2D, after the takeout double. So I think it is unlikely for partner to hold a singleton diamond without any further bidding anywhere.

 

3) I think the difference between us is that I have a higher toleration for risk. And perhaps I play too much MPs and not enough IMPs, and, in particular, MPs in fields where I know going in that I'm slightly outmatched and need to swing a few boards to place.

 

4) I think the most costly type of bidding error made by novices aspiring to be better (or are these intermediates?) is not putting enough pressure on the opponents (though everyone goes through a phase of trying too hard to put pressure on the opponents). On half the hands, your goal is to keep opponents from bidding their best contract (without sticking your neck out too far). And you learn far more from trying to steal a trick at a bad contract than from watching opponents whip out their epsilon asks to find a slam.

 

(Examples about (4): Partner makes a takeout double of 1D on Kxxx xx KQx Axxx? That costs us 40% of the time, is even 40% of the time, and gains 20% of the time. Partner bids only 3S (or passes) after 2S-(X) on xxxx x Kxx KQxxx? That costs us 60% of the time and almost never gains.)

[Kaitlyn S]

1) I was assuming a game of all levels of players - since I think it is in general a mistake for any novice who aspires to ever not be a novice to play in novice-only games.

I agree with you, but the ACBL (which means nothing if you aren't American) tries to protect novices by letting them play against each other for as long as possible. And while you are correct that those that aspire to be decent players should get out and play against stronger players, there are many that have no such aspirations and are content to play among themselves and win occasionally instead of never.

 

You sound like you aspire to be good. Good for you! I do too, and I have a very long way to go. But I have taught 15-table classes of people who will never darken the doors of a bridge club, and are very happy to play social bridge. There are many more of those players than there are of those that want to try to play against the experts and hope to beat them someday. I know this because I have no trouble filling the classes where I have to constantly remind them to play the high card from the short side first, but the classes where I teach such advanced topics as "it's sometimes safer to have one of your opponents lead than the other one, and you can plan the play so only the safe opponent gets in", I'm lucky to get 8 tables. Many more people want to just socialize than get good at the game.

 

So while it may seem to you that it's a mistake for a novice to play against their own, we have to consider the objective of the novices. If they are playing to have fun and to socialize, and playing the game better is only a secondary objective, then these players are going to play against themselves. The popularity of novice and limited-point games makes it pretty clear that most people aren't as ambitious about their level of play as you and me. And frankly, I'm going to give my students what they want, not what I think they should want. After all, they should have a better idea of what they want than I do. There are plenty of teachers who think their students should get good as quickly as possible and I am more than happy to refer an ambitious student to one of those teachers. I came to the realization long ago that most people just want to have fun (it's a game, after all) and don't want to be pushed really hard. Hey, that's not how I want to learn, but the customer is always right.

 

There's this big push to teach beginners 2 over 1 game forcing. Count me out. 95% of my students do not want to play duplicate bridge and if I teach them 2/1 they will be soooooooo confused when playing with their friends! The one thing their friends know is that they respond 1NT to show a weak response (yes, they might do it with six spades or good support for opener's hearts, but they do know it's weak.) I'm going to teach my students that a 1NT response is forcing so that their friends can them that this Kaitlyn is just crazy as a loon? I don't think so! You want me to teach 2 over 1? Find me seven or more tables of advanced students and I'll do it. Did it once - it was a huge mistake. The advanced players they found for the class couldn't use simple promotion to make 3NT. But by all means, let's teach 'em a few more conventions!

 

2) If RHO has 5 diamonds, I would think he or she bids 3D, not 2D, after the takeout double. So I think it is unlikely for partner to hold a singleton diamond without any further bidding anywhere.

Again, you are assuming a skill level that doesn't necessarily exist. But you can't even make that assumption against my favorite partner and me! For our 3D shows less than 6 by agreement, so with a 7-count with 5 diamonds, I'll raise to 2 and bid 3 next time.

 

And yes, when opener has 5, he should bid 3D. You'd bid 3D, I'd bid 3D. But the majority of social players would say "Why would I bid three when I already have it for two?" thinking that the only reason to bid 3 is to get 60 under the line instead of 40. Did I say majority? It's probably 90%! And by social, I can include some low-level duplicates. I know of a non-sanctioned duplicate game where only half the players play Stayman, if they remember it. I'll bet they have more fun than you or I do.

 

3) I think the difference between us is that I have a higher toleration for risk. And perhaps I play too much MPs and not enough IMPs, and, in particular, MPs in fields where I know going in that I'm slightly outmatched and need to swing a few boards to place.

You don't know me. I've been booted from tables for some of my risky bids. My partners tell opponents that my weak jump overcalls show 13 cards. I think that's a little unfair because they are a smidgen better than Marty Bergen's. I won't give you an example because this is a novice forum and some novices might be reading this, and while I can say "Don't try this at home", some might get the wrong impression.

 

4) I think the most costly type of bidding error made by novices aspiring to be better (or are these intermediates?) is not putting enough pressure on the opponents (though everyone goes through a phase of trying too hard to put pressure on the opponents). On half the hands, your goal is to keep opponents from bidding their best contract (without sticking your neck out too far). And you learn far more from trying to steal a trick at a bad contract than from watching opponents whip out their epsilon asks to find a slam.

I agree. Where we may disagree is on the percentage of novices that want to get better and are willing to put the work in to do it. The players on BBO probably have a disproportionately high percentage trying to improve, especially when compared to the games that form in people's houses.

 

(Examples about (4): Partner makes a takeout double of 1D on Kxxx xx KQx Axxx? That costs us 40% of the time, is even 40% of the time, and gains 20% of the time. Partner bids only 3S (or passes) after 2S-(X) on xxxx x Kxx KQxxx? That costs us 60% of the time and almost never gains.)

The biggest problem with a takeout double on that hand is that partner won't know when it's safe to compete in future hands. That's far more costly than the danger of playing in 4-2 hearts on this hand (unless heaven forbid, the doubler "runs" to 1NT, which works out fine because his partner also doesn't know that doubler has shown at least 19 points.)

[mycroft]

Okay, if you're not talking about potential duplicate players, I can see the points. However, you've already given the key to the "responsive double" - which, after a couple of -380s wakes everybody up, really is much less risky than 3♦ (which, when wrong, is going for 500 instead)¹:

 

You would never want to declare this hand in diamonds.

 

One quick further think: "You never *want* to defend 2-of-a-fit" - for the same reason you don't want to declare this hand in their fit; as Simon said 80 years ago, you're effectively contracting for 7 tricks in their suit. Double can't mean "I want to defend this".

 

What would you want it to mean? "I don't know where to play, but I know it's not here." If you had one major, you'd know where you wanted to play; if you could only play in the other minor, you'd know that too; so you must have both majors and are asking partner to bid their best one.

 

Similarly, after 1♥-X-2♥, if you strongly preferred one suit, you'd bid it, and if you had a choice between spades and a minor, you'd pick spades; so the double must mean "pick your better minor".

 

It's strangely logical - and also gives you 3♦ for the hand with ♦Qxx and power, where you're hoping partner can come up with Kx or Jx for 3NT.

 

The biggest problem with novices learning the responsive double is that they *will* think it also applies to 1♥-X-2♦, frankly.

 

1:

okay, it's not going for 500, it's going for 200, because that same class of kitchen bridge players are never hitting 3♠, even when it does go for its life. But still.

 

[quiddity]

4♥ seems a bit too much on the first hand. If partner has a stiff diamond and 4-card support and 3 working controls then he can probably raise 3♥ to 4. That's not just a minimum, it's a perfect minimum.

[Kaitlyn S]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk764haqt2da86c95&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dd2d]133|200[/hv]

 

(spoiler) okay, it's not going for 500, it's going for 200, because that same class of kitchen bridge players are never hitting 3♠, even when it does go for its life. But still.

 

I'm missing something. For novices who do not play responsive doubles, I would never suggest cuebidding with less than an invitational hand, and in this auction where they raised, the 3D bid is virtually forcing to game. I am assuming that you thought that I was suggesting that you bid 3D on any hand that wanted to compete with 2 four-card majors. If I go for 500 with the above hand opposite a takeout double, it's time to take time off from the game.

 

If a novice had 8 points and 4 hearts and 4 spades, I would suggest that he just choose one and compete. If he feels like competing over 3D, he can bid 2S, and then bid 3H once they bid 3D. Clearly the responsive double is a better solution for these hands but there are many players who are not ready for it; and for them I would suggest that they work on their judgment, play, and defense, rather than learn a convention that will help them once every ten sessions of bridge if both partners remember it.

[Kaitlyn S]

EDIT to add: This post is going to be hard to read because the forum removed many of the spaces in my post. In my example hands, the hand stops at the first space of each suit, followed by text. The next suit begins the next line.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s62hkqj63d863ca74&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dd2d]133|200[/hv]

 

4♥ seems a bit too much on the first hand. If partner has a stiff diamond and 4-card support and 3 working controls then he can probably raise 3♥ to 4. That's not just a minimum, it's a perfect minimum.

 

Normally I'd be pretty unhappy that there were players implying that I don't know enough to teach novices (by essentially saying I'm giving them bum information) but since hand evaluation can be subjective, let's test this theory out.

 

I wrote a program to do a BOREL-type simulation. I generated 20 deals where I held this hand, opener had an opening hand with 4 diamonds and no longer suit, responder had at least 4 diamonds and no 4-card major, and partner had a takeout double as defined as: 13 points counting 1 for a doubleton, 3 for a singleton, and 5 for a void, and subtracting 2 for a singleton king or 1 for a singleton or doubleton queen or jack. I also said that doubler had to have 3 cards in each unbid suit and no 5-card or longer major. I only chose those where doubler had 13 or 14 points counting shortness since with 15, doubler would raise 3H to 4H anyway so my decision to bid game is irrelevant. Here are the 20 deals:

 

S-AT73 Game is easy with 3-2 clubs and the CK

H-AT2 onside.

D-Q

C-Q8532

 

 

S-QJT3 I could lose 2S, 1D, and 1C but I'm leading

H-A972 toward the spades twice and there's a good

D-2 chance that I get both my clubs off. This

C-QJ95 is a particularly unlucky holding but 4H

has play.

 

S-K853 Assuming opener has the SA and 3-2 hearts,

H-974 I lose only a spade and a heart but must

D- handle the diamonds. On a diamond lead, I

C-KQJT63 might need 2-2 clubs also - I ruff the lead,

lead a heart which they must duck, ruff

another diamond, play CK, club to the ace,

and top heart. They shouldn't be able to

hurt me if clubs were 2-2. Not an awesome

game but it's not clear that I get a

diamond lead all the time.

 

S-AJT3 Why can't partner ever have four hearts?

H-975 Still, if opener has the CK and hearts and

D-A clubs are 3-2, this shouldn't be a

C-QT932 challenge. Note that these 3-2 heart breaks

are going to happen a lot when responder

raises diamonds instead of bidding 1H.

 

S-AQ53 Here I need to trump a diamond and hope that

H-AT2 opener has both black kings. If clubs are

D-T9 3-3, I'll only need the spade finesse if

C-Q952 West leads a spade.

 

 

S-KJT5 At first glance it appears that I need to

H-AT54 guess both black suits but it's not unlikely

D-2 I'll get to discard a black card on the

C-QT95 other black suit.

 

 

S-JT54 I'll lose two spades and perhaps a club

H-AT5 but this time game is easy even with only

D- three hearts.

C-KJT652

 

 

S-KQT4 I'll lose a heart, a diamond, and a spade

H-852 for sure. Leading toward the spades will

D-A7 likely let me take a useful discard. Ducking

C-KJ95 a diamond early may allow me to retain a

diamond control if the defenders draw trump.

 

S-AK94 I have to hope West has a doubleton honor in

H-A94 clubs and lead the first one toward dummy.

D-54 An unexpected trump lead will beat this but

C-JT86 the CK lead gives me an unmakable contract.

 

 

S-K843 Assuming the SA is onside, I'll trump two

H-AT75 diamonds and lose a spade, diamond, and

D-9 club.

C-KT85

 

 

S-QJ85 I'll lead twice toward the spades and hope

H-A854 opener has the S-AK or that the CK is

D-J onside.

C-QJ62

 

 

S-AKJ4 I'll try to trump a diamond and guess which

H-T98 black suit queen to play West for. I might

D-75 be able to drop or ruff out the queen in

C-KJ85 one suit and then finesse in the other.

 

 

S-AKQ5 Need 3-2 hearts and the DA onside. A club

H-974 loser goes on the spade.

D-K4

C-T962

 

 

S-AT53 As above, I'll lose a spade and a heart but

H-854 repeated diamond leads might make me play

D- for 2-2 clubs.

C-KQT852

 

 

S-K973 If West has the SA, I'll make it easily,

H-A74 with an overtrick if I find the CQ. I don't

D-9 need to bother trumping diamonds as the

C-KJT95 clubs will take care of them.

 

 

S-QJT8 Again, I'll hope that I can trump two

H-A94 diamonds and get two clubs off on spades.

D-7 A very unlucky flop, but still should make

C-QJT83 when East holds the CK or West panics and

plays East for the CA.

 

S-AQ93 The spade finesse gives ten tricks which

H-A875 include two diamond ruffs.

D-2

C-T985

 

 

S-T975 Ten likely tricks in hearts and clubs.

H-A42

D-Q

C-KQ952

 

 

S-AQ75 I'll need to find West with both black

H-T75 kings unless the defenders let me use the

D-AJ fourth club.

C-Q932

 

 

S-K875 SA onside means lose 1S, 1D, 1C. Will trump

H-AT82 two diamonds. If they try to stop that, the

D-T club suit will likely provide a discard.

C-KT96

 

So game seems a reasonable but not awesome prospect opposite a hand that wouldn't raise a 3H bid to 4H.

 

I was surprised at the number of times that partner only had three card support in my simulation. It's not unlikely that partner with three card support wouldn't raise to game with a better hand than my simulation allowed; making 4H a better bid. Also, the two times I needed 2-2 clubs, partner might have overcalled 2C instead of doubled, meaning the hands shouldn't be in my sample set. The simulation also hurt me by dealing 3 small trumps five times but ten third only twice.

 

I would expect to make 4H more often than not. Many times it depended on the opening bidder have a high card, sometimes two cards but he did need something to open. A couple of them required careful play, and while a novice might not find the play required, the novice is also going to not receive as good defense - his novice defenders might fail to find the "obvious" trump switch, or sometimes after cashing a diamond and seeing the dummy with a singleton, play ace and a trump putting declarer in control. I would certainly want to bid 4H vulnerable at IMPs but the conditions given were not vulnerable so I have to concede that bidding 4H is okay and bidding 3H is okay. But it also does point out to me that I need clearer examples when I use judgment in hand evaluation to suggest a call that the points don't warrant.

 

Of course, when I evaluated the prospects, while I didn't assume I was getting a trump lead when it was right, I also didn't assume I was getting any bad leads. Sometimes the opening leader has D-AQxx and leads a different non-trump suit. In most of my examples, that would have enhanced my odds of making 4H.

[mycroft]

Kaitlyn, I don't disagree with you, and I don't think you would make that call with anything that is likely to go wrong. But people will try it with invitational hands, and then "invitational" hands, and when it's wrong, it will be very wrong. Also, novices play doubled contracts badly.

 

But mostly I am commenting on the fact that the very useful and no more rare hand that wants to also use 3♦ to describe itself - also "game forcing", but this time looking for 9 tricks off the tick - has more of a claim on the call than yours, because it should be relatively straightforward to go with "double of two-of-a-fit is not to play".

 

Thank you for these, they don't let me teach the novices for a very good reason; those who can are much appreciated.

[Kaitlyn S]

because it should be relatively straightforward to go with "double of two-of-a-fit is not to play".

While I have never had that agreement or heard anyone else mention that they had it, it does seem pretty useful to make the agreement that double of 2 of a fit is takeoutish (whatever that means - partner rules out other calls you could have made and whatever is left over is what you have.)

 

I'd be scared to assume that at the table at the Main Bridge Club or even sitting with a new partner in a team match, but I would certainly be willing to make that agreement with any partner that wanted to. And a "takeout" double in this situation (1D X 2D X) pretty clearly works out to be a responsive double and gives the further advantage that advancer can invite. That being said, I would be scared to pull it out unless partner has responsive doubles on his profile or says he'll play mine. I'd rather guess the major that risk losing 11 IMPs or so if partner passes.

 

EDIT to add: I was just going to ask myself "Why am I talking about responsive doubles in a novice forum?" but if a novice and his regular partner agree that doubling 2 of a fit is always takeout, it will probably actually help their partnership in the long run. And by FIT I mean one partner bids ONE at some point and the other one willingly bids TWO to raise or compete; not as a preference. In a fine-tuned partnership there are probably exceptions but they are rare and it's probably better just to have the agreement that seems pretty useful.

[quiddity]

 

Normally I'd be pretty unhappy that there were players implying that I don't know enough to teach novices (by essentially saying I'm giving them bum information)

 

 

 

My disagreeing with judgment on a close call is not implying anything like that. I'm far from an expert so I could easily be wrong, but this doesn't seem (to me) like a spot where a balanced 10-count should be jumping to game.

 

There are some minor issues with the simulation parameters - for example, opener can be 4432, responder is usually going to jump to the three-level with 5 diamonds, etc. I also think the doubler can have a slightly weaker hand - Axxx Axxx xx Qxx? Another important question is how aggressive the doubler will be in raising 3♥ to 4. I would tend to be very aggressive there; I think the jump to 3♥ shows a good invite since with a junkier 9-10 advancer perhaps can just bid 2♥ and doubler still has room to make a game try. So I think the hands with diamond voids, very good club suits etc are raises. Many of the hands with 4-card heart support are raises.

 

I don't think it's straightforward to answer this with a simulation. A better bet would be to post a poll on bridgewinners and see how the strong players vote.

[Kaitlyn S]

I also think the doubler can have a slightly weaker hand - Axxx Axxx xx Qxx?

If my partner can have this hand and double, I agree that 4H is too much. In fact, cuebidding or forcing to game on a balanced 13 count might be too much. The whole structure changes, just as it does when your opening bids can be made with essentially 13 cards and a lot of hope.

[Tramticket]

[...] but this doesn't seem (to me) like a spot where a balanced 10-count should be jumping to game.

 

[...] I also think the doubler can have a slightly weaker hand - Axxx Axxx xx Qxx? [...]

 

Do you really judge that

62

KQJ63

863

A74

 

is a 10-count? Particularly in the context of partner having diamond shortage? I would certainly value this hand as much closer to 12 than 10.

 

On the other hand

AXXX

AXXX

XX

QXX

 

is most certainly a balanced 10-count (if that). It is a long way from being a take-out double for me - I would want a queen extra to make a take-out double with that shape.

[Tramticket]

As for problem three, I think that Kaitlyn's 3♦ bid is about right even when you are playing responsive double (which are recommended).

 

Opening values opposite a take-out double should be enough to force to game. Even if partner has found a take-out double without four cards in either major (3-3-2-5 shape) I would expect the Moysian fit to often play better than 3NT (on the expected diamond lead)

[akwoo]

As for problem three, I think that Kaitlyn's 3♦ bid is about right even when you are playing responsive double (which are recommended).

 

Opening values opposite a take-out double should be enough to force to game. Even if partner has found a take-out double without four cards in either major (3-3-2-5 shape) I would expect the Moysian fit to often play better than 3NT (on the expected diamond lead)

 

Yes, you can force to game, but there is no need to do so immediately. You can simply jump to game over whatever partner bids, or bid 3D to force to game then. The responsive double lets you go to 3N if partner has clubs. And if LHO bids to preempt partner, you can double again.

[mycroft]

Kaitlyn: I've told people many times, when I see them play and they ask me how to get better, "make an agreement that, for the next month, the opponents never play one- or two- of a suit undoubled. This is not a good agreement, and you will go for numbers, and you will let through numbers. But like most C players, you're too conservative [note: I am too conservative, too!], and are letting the opponents off the hook way too often. So make and keep this agreement; when you get a bad result, say 'hard luck, partner' and get on to the next hand; and at the end of the month, look back at when the pushing around worked, and when it didn't. And keep what works, and stop doing what doesn't; you will be a better player."

 

I'm not the only one. Whether that's "novice" or "flight C" or where players are too new to understand is not my place to judge (because I can't), but it does work.

 

That, and Larry Cohen's "I'd rather be -1100 than -110", is where "we don't let them play two of a fit" "never mind doubled" comes from.

 

Thank you again for all you are doing.

[Kaitlyn S]

Kaitlyn:...But like most C players, you're too conservative

The people that are questioning me about bidding 4H on the first hand will argue with you. Most players here play IMPs because that's what is generally played here. Matchpoints is a different animal and aggressively competing, possibly risking 800, to push the opponents up a level or get a lead you want, pays off a lot more often in matchpoints and is frequently warranted. The problem is that when a player it here in IMPs, even if it doesn't cost anything, partner sees your hand when he's dummy and leaves the table immediately, or boots you from the table when the hand is completed.

 

Players tend to be conservative because it draws less criticism and a criticized player doesn't play as well, nor does a player who thinks he's playing with someone crazy (some of the "not well" playing by the criticizer might be masterminding and hand-hogging.)

 

So even though being conservative may slightly cost IMPs from a strictly bridge point of view, it may gain more IMPs when playing with a random partner in the Main Bridge Club because you avoid that awful criticism loop, and a "Flight C" player doesn't know when his risky bid is going to appear idiotic to partner.

Thank you again for all you are doing.

You're welcome. I don't mean to be argumentative, I'm just pointing out areas where I don't agree. I agree a lot with what you say - although never letting the opponents play 1 or 2 of anything (I hope you didn't mean 2NT) undoubled is going to be a rough experiment for any pair.

 

In fact, if I had to give one concept that I would expect to most help an upcoming player or pair, it would be this:

You defend on half of the deals, many in trump contracts. Look at the dummy. Is there a long suit that appears like declarer is going to take a lot of tricks? Then you need to establish and take your tricks in the other side suits. In the absence of such a long suit, is there a short side suit? Declarer might want to trump losers in that suit, so as a defender, consider leading trump. If neither of the above is true, play passively and don't give anything away; make declarer do his own work.

[mycroft]

I think you're mishearing me - which is my fault for being confusing, not yours. I don't think *you* are too conservative; I don't think *you* are a C player. I don't think I have to give you the advice I give the C players who ask for help. And yes, I said "one or two of a suit" - not 2NT, not 1NT either.

 

I'm telling you that I tell the C players this; they are too conservative, and forcing them for a month to compete over-aggressively, knowing that it's over-aggressive, knowing that their partner will not criticize them for the numbers they go for being too aggressive (because *they* signed on too - they should criticize when their partner *didn't* do it) will just naturally make them less conservative when they get to ratchet back (even more so if they do in fact have the explicit review afterward).

 

And you're saying the same thing ("Players tend to be conservative [because he doesn't know] when his risky bid is going to appear idiotic to partner"). So I know you know this!

 

But that's a lot of the problem; conservative play bleeds IMPs and (especially) MPs invisibly. It doesn't get -800 or -530 zeros and -11, sure; instead it gets two, three, four or more 30% boards or -5, -6 for going minus when both partscores make (or when 2♠ makes exactly two and you let them play it). But since people don't get yelled at for those the way "idiotic to partner" calls do, they keep doing it and they keep losing (and getting 45% games).

 

You are also absolutely right (implied) that if the partnership breaks the "hard luck partner, next hand" rule during the experiment, possibly even once, it will blow up the whole thing, potentially even to the point of being counterproductive.

 

But (to eventually get me back to the point) I do strongly believe that "we never defend two-of-a-fit" - for bridge values of never (which means "unless it's obviously right") is a winner in the long run; and given that, why would we defend it doubled?

 

And yes, defence is brutal, especially for novice players, double especially for unpractised partnerships with minimal agreements. Those are good suggestions. My apologies for being confusing, especially by implying that when my comments are to you (rather than the subject of the thread) that I think you are one of your students.

[Kaitlyn S]

Oddly enough, your suggestion that players use an unsound strategy to get over their pusillanimous tendencies could have the opposite of the desired effect; because it happened to me when I was coming up. My partner and I adopted a very aggressive part score style, and it worked wonders against the other novices. Even our 4-2 fits going for -50 would score several matchpoints against the -90's other pairs werer getting for defending 1NT or 2D. What we "learned" is that always competing was an unbeatable strategy. Until we won too many points and were forced to compete against the A players. Funny - these guys let us go for 200 instead of taking the push, they doubled our 4-2 fits, and showed us that we were still pretty clueless when it came to competing. We had to essentially learn from scratch.

 

Your idea of trying to overcompete on purpose would work better if you start out right away against strong competition, so you learn instantly when it's wrong instead of getting away with something and thinking you're awesome when in fact you are just lucky.

 

In fact, mycroft has plenty of good ideas that sound like they come from experience. I believe he said people should play against stronger opposition. That depends on objective.

 

If you are willing to admit that you will never reach a level where you can win your 25 gold points in Flight A, by all means, you should probably play in Flight B as long as you are allowed to.

 

However, if you have aspirations of becoming good enough to hold your own in Flight A events eventually, I would urge you to give up the "easy" points and glory in Flight B and playing up instead. For a while, it will seem like a mistake, trading your 65% game for a 40% game. In the long run, you will actually win more masterpoints by doing just that. I'm talking to the players that are good enough to legitimately expect to grab a high overall ranking in a Flight B regional event. You've got the talent to do well in Flight A eventually, why not cultivate it?

 

You may think I'm crazy giving up an easy 25 gold points to get your butt kicked. (By the way, if you're getting your gold in B so you will be allowed to play in the Life Master Pairs, that's different. You're willing to get your butt kicked to improve, but have to take a circuitous route.) But look what happens when you play in a few Flight A events. Despite getting your butt kicked, you do have talent, and it will be noticed. Suddenly people that didn't know you existed will be asking you to be their teammates in KO's and Swiss Team events. The more talented you are (and thus more likely to win that Flight B event), the quicker you will be getting onto decent teams in the Flight A events, and facing strong opposition because your team will be decent.

 

Mycroft's "experiment" may do another great thing for you - get you in the right temperament for a good partnership. For if you are forced systemically to get disasters and can see how suffering the disasters gladly and without recriminations, you will see how well your game is working when you can carry on and nobody is the least little bit upset at anything. You will also learn to carry that over to when the partnership has a non-systemic error (somebody screwed up) and you can put it behind you without words and carry on. There's plenty of time after the game to talk about the hands. Good thing we get hand records!

 

I know that for some of you this will be extremely difficult. For most of us think we are talented and if we could only get a decent partner we'd be in great shape. And it's hard for that not to come out in the course of a game. Let me give you a reality check.

 

1. I am not under the delusion that I am a good enough player to ever win a national championship. At one time I thought I could, but I just plain do not have the talent to do it. However, if you are a random player reading this, the chances are that you are currently not as good as I am. So if you aspire to do great things, you are going to have to realize that you have to improve A LOT, and that there is a lot you don't know. If you think I'm wrong, but you're still getting only 55% in Flight B games, trust me, if you keep playing, in 10 years you will be very surprised at how much you have learned in those 10 years. You will be wondering how you could have possibly thought you were a good player.

 

I do not mean this as an insult. The sooner you realize you have a lot to learn, and that not every bad board is partner's fault or a fix, the better off you will be.

 

2. Of course partner is a weaker player than you, isn't that true for everybody? :lol:

 

Partner is in the same boat you are. He needs to improve A LOT also, and just like you, he is going to make a lot of mistakes. If you care about your partnership, you will let his mistakes go, and even when you are talking about the game later, if he admits that he made a mistake, as long as he's not the type to admit it to shut you up, the discussion is essentially over, unless the two of you wish to discuss how the auction should have gone to get to that best spot.

 

Similarly, if you realize that you erred, admit it quickly. If you think partner could have been more helpful (this is all after-game discussion), you can mention it once and realize that helping partner not make mistakes is a pretty advanced topic, so if he doesn't want to go there, realize that he might not be ready for such an advanced discussion yet. If you realize that you screwed up at the table, just say "Partner, I messed up and I'm sorry, hopefully I'll do better on the rest of the hands" and be done with it.

 

It works. I remember with great pleasure a wonderful pickup partner here at BBO. On the first hand, I went down 2 in a cold contract. Most of the players here would have already left the room, but I said to partner "I played that hand terribly. I hope that I can't possibly be that bad again." He stuck around and we played about a dozen more boards against a regular partnership that was squabbling and we were picking up about 5 IMPs a hand because we were playing the current hand each time while they had their minds on the last hand. Full credit goes to my partner there. I wish I remember who he was!

[mycroft]

Thank you Kaitlyn, especially for dragging this back on-topic.

Can I say I enthusiastically agree with everything she said - especially the first paragraph about my suggestions potentially being counterproductive.

 

One of the joys of this game is that there's always something more to learn. One of the frustrations is that that's because the best make lots of mistakes; the rest of us make lots more than that.