MPs: 3 over 3 decision

[Mkgnao]

You hold:

 

♠ KQT42

♥ K972

♦ 9852

♣ -

 

MPs, all vul:

 

(1♣*) - p - (1♦) - 1♠

(dbl) - 2♠ - (3♣) - ...

 

*: 1C could be 2 but only if 4432.

 

Strong partner, weak opponents.

 

What would you bid?

[neilkaz]

Don't I hold the same minimum overcall I bid with last round? I'll pass and leave things up to PD.

[Mkgnao]

Do you play support XX?

 

Yes, but since we played in a pick-up partnership, we didn't have an agreement what the redouble would have been. No agreement about a Rosenkranz redouble (http://www.bridgebum.com/rosenkranz_double.php).

[neilkaz]

Yes, but since we played in a pick-up partnership, we didn't have an agreement what the redouble would have been. No agreement about a Rosenkranz redouble (http://www.bridgebum.com/rosenkranz_double.php).

 

Sry, I failed to delete that post quickly enough once I realized that the 1♠ bidder wasn't opener so sup XX wouldn't be played by many.

[kenberg]

I suppose it would be good to know what XX by partner would have meant. For that matter it might be good to know what the opponent's X meant. Probably it shows four hearts, but maybe it's a support double for diamonds. And maybe it's just a generally good hand.

 

Nonetheless, I pass. I can easily imagine opener being unsure of what to do over 3C, 3SX is very apt to be the wrong contract for us, there seems to be far more of a downside to bidding than to passing.

 

I am thinking this is one of those hands where just about everyone would pass at the table but for some reason bidding on is right. If so, I really can't see why. I can ruff clubs in my hand but that doesn't increase the trick total. If they do have an undiscovered 8 card diamond fit then I can profitably ruff a diamond or two on the board, that would help, but my guess is that the double showed hearts.

 

I look forward to seeing what actually is best. I am confident that I would pass and that I would have no trouble doing it in tempo so that partner, if he wishes, could bid again. I doubt he will wish to.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

[ahydra]

The club void is wonderful but we're short on values otherwise and are vulnerable, so pass is probably wisest.

 

ahydra

[rmnka447]

Pass.

 

What does the auction tell you? Opener should have a good hand to double your 1 ♠ bid because with a minimal opener a pass could be made and RHO would still have a chance to make a call and continue the auction.

 

Your ♣ void would seem to place your partner with some ♣.

 

You've made an aggressive 1 ♠ overcall, so have bid the full value of your hand and then some with that call.

 

Your partner made a minimum raise which shows a limited hand and support. Often partner will have only 3 card support. Then 2 ♠ may be the limit of or beyond what you can make.

 

Partner should have another chance to compete further with the right hand or sit for a ♣ or other contract if that's right. Bidding 3 ♠ is a unilateral decision and should be reserved for hands where it's pretty crystal clear to bid on no matter what partner has. Here what partner has is very important on what should be done, so passing is right.

 

Keep in mind that at MPs a vulnerable contract down 1 doubled is -200 which is the kiss of death on part score hands. And at MPs, the opponents can be freer making part score penalty doubles. Indeed, making such "ornery" MP point doubles where you've got enough to feel you have a fair chance of beating the opponents but not enough to bid on are an important part of being a good MP player.

[GrahamJson]

Pass and hope oppo don't find their slam, or if they do, hope it goes off on a ruff at trick one (although I see that you would be on lead against a diamond slam, so that isn't very likely).

 

Yes, you might be able to make a few spades, but even with the perfect fit; four card support and a diamond void, you have nine tricks on a cross ruff and maybe the king of hearts. And only that then if a trump isn't led. Meanwhile you have one, maybe two, defensive tricks, so oppo would outbid you to their game or slam. Whilst I suppose you could argue that therefore you should bid on, to take away oppo's bidding space and make it more difficult for them, I think that overall it is best to go quietly and hope that you have already done enough.

[RD350LC]

Pass

If p has 4 card spade support, he will bid again. Otherwise, the law of total tricks says let the opponents play it.

[fourdad]

it is quite likely that your partner has a club stack. Pass

[miamijd]

A lot depends on what opener's second round X of 1D means.

 

If it's a 16+ hand, I would pass now. Chances are that we're outgunned - maybe badly - so if anyone should bid 3S, it needs to be partner.

 

If it's hearts any strength, I think it's close (the opps rate to have 9C), but I probably still pass both vul (more later).

 

If it's a support X for diamonds, however, then I'm holding my breath and bidding 3S, especially against less than expert opponents. The LAW does NOT say not to bid 3 over 3 at MPs with only 8 trump; you are generally right to do so at MPs IF the opponents have a 9-fit and your short-suit losers are minimized. Probably partner doesn't have 5 clubs (though it's possible), so the trump count rates to be at 17, where 3 over 3 is often right. Moreover, our short-suit losers (read Lawrence and Wirgren's "I Fought the Law" on this one) are 2 at most (0 in clubs; at most 2 in diamonds). That means bid more.

 

The reason I'm cautious if the opener hasn't shown diamonds is that with both vul, there are too many ways to lose. If the opponents X for -1, that's likely a zero. Non-expert opponents probably won't X, but even then, -2 is a zero. Worse, with the opponents vulnerable, if partner has his expected 4 clubs and a good hand, +140 might lose to +200 for defending 3C. Both vul is the worst time to bid more (our side vul only is actually better in MPs).

 

What was the X of 1d?

 

Cheers,

Mike

[msjennifer]

PASS.I fully agree with the argument put up by kenberg.

[The_Badger]

What was the X of 1d?

 

That one sentence is worth its weight in gold. Although I'm definitely inclined to pass without any definition of its meaning.

 

Going off at a tangent, given that minor suits are poor cousins to their majors, what is the point of having a support double in this sequence btw? A double here is better used, as Mike says, to show extras (16+) in my view too.

[kenberg]

That one sentence is worth its weight in gold. Although I'm definitely inclined to pass without any definition of its meaning.

 

Going off at a tangent, given that minor suits are poor cousins to their majors, what is the point of having a support double in this sequence btw? A double here is better used, as Mike says, to show extras (16+) in my view too.

 

Staying on your tangent for a bit:

 

I think it depends some on other agreements. Say I am not playing in the Walsh style so that after 1C -(P) - 1D -(1S) it is very possible for responder to have four hearts even if he does not hold game-forcing values. In this case I think using the X to show hearts will come up fairly often, and moreover when it does arise it will help with what otherwise could be a tough situation. If playing in the Walsh style it is less important to be able to show four hearts since, firstly, responder usually will not have four and, secondly, if he has four he will also have a big hand and (probably) have a chance to show them.

 

After 1C -(P) - 1D -(1H) it's different. Now opener can bid spades if he wants to, so the X is not needed to show the other major.

 

Is using a double as a support double useful after 1C -(P) - 1D -(1H) ? I think so. Not all hands are played in game. Often, but not always, the 1D response to 1C is on five. Responder might have skipped over 1D to bid 1M or 1NT. He didn't. That doesn't prove he has five, but it's a hint. If the opponents are going to contest the auction in hearts, it could be useful to see how far we want to go in diamonds. Do we have an 8 card fit or maybe a 9 card fit? A support double can help sort this out.

[The_Badger]

Staying on your tangent for a bit:

 

I think it depends some on other agreements. Say I am not playing in the Walsh style so that after 1C -(P) - 1D -(1S) it is very possible for responder to have four hearts even if he does not hold game-forcing values.

 

Totally agree, Ken. I'm getting complacent as I now assume everyone, even at I/A level plays in the Walsh-style, preferring to respond with a four card major as opposed a five card ♦ suit.

[forgo]

you have bid your hand! in fact, you have overbid your hand abit PASS

[kenberg]

Totally agree, Ken. I'm getting complacent as I now assume everyone, even at I/A level plays in the Walsh-style, preferring to respond with a four card major as opposed a five card ♦ suit.

 

In this particular case the opponents are described as not strong. Compared to what, I suppose, but very possibly they have no agreement as to what the X of 1S meant. That's just life on BBO. Whatever the merits of support doubles would be, I would not place a bet on this being one. In a sufficiently serious game no doubt one could make an issue of this, they are supposed to be able to have agreements and to know what they are, but usually I just place a bet. Here I would bet that it was intended to show hearts, but really nobody knows.

 

Anyway, along with most everyone else, I am not bidding 3S.

I suppose he could have

Axx

Axxx

xx

xxxx

 

This could be terrific if hearts are 3-2 and I get a club lead. Maybe third hand is 2=2=5=4. Could be. Ruff the club, cash the two top hearts, cash three rounds of spade, play another spade throwing a diamond not mining at all if they ruff in. Hey this is great. And maybe I will win the Powerball Jackpot.

 

I'm sticking with my pass. 3H is not goinig nearly so well if third hand is 3=1=5=4, as I think is likely.

 

 

Early in I guessed that this is one of those hands where everyone would pass at the table but the lie is such that we should bid on. And I now see how that could be. But I am not placing that bet

[cherdano]

I don't agree with all the claims that we have bid our hand. We have completely normal amount of strength in terms of honours. Being 5440 is a big plus!!!!

Still, being vulnerable at MPs I just think we have to pass. If opponents were good, they'd likely double us in 3S for a terrible -200 vs partscore, or -500 vs game. But given that the opponents are weak, there is another danger: there is a good chance that responder has extras that he should have shown - in which case 3S-2 will be a much worse result than -130 or -150 for defending 3♣.

[Mkgnao]

At the table, I pressed on with 3♠. 3♠ -1 was 36%: most pairs were in 2♠ making, 3♠ -1 or -2 and 3♠ was made three times (the latter requiring a horrific defence).

 

The full hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt42hk972d9852c&w=s9765haqt4daca982&n=saj8h865dk4ckj643&e=s3hj3dqjt763cqt75]399|300[/hv]

 

As you can see, partner tried to trap the opponents with his heavy 2♠-bid.

 

I thought I'd diagnosed overbidding in competitive 3 over 3 situations as one of my leaks, so I told myself only to bid on with extra's: an extra trump, significant extra HCP or a powerful void (in this case in their suit). Initially I thought raising to 3♠ was automatic so I ascribed the result to bad luck but soon afterwards I began to get second thoughts. Partner is likely to have 4+♣ on the bidding and if he has his promised 6-9 HCP, then combined with my 8 HCP the opponents will have 23-27 HCP. In other words, the 3♠-bid runs the risk of giving the opponents only winning options: either doubling 3♠ or bidding a making game. (Though the club break will remain a liability for 3NT.)

 

About the meaning of the double, no one at the table aside from opener knew what her double meant. As a final note, I polled my real life partner and he clearly favored 3♠ over pass. Ok, he's a junior but still it was surprising to see that almost everyone chose pass with only Cherdano contemplating bidding. Groupthink or glorious insight?

[kenberg]

Thanks much for posting the hand.

 

It seems right to say that if 3S is off 1 with that dummy then passing, anticipating a lessee dummy, has merit.

 

I liked your comment that only W knew what her double of 1S meant. So it often is. My earlier guess was that it was intended to show hearts, and that appears to be the case. I claim no great insight on that, but I think I see that meaning more often than anything else.

 

Despite the 5-0 trump split I am not so sure you are beating 3C. Declarer can take 3 hearts and a top diamond for 4 tricks in the side suits, so if she can come up with 5 club tricks she is home.Ruff 2 spades on the board, ruff 1 diamond in hand, lead a heart from hand. There are timing issues so it might depend on just who plays what when.

 

Again, thanks for posting the hand.

 

Added: I don't think going after ruffs right away is unlikely. The spade distribution is known with reasonable confidence and the hearts are probably 4-3 because 4-3 is a priori the most likely and because nobody has shown an interest in hearts. Not conclusive I know but likely. So it seems straightforward to get the two spade ruffs in dummy and to develop the hearts while chasing the spade ruffs. When the heart J is led from dummy I expect S will cover and N will give count. I would believe N, this does not seem like a place where one gives false count. With that info in hand, the described play seems pretty normal.

 

So maybe 3S off 1 is as good as you can do. As long as they don't double.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

About the meaning of the double, no one at the table aside from opener knew what her double meant. As a final note, I polled my real life partner and he clearly favored 3♠ over pass. Ok, he's a junior but still it was surprising to see that almost everyone chose pass with only Cherdano contemplating bidding. Groupthink or glorious insight?

 

Nobody assumed our partner was playing games.

Weak opponents can mean lots of thinks, one possibility, that they have underbid.

The one, who knowes what is going on, is your partner, and if I pass, then this does

not mean we are selling out a the 2 level, I just pass the decision over to partner.

[kenberg]

To say a bit more:

On the auction

1C-P-1D-1S

X-?

I think 2S is apt to be on more than 6 highs.He has the option of passing and then later, if 2S is still available, bidding it then. If 2S is not available when it gets back to I don't think that's a big concern if he is holding only the spade A and an outside Q somewhere. So I think the 2S is more than 6 but this rather good hand is a bit heavy for 2S. But then what? XX would be nice if it would be understood. If a cue bid shows this, which cue bid? I can imagine some palying that 2D shows spade support and values while 2C shows clubs. I have no idea what the best agreement is. After XX I imagine E bids 2C. Here it would be really good to know what the X of 1S was. If it doesn't show hearts I think S could I don't see this as showing anything extra, just getting the hearts in. If the X of 1S showed four hearts, then I think that after XX-2C South could describe his hand well by passing.

 

Except at the highest levels, and sometimes even there, there is often a lack of clarity as to what means what. So it is here. We are told that only W understood what her X of 1S meant. NS had not discussed what XX would mean. Nobody expected the 2S call to be on such a good hand.

 

My passing of 3C was not at all group think, I didn't think 3S was at all likely to make, and we are vul. I can't see why it would be expected to make opposite, say, Axx / xxx / Kxx / Qxxx We woould take 5 spades, perhaps both red Kings (and perhaps neither res King) and what else? Ruffing clubs in hand might be fun but the first 2 ruffs to not increase our trick total. Thanks to partner's maximal, at least maximal, holding, 3S is only off 1 and the opponents were not strong enough, so they thought anyway, to double. I do think that 3C is apt to come to 9 tricks so I think this is just one of those things. I am pretty sure you do not want to be playing 3CX.

[Winstonm]

At the table, I pressed on with 3♠. 3♠ -1 was 36%: most pairs were in 2♠ making, 3♠ -1 or -2 and 3♠ was made three times (the latter requiring a horrific defence).

 

The full hand:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt42hk972d9852c&w=s9765haqt4daca982&n=saj8h865dk4ckj643&e=s3hj3dqjt763cqt75]399|300[/hv]

 

As you can see, partner tried to trap the opponents with his heavy 2♠-bid.

 

I thought I'd diagnosed overbidding in competitive 3 over 3 situations as one of my leaks, so I told myself only to bid on with extra's: an extra trump, significant extra HCP or a powerful void (in this case in their suit). Initially I thought raising to 3♠ was automatic so I ascribed the result to bad luck but soon afterwards I began to get second thoughts. Partner is likely to have 4+♣ on the bidding and if he has his promised 6-9 HCP, then combined with my 8 HCP the opponents will have 23-27 HCP. In other words, the 3♠-bid runs the risk of giving the opponents only winning options: either doubling 3♠ or bidding a making game. (Though the club break will remain a liability for 3NT.)

 

About the meaning of the double, no one at the table aside from opener knew what her double meant. As a final note, I polled my real life partner and he clearly favored 3♠ over pass. Ok, he's a junior but still it was surprising to see that almost everyone chose pass with only Cherdano contemplating bidding. Groupthink or glorious insight?

 

Something to consider is that the void in the long-trump hand is not as valuable as it would be in partner's hand. You control the suit, sure, but you are also subject to taps and losing control of the hand.

 

I agree with your ideas about when to bid on - it is your assessment of the value of this hand I question.

[kenberg]

This is merely some add-on thoughts, not addressing the 3S call. On that issue I have said my piece.

 

Earlier I mentioned that I thought 3C should make easily. In fact 130 seemed plausible. I decided to check it with GIB, and the result is 130 EW unless N starts with the !C K at T1. Of course GIB plays double dummy, but I think +110 for EW in 3C should be easy enough.

 

So why are many pairs playing in 2S NS? EW have half the deck and the spade ruffing situation is much better for them than the club ruffing (which produces no extra trick) is for NS. Spades were bid and raised at other tables, since the other tables are playing 2S. . This makes the ruffing situation is favorable for EW. W looks at his four spades and expects to see a stiff in dummy, or else E simply looks at his stiff spade, either way they can anticipate ruffs. And W might reasonably hope for a biy more strength in dummy. The E hand is minimal, , the trumps split 5-0, and still 3C is an easy make. Those EW pairs that sold to 2S seem to be a bit cautious. I conced that when E bid 3C he had to worry that W could be 4=4=2=3, definitely possible, but then he presumably be playing in 3D. At mps, selling to 2S seems wrong.

 

All in all, reaching 3S undoubled off 1should be a great result for NS

 

As mentioned, this is an add-on for whatever interest it holds. If I were S and E bid 3C they would be scoring up 110 or maybe 130.

 

Bridge can be an unfair game.