Bid opponents suit to play?

[661_Pete]

It doesn't happen very often, but what do I do (playing ACOL, 4 card majors) when the opponents open 1♠ and I have:

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt9532hj84dj8ca&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1spp]133|200[/hv]

?? (pairs, match points).

I felt inclined to just double, the prospects of game for our side looked bleak, and a decent penalty was tempting! But of course partner wouldn't leave it there!

 

In the end I did double - West passed and partner contributed 2♦. I then bid 2♠ hoping that it'd be taken as natural. After muttering about "no agreement" in response to opponents' enquiry, partner passed - luckily for me!

 

In the end I was quite chuffed, because 2♠ just made - at most of the tables where West didn't open 1♠, N-S reached 4♠ which was unmakeable. And others left West in 1♠ undoubled - 1 down. A 'top' for us! But did I deserve it? I feel a bit like the Rueful Rabbit here - getting a 'top' by accident!

[Stephen Tu]

You got extremely lucky. Anything other than passing 1s would be absurd. You obviously can't double because that is defined as takeout, because being short in spades is going to be many many more times likely than being long in spades. So partner is never going to leave it in. Then on the second round you have no bid, unless partner is going to take the cue as natural, which he should not. Double then cue is reserved for strong hands, usually lacking a spade stopper and unsuited to raising partner's suit or bidding one's own suit, a hand type that would be unbiddable if cue wasn't forcing. Partner should not be passing the cue bid.

 

Another problem is that even if successful in getting partner to pass a cue bid, you are now attempting to take 8 tricks in spades for a plus, whereas defending you only need 7. Normally if you can take 8 tricks in spades, accurate defense puts 1s at least down 2. It's true at this vulnerability, making 2 is better than down 2 undoubled, but sometimes they are down 3, and if both contracts are down 1 you've blown it. Plus being able to play in 2s requires a partner who also doesn't know that cue bids are normally supposed to be forcing.

 

Generally you can only play in suits the opponents open after sequences like (1c)-p-(1s)-2s, 4th position bidding responder's suit is often played as natural, because there are alternative methods to show other suits (doubling, bidding 2nt). Bidding opener's suit is sometimes also played as natural here especially against 3cd minor openings, but this requires agreement as some play it as other 2 suits instead. Also (1m)-3m is often played as natural. You can also bid naturally in the opponent's suit in situations where an opponent might be psyching the suit, such as (1H)-dbl-(1s)-2S; your spade bid shows spades, as your partner implied some spades with the double and RHO might be joking with heart support, and even if not might only have 4 little. Similarly (2H)-pass-(2S)-3S should be natural, and if you opened an artificial strong 2c bid your cues should normally be natural as an opponent might try to pick off your suit non-vul.

 

Against an Acol (note not all caps, not an acronym) type 1S, it could be reasonable to play a sequence like (1S)-p-(1nt)-p-(p)-2S as natural.

[Tramticket]

Yes, Stephen has summed it up well.

 

You can play (1c)-p-(1s)-2s as natural as Stephen suggests, but I would not try this undiscussed.

[661_Pete]

You got extremely lucky.

I have to agree with you there! :unsure: Thanks for the analysis.

 

I forgot to add that it was both vulnerable (I thought this was indicated in the diagram, but now realise it isn't). So 2♠ just made, beats -1 by the oppos but not -2 (undoubled).

 

I should also have added that this was during not too formal a session. If the opponents had taken exception to my 2♠ (as well they might) and called the TD, I'd probably have been penalised...

 

I'm not expecting this situation to crop up very often! If it does, I just hope I'm not the one holding the 7-card suit!

[Tramticket]

I'm not expecting this situation to crop up very often! If it does, I just hope I'm not the one holding the 7-card suit!

 

Better to be the one holding the seven-card suit defending 1♠ than the one holding the four-card suit trying to make 1♠ in a 4-1 fit with the suit breaking 7-1. :D

[Cyberyeti]

I think I've only bid opps suit naturally twice. One was a over a 2+ card club and we have the agreement that over this other than the UCB type auction, a pass followed by a bid that shows clubs genuinely shows clubs. The other was in an obvious psyche type auction (weak2-x-new suit) where after a couple of rounds of bidding where I realised I couldn't express my AKJxxxx in the suit bid so just jumped to 6 of them and partner got the message.

 

It's a very rare thing, and there are usually better uses for the bids.

[steve2005]

You deserved to get a minus.

Passing gets a plus.

[Vampyr]

I have to agree with you there! :unsure: Thanks for the analysis.

 

I forgot to add that it was both vulnerable (I thought this was indicated in the diagram, but now realise it isn't). So 2♠ just made, beats -1 by the oppos but not -2 (undoubled).

 

I should also have added that this was during not too formal a session. If the opponents had taken exception to my 2♠ (as well they might) and called the TD, I'd probably have been penalised...

 

I'm not expecting this situation to crop up very often! If it does, I just hope I'm not the one holding the 7-card suit!

 

I do not know why you would have been penalised for bidding 2♠, unless your partner had UI (such as a BIT before the double, or body language that indicated that 2♠ was intended as natural). Because after all, your partner’s passing 2♠ is bizarre.

[Tramticket]

Pete, Are you aware of the usual meaning that most player would have for of a double followed by a cue-bid? A typical hand might be:[hv=pc=n&s=s7hak97dak4caqjt6&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sppdp2dp2sp]133|200[/hv]

 

The bid usually considered forcing and obviously, partner will only break this and pass if holding long spades and nothing else.

 

This is why Vampyr is suggesting that your partner's pass is bizarre.

[Winstonm]

It doesn't happen very often, but what do I do (playing ACOL, 4 card majors) when the opponents open 1♠ and I have:

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt9532hj84dj8ca&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1spp]133|200[/hv]

?? (pairs, match points).

I felt inclined to just double, the prospects of game for our side looked bleak, and a decent penalty was tempting! But of course partner wouldn't leave it there!

 

In the end I did double - West passed and partner contributed 2♦. I then bid 2♠ hoping that it'd be taken as natural. After muttering about "no agreement" in response to opponents' enquiry, partner passed - luckily for me!

 

In the end I was quite chuffed, because 2♠ just made - at most of the tables where West didn't open 1♠, N-S reached 4♠ which was unmakeable. And others left West in 1♠ undoubled - 1 down. A 'top' for us! But did I deserve it? I feel a bit like the Rueful Rabbit here - getting a 'top' by accident!

 

There is simply no way to bid your hand to show spades. The better way to think about this is would you like to play in spades holding a 4-1 fit with a 7-1 break?

[rmnka447]

If you stop to analyze what has been bid and not bid after 1 ♠ - P - P, you'll learn a lot.

 

Start with ♠. You have 7 and opener has at least 4. That means partner can hold at most 2 ♠. Since partner didn't make a takeout double or an overcall, you know partner either has less than an opener or a hand unsuitable for a takeout double that is also unsuitable for a 2 level vulnerable overcall, maybe something like ♠ x ♥ AQx ♦ 10xxxxx ♣ KJx. Figure partner has maybe 10 HCP.

 

RHO wasn't able to make a response, so figure RHO holds 4 HCP max.

 

So it looks like maybe there is something like 25 points max between the three hands besides opener. Opener rates to have something like 15 value and more if partner or RHO have a little less. If opener holds 4 ♠, you can limit opener's ♠ winners to 2 with repeated ♠ leads. In that case, it might be best to pass and take your positive score.

[PhilG007]

You got extremely lucky. Anything other than passing 1s would be absurd. You obviously can't double because that is defined as takeout, because being short in spades is going to be many many more times likely than being long in spades. So partner is never going to leave it in. Then on the second round you have no bid, unless partner is going to take the cue as natural, which he should not. Double then cue is reserved for strong hands, usually lacking a spade stopper and unsuited to raising partner's suit or bidding one's own suit, a hand type that would be unbiddable if cue wasn't forcing. Partner should not be passing the cue bid.

 

Another problem is that even if successful in getting partner to pass a cue bid, you are now attempting to take 8 tricks in spades for a plus, whereas defending you only need 7. Normally if you can take 8 tricks in spades, accurate defense puts 1s at least down 2. It's true at this vulnerability, making 2 is better than down 2 undoubled, but sometimes they are down 3, and if both contracts are down 1 you've blown it. Plus being able to play in 2s requires a partner who also doesn't know that cue bids are normally supposed to be forcing.

 

Generally you can only play in suits the opponents open after sequences like (1c)-p-(1s)-2s, 4th position bidding responder's suit is often played as natural, because there are alternative methods to show other suits (doubling, bidding 2nt). Bidding opener's suit is sometimes also played as natural here especially against 3cd minor openings, but this requires agreement as some play it as other 2 suits instead. Also (1m)-3m is often played as natural. You can also bid naturally in the opponent's suit in situations where an opponent might be psyching the suit, such as (1H)-dbl-(1s)-2S; your spade bid shows spades, as your partner implied some spades with the double and RHO might be joking with heart support, and even if not might only have 4 little. Similarly (2H)-pass-(2S)-3S should be natural, and if you opened an artificial strong 2c bid your cues should normally be natural as an opponent might try to pick off your suit non-vul.

 

Against an Acol (note not all caps, not an acronym) type 1S, it could be reasonable to play a sequence like (1S)-p-(1nt)-p-(p)-2S as natural.

 

 

Totally agree with all the poster has said. I have learned through bitter experience that overcalls are often risky

Bidding 2♠ on this hand when you KNOW an opponent is strong in the suit is just nothing short of bizarre. It's one thing to have the misfortune to skid off the road,quite another to accelerate deliberately into a tree(!)http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif

[nekthen]

This happens on bbo a lot. Patzers know about takeout doubles but cannot resist doubling with a trump stack. You as their partner know what is going on because you have short trumps and oppo did not raise. My question is do you attempt to school your partner and bid normally or pass for an undeserved top?

 

In a random individual tourney I think I would pass. I also fill in a note on partner in case he ever asks me to partner him!

[nekthen]

This happens on bbo a lot. Patzers know about takeout doubles but cannot resist doubling with a trump stack. You as their partner know what is going on because you have short trumps and oppo did not raise. My question is do you attempt to school your partner and bid normally or pass for an undeserved top?

 

In a random individual tourney I think I would pass. I also fill in a note on partner in case he ever asks me to partner him!

[nekthen]

This happens on bbo a lot. Patzers know about takeout doubles but cannot resist doubling with a trump stack. You as their partner know what is going on because you have short trumps and oppo did not raise. My question is do you attempt to school your partner and bid normally or pass for an undeserved top?

 

In a random individual tourney I think I would pass. I also fill in a note on partner in case he ever asks me to partner him!

[nekthen]

This happens on bbo a lot. Patzers know about takeout doubles but cannot resist doubling with a trump stack. You as their partner know what is going on because you have short trumps and oppo did not raise. My question is do you attempt to school your partner and bid normally or pass for an undeserved top?

 

In a random individual tourney I think I would pass. I also fill in a note on partner in case he ever asks me to partner him!

[Largolia]

If you stop to analyze what has been bid and not bid after 1 ♠ - P - P, you'll learn a lot.

 

Start with ♠. You have 7 and opener has at least 4. That means partner can hold at most 2 ♠. Since partner didn't make a takeout double or an overcall, you know partner either has less than an opener or a hand unsuitable for a takeout double that is also unsuitable for a 2 level vulnerable overcall, maybe something like ♠ x ♥ AQx ♦ 10xxxxx ♣ KJx. Figure partner has maybe 10 HCP.

 

RHO wasn't able to make a response, so figure RHO holds 4 HCP max.

 

So it looks like maybe there is something like 25 points max between the three hands besides opener. Opener rates to have something like 15 value and more if partner or RHO have a little less. If opener holds 4 ♠, you can limit opener's ♠ winners to 2 with repeated ♠ leads. In that case, it might be best to pass and take your positive score.

 

I enjoyed this brilliant analysis ! As the saying goes: "Back to the basics" :rolleyes:

[miamijd]

Yes, Stephen has summed it up well.

 

You can play (1c)-p-(1s)-2s as natural as Stephen suggests, but I would not try this undiscussed.

 

I would; it's standard stuff. But maybe I have more faith in my partners :)

[msjennifer]

You got extremely lucky. Anything other than passing 1s would be absurd. You obviously can't double because that is defined as takeout, because being short in spades is going to be many many more times likely than being long in spades. So partner is never going to leave it in. Then on the second round you have no bid, unless partner is going to take the cue as natural, which he should not. Double then cue is reserved for strong hands, usually lacking a spade stopper and unsuited to raising partner's suit or bidding one's own suit, a hand type that would be unbiddable if cue wasn't forcing. Partner should not be passing the cue bid.

 

Another problem is that even if successful in getting partner to pass a cue bid, you are now attempting to take 8 tricks in spades for a plus, whereas defending you only need 7. Normally if you can take 8 tricks in spades, accurate defense puts 1s at least down 2. It's true at this vulnerability, making 2 is better than down 2 undoubled, but sometimes they are down 3, and if both contracts are down 1 you've blown it. Plus being able to play in 2s requires a partner who also doesn't know that cue bids are normally supposed to be forcing.

 

Generally you can only play in suits the opponents open after sequences like (1c)-p-(1s)-2s, 4th position bidding responder's suit is often played as natural, because there are alternative methods to show other suits (doubling, bidding 2nt). Bidding opener's suit is sometimes also played as natural here especially against 3cd minor openings, but this requires agreement as some play it as other 2 suits instead. Also (1m)-3m is often played as natural. You can also bid naturally in the opponent's suit in situations where an opponent might be psyching the suit, such as (1H)-dbl-(1s)-2S; your spade bid shows spades, as your partner implied some spades with the double and RHO might be joking with heart support, and even if not might only have 4 little. Similarly (2H)-pass-(2S)-3S should be natural, and if you opened an artificial strong 2c bid your cues should normally be natural as an opponent might try to pick off your suit non-vul.

 

Against an Acol (note not all caps, not an acronym) type 1S, it could be reasonable to play a sequence like (1S)-p-(1nt)-p-(p)-2S as natural.

I agree almost fully with you.

[PhilG007]

I would; it's standard stuff. But maybe I have more faith in my partners :)

 

I have faith in my partners too but I also remember that to err is human So i'ts 50% trust 50 scepticismhttp://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

[PhilG007]

I agree almost fully with you.

 

So what are the bits you DON'T agree with? Just curious is allhttp://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[RD350LC]

You got extremely lucky. Anything other than passing 1s would be absurd. You obviously can't double because that is defined as takeout, because being short in spades is going to be many many more times likely than being long in spades. So partner is never going to leave it in. Then on the second round you have no bid, unless partner is going to take the cue as natural, which he should not. Double then cue is reserved for strong hands, usually lacking a spade stopper and unsuited to raising partner's suit or bidding one's own suit, a hand type that would be unbiddable if cue wasn't forcing. Partner should not be passing the cue bid.

 

Another problem is that even if successful in getting partner to pass a cue bid, you are now attempting to take 8 tricks in spades for a plus, whereas defending you only need 7. Normally if you can take 8 tricks in spades, accurate defense puts 1s at least down 2. It's true at this vulnerability, making 2 is better than down 2 undoubled, but sometimes they are down 3, and if both contracts are down 1 you've blown it. Plus being able to play in 2s requires a partner who also doesn't know that cue bids are normally supposed to be forcing.

 

Generally you can only play in suits the opponents open after sequences like (1c)-p-(1s)-2s, 4th position bidding responder's suit is often played as natural, because there are alternative methods to show other suits (doubling, bidding 2nt). Bidding opener's suit is sometimes also played as natural here especially against 3cd minor openings, but this requires agreement as some play it as other 2 suits instead. Also (1m)-3m is often played as natural. You can also bid naturally in the opponent's suit in situations where an opponent might be psyching the suit, such as (1H)-dbl-(1s)-2S; your spade bid shows spades, as your partner implied some spades with the double and RHO might be joking with heart support, and even if not might only have 4 little. Similarly (2H)-pass-(2S)-3S should be natural, and if you opened an artificial strong 2c bid your cues should normally be natural as an opponent might try to pick off your suit non-vul.

 

Against an Acol (note not all caps, not an acronym) type 1S, it could be reasonable to play a sequence like (1S)-p-(1nt)-p-(p)-2S as natural.

I agree completely with the above statements. Years ago, when psyching was a lot more common than it is now, there would have to be some way to play in a suit that the opponents opened. However, the disadvantages of psyching far out weighed the times that the opponents would be discomfited by a psychic bid. Thankfully, psychic bids have largely been drummed out of the game. This is no loss.

[Vampyr]

I agree completely with the above statements. Years ago, when psyching was a lot more common than it is now, there would have to be some way to play in a suit that the opponents opened. However, the disadvantages of psyching far out weighed the times that the opponents would be discomfited by a psychic bid. Thankfully, psychic bids have largely been drummed out of the game. This is no loss.

 

They have not been “drummed out of the game”. Psyches are both legal and ethical. But I do think that they have become increasingly uncommon for the reasons you cite.