Too much to pass?

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sj108haj9dk83cq984]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1D-1S-?

 

What call do you make and what is the reason? Is this hand too good to pass? On a scale of 1-10, rate, please, the following actions:

1. Pass

2. Double

3. 1NT

4. 2S

5. 2D

6. Other?[/hv]

[P_Marlowe]

I will eliminate the bids, I would rate 0

- Pass, to rich

- 1 NT, no stopper

- 2S, should show fit

- 2D, should show fit

- 2C, should show a better suit, regardles if it

would be forcing or non forcing

 

That leaves Double.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[luis]

If 2NT is invitational then

 

2NT: 10 exactly what you have, a flat hand with 10-11 HCP.

1NT: 8 Underbid but with 4333 you can be pessimistic

Dbl: 7

2d: 0

2s: -5

[Walddk]

Why make bridge more difficult than it is? Since I don't play negative free bids, I have a clearcut 2♣, showing 10+ hcp and 4+ clubs, F1. Any other bid gets zero in my book.

 

10. 2♣

00: The rest

 

If you play NFB you will have to double. Bad hand for it obviously because you are one heart short, but the hand is much too good to pass.

 

Roland

[Walddk]

2NT: 10 exactly what you have, a flat hand with 10-11 HCP.

I have no intention of wrong-siding NT by bidding any number of notrump. How do you like it when partner tables Ax?

 

Roland

[mike777]

Excellent problem, thanks.

 

Playing NFB

1nt=14-16

junky openings

 

2D=8........ "weak D raise, often deny shape"

X=7

1nt=6..........often 8-11 hpc

p=5

2s=3......."UCB" I am not a passed hand so does not promise fit 100%.

2nt=2..... often 12-13

2c=1......NFB, expect P to pass NFB 90% of time.

 

No answer deserves a zero.

[Gerben42]

I would double and not feel bad about it. Double does not PROMISE 4 cards in hearts.

[luis]

2NT: 10 exactly what you have, a flat hand with 10-11 HCP.

I have no intention of wrong-siding NT by bidding any number of notrump. How do you like it when partner tables Ax?

 

Roland

If he tables Ax I feel bad.

I feel good if he tables anything else Qx, Kx, Kxx, Axx, Qxx, xxx, AQx :-)

[Rebound]

Why make bridge more difficult than it is? Since I don't play negative free bids, I have a clearcut 2♣, showing 10+ hcp and 4+ clubs, F1. Any other bid gets zero in my book.

 

10. 2♣

00: The rest

 

If you play NFB you will have to double. Bad hand for it obviously because you are one heart short, but the hand is much too good to pass.

 

Roland

Ditto.

[Winstonm]

Altough I have no proof of it, I would venture to say that if we put this hand in a time machine and sent it back 40-50 years we would find the consensus among the experts of that day for a rousing Kaplan-esque: "Pass. What's the problem?"

 

It is interesting that the modern idea in bridge is to bid your values early. But that does create a whole new set of problems.

 

Anyone care to comment on why it is more important to bid these values early on than to take the old-fashioned "wait and see" approach?

 

Thanks.

[awm]

1. Pass: 6, but maybe as high as 8 if the opening NT range is 14-16. The question here is how likely you are to miss a game. If partner has an unbalanced hand, or doubleton spades, it is very likely that partner will take another call. After this second call you're surprisingly well placed with this hand. So the only real problem, is what happens if partner is unable to balance. The most likely hand is a weak notrump with 3-card spades. If that range is 11-13, you're not missing a game, and 1♠ may well go down. It's IMPs, so going plus on the board will be fine. However, if partner can hold 14 I think the risk of missing game becomes higher. There are also some distributional hands with long spades that can't balance, but these are less frequent.

 

2. Double: 3. Directs the auction towards the wrong strain (hearts). This hand will not play well in the moysian. It's okay to double with only three hearts at times, but since there is a fair chance of ending up in hearts, I'd like to have some potential ruffing value or other reason to believe the moysian will play well.

 

3. 1NT: 3. It's a little heavy, but I think the bigger problem is the lack of a spade stopper. Partner could raise this on xxx spades, and even if partner has something like Ax it will be wrongsided.

 

4. 2♠: 7. Probably the least of evils if you're playing negative free bids. Partner often has five diamonds for the 1♦ open, and if not, may have a spade stopper and rebid notrumps. This bid shows the values and encourages notrump as a final contract, although it does overstate that diamond fit. I am assuming here that 2♠ is an invitational diamond raise and not a game force.

 

5. 2♦: 1. Probably worst of the bunch, overstating the support and understating the values with the same call.

 

6. 2♣: 9 if not playing negative free bids. This is the most descriptive call, although both the values and the club suit are somewhat shoddy for the bid. Probably around a 4 if playing negative free bids; 2♣ may not be forcing but will not often end the auction.

[inquiry]

When I get this hand, I am happy I am playing Misho's Equality bid.. With this hand I double. This denies hearts (gasp... you got to be kidding me), and shows either clubs (on this specific auction), or a balanced hand unsuited to bid 1NT. While I have some clubs here, this hand falls into the category of a balanced hand unsuited for 1NT.

 

Now, not playing equality (and there are reasons not to play it), how would I bid this hand? Let me rate the bids....

 

1. Pass - I would rate this a as a three. While it is true you will not miss game by passing, you may have a double partscore swing against you. This hand is simply too good to pass. The AJ9 of hearts rate to be well placed, and worth lots more the it seems, and the diamond king is an excellent card.

 

2. DBL - No, I don't like this bid. If we play in a 4-3 heart fit, partner will be ruffing spades in the long suited hand. I will not consdier negative double here (of course, with misho I double, but partner is not bidding hearts in response to that dbl). I rate doube as a 0

 

3. 1NT - A little heavy, potntially wrong-sided 1NT, but on the other hand very descriptive with a single bid. I like this bid and rate is a solid 8.

 

4. 2S - Errrrrrrr, no. nope,no way, no how, can we give a bid a minus score?

 

5. 2D - Ok, this is a good bid. If partner passes you are high enough. If he bids on, your hand will be a delight to him. I can see nothing wrong with 2D other than if you use 2D as some sort of very weak bid. So I rate 2D (if you are not playing equality) as a 10 out of 10. Underbidding is a lost art... :-)

 

6. Other - two choices...

6a. 2C - 2C is right on stregnth, wrong on number of clubs. Being not vul, I am willing to pull in the reigns a little bit with a non-forcing 2D bid (as long as it is not a very weak competitive raise) than bid a "forcing" 2C. Because after 2C, I know I am not going to pass 2D if partner bids that, so I don't know where I am going with my second bid. I rate 2C as a 7 out of ten

 

6b. 3D. I don't mind raising to the three level on three card support. Just this isn't the hand for it. I rate 3D as a Five out of Ten.

 

6c. 2NT = 4. Just about right on stregnth, but missing a critical factor. For 2NT, you need a spade stopper. You can get away with 1NT without one. Partner will check back or have a lot of extra values to carry on. But over 2NT, you partner will bid 3NT without concern for a spade stopper. That will be a critical flaw on those hands. This is an advantage of the Misho Equality approach. You can double with this hand, your partner will bid 1NT with a stopper and minimum (one flaw is often lack of a stopper). If partner bids clubs, you can correct to diamonds. This shows too good for 2D, not suited for bidding NT (no spade stopper becomes clear now) in balanced hand type.

[HeartA]

With or without NFB, I double.

[awm]

4. 2S - Errrrrrrr, no. nope,no way, no how, can we give a bid a minus score?

 

6b. 3D. I don't mind raising to the three level on three card support. Just this isn't the hand for it. I rate 3D as a Five out of Ten.

Question for Inquiry:

 

How come 2♠, which presumably shows a limit raise or better in diamonds, receives a negative score? Admittedly this overstates your support (probably by ONE card) but seems to get the values right.

 

This is especially surprising given that you rate 3♦ a five. That bid overstates the support as well (probably by TWO cards) and simultaneously understates the values. How can a preemptive raise on three cards and a flat eleven-count be better than a limit raise? I don't get it.

 

Unless perhaps you play 3♦ as limit and 2♠ as game force in this auction? Certainly my impression is that 2♠ a limit+ and 3♦ as preemptive is a more standard treatment.

[pigpenz]

1.2♣

2.pass

3.double

4.1NT

 

in that order they all have their flaws except for 2♣'s

[inquiry]

4. 2S - Errrrrrrr, no. nope,no way, no how, can we give a bid a minus score?

 

6b. 3D. I don't mind raising to the three level on three card support. Just this isn't the hand for it. I rate 3D as a Five out of Ten.

Question for Inquiry:

 

How come 2♠, which presumably shows a limit raise or better in diamonds, receives a negative score? Admittedly this overstates your support (probably by ONE card) but seems to get the values right.

 

This is especially surprising given that you rate 3♦ a five. That bid overstates the support as well (probably by TWO cards) and simultaneously understates the values. How can a preemptive raise on three cards and a flat eleven-count be better than a limit raise? I don't get it.

 

Unless perhaps you play 3♦ as limit and 2♠ as game force in this auction? Certainly my impression is that 2♠ a limit+ and 3♦ as preemptive is a more standard treatment.

I rate 3♦ as a five because it might work out fine. I find all the ZERO's given by others as unrealistic. On some combinaiton of hands (north and south), pass will work out best. On some 2NT will work out best, on some, 3D will work out best. So the question is what about 2♠. 2♠ can be played two ways. One way as generic game force. I think we can agree that game force this hand is not. The second way is as an unassuming cue-bid showing limit raise or better. I don't think this hand qualified as a preemptive raise (♦), weak limit raise (3♦), strong limit raise (2♠). The problem with 2♠ is multi-fold. First, it allows West to compete gently by doubling 2♠ where 3♦ does not allow him to suggest modest values in spades safely. Even 2♦ prevents him from doing so. He has to decide on to risk bidding or not with weak hand and a few spades.

 

I think if the bidding goes.. 1D-(1S)-D raise-all pass, your partner will be a lot happier if you bid 2♦ than some other ♦. And if your parnter makes a game try, he will be happpier with this hand if you bid 2♦ than if you make a higher raise. As a rule, with 3-3-3-4 it is better to bid conservatively than agreesively... AND EVEN more so at imps non-vul.

 

Ben

[luke warm]

it looks like i'm pretty much alone here, but i think i'll pass... playing nfb, my hand is too weak to double and then bid... also, i believe that a double *does* promise 4 hearts (unless a gf somewhere else)... if i had to bid, i'd bid 2nt

[whereagles]

I'm going to be slightly conservative and bid 1NT. 2NT if I need to strech a bit.

 

Oh, and I don't care about stoppers. Never have, never will :)

[ochinko]

Pass would be the worst choice IMO. NT would be wrongsided, as Roland pointed out. I am balanced with only 3 hearts, so dbl is without much merit either. I am going for 2Sp as an unassuming cue bid, prepared to pass anything except 3Sp from pard.

 

Petko

[Fluffy]

Double

forcing 2♣

pass

2♠

1NT

2♦

others...

[hotShot]

Altough I have no proof of it, I would venture to say that if we put this hand in a time machine and sent it back 40-50 years we would find the consensus among the experts of that day for a rousing Kaplan-esque: "Pass.  What's the problem?"

 

It is interesting that the modern idea in bridge is to bid your values early.  But that does create a whole new set of problems.

 

Anyone care to comment on why it is more important to bid these values early on than to take the old-fashioned "wait and see" approach?

 

Thanks.

Any decent partnership will have a bidding system that allowes them to bid the best contract they can bid. They will have ways to submit any neccessary information.

With all information available they will make the right choices.

You will only win in bridge if your opponents make 2nd best choices. The method to do this is to limit the amount of information they have when making a decision.

 

This is why people open e.g. 2♠ showing 7-11 HCP 5cards in ♠ and 5(4+) cards in a minor. LHO you might hold a clear 2♥ bid over a 1♠ opening and might not be able to bid on 3 level. So when his partner has to make a choice, he will not have the information that his partner has 10+HCP and 5+♥. So your RHO might miss a makable game in ♥ or take you out of a 2♠ -a lot, because he guessed his partner might hold something usefull.

 

Now if you don't tell your partner that you hold 10 HCP, your LHO might make a (weak) jump and your partner is in the position to guess. He might not be able to disclose his 16+ HCP hand because you might have less than 6, or he will overbid hoping you might have a strong pass. If the bidding comes back to you, it your turn to guess did your partner pass because he hold minimum or did he pass, because he expected you to be minimum and saw no future in bidding on. Your partnership will miss games, partscores and penalty doubles, or misbid because of this lack of information.

 

With limitted information,not only your bidding but also your play will suffer. What is a good lead, what suit can i play back to my partner, can partner have a honor anywhere? All the little helpfull information you might get from partners bids, are lost if opps cut your information flow as fast as possible. They might even get away with overbids, just because you misplay because of the missing information.

 

The old-fashioned "wait and see" will only work if your opps stay silent.

[Guest Jlall]

1N-10

X-8

2D-6

2C-5

2N-5

2S-1

pass-0

 

Question to the passers: Even if pard reopens with a X, what are you going to do? 2S? Expect him to work this out? It will be hard to have an intelligent auction after passing. Not to mention if pard has a balanced min hes going to pass.

 

As for 2S, I disagree it gets our values right and support wrong. It gets both wrong.

[helene_t]

Assuming partner opens 1♦ on 3d2c or 4d4c, maybe even 4d5c, 2♣ might work better than 2♦ if LHO stays silent. But if LHO raises spades, partner will probably support clubs on a 3-card and now I'm afraid 3♦ would be forcing. Maybe partner will double with 2335, in which case I can bid 3♦. All in all, I think it's a tie between 1NT, 2♣ and 2♦. Double and even pass could easily turn out to be the right thing, though. I'd better make my decision fast so that partner is not influenced by my thinking pause.

 

With a regular p, 2♦ without hesitation.

[luke warm]

Question to the passers: Even if pard reopens with a X, what are you going to do? 2S? Expect him to work this out? It will be hard to have an intelligent auction after passing. Not to mention if pard has a balanced min hes going to pass.

the danger of passing is partner also passing... if he doubles, i pass and lead ♠J... do we have game? i don't know, but if we don't i think defending is better... i really don't like bidding 2nt and i think i'm too weak to double (gf negative).. maybe pass works out badly this time, who knows?

[pclayton]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sj108haj9dk83cq984]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1D-1S-?

 

1. Pass

2. Double

3. 1NT

4. 2S

5. 2D

6. Other?[/hv]

1. Pass - (0). Beaucoup problems with this. Frequently pard won't be able to reopen with Hxx and we'll defend 1S. And if LHO raises to 2S, how will I be better placed?

 

2. Double - (-2). Hand is not suited well for hearts and pard will press to the 3 or 4 level frequently. Tap is being taken in the wrong hand.

 

3. 1NT - (8). Many spade holdings in pard's hand won't make a difference on the stopper: Q - anything, Kx or Kxx, Axx, AQ - but some will (Ax, AKx). Still - its the least of evils here, and I like the call at MP's. Hand is NT oriented.

 

3. 2C - (4). Not a bad choice at all, but I'd rather have a 5th club or a little more punch.

 

4. 2S - (0). I can't value this as a limit raise in diamonds.

 

5. 2D - (4). Intelligent underbid.

 

6. Other? 2N (4).