Bidding question

[nuttypro]

E opened 1♠

 

South holds:

♠K ♥A94 ♦Q753 ♣KJ865

 

My personal bid was X. The intent was to show at least 3+ in every other suit, and roughly opening points.

 

My partner says this is not the best bid, and wants me to bid 2C instead. On one hand it does immediately show a 5 card suit, but doesn't convey anything about other suits.

However I'm not convinced this is the best bid, for this simple reason: My partner can now easily compete in any suit if he's got a good 4 card or 5 card suit.

 

What do people think?

[mikeh]

I would double

 

The club suit is too weak for me to bid 2C, if I have any alternative. In addition, while not an absolute rule, I like to have a 6 card suit for a 2 level overcall.obviously that isn’t always possible, but imo one definitely needs a good suit. They can double us for penalty more often at the two level than at the one level, where my approach is a lot more flexible.

 

Fwiw, I don’t think much of this hand at all. Short hearts. Weak suits with no intermediates and that stiff spade King, which may well be useful on defence but usually won’t be much of an asset if we declare the hand, especially if I lay down dummy.

 

These days, one has to take some action just to stay with the field….everyone’s bidding so, if it doesn’t work out, we have ample company. If we pass, we’d better be right, since we’ll have little company.

 

I think the odds slightly favour bidding, hence double.

[Winstonm]

I have a different take than Mike. If I were to bid it would be double - but I would pass. This hand is more defensively orientated than offensive and I see no reason to get myself into a fix by suggesting otherwise with any kind of bids.

[sfi]

Double >> 2C. As Mike and Winston highlight, the debate should be between double and pass. As always, scoring and vulnerability are relevant here, but I will double most of the time. It's a bad hand with only three hearts, but getting into the auction works more often than it should.

[nuttypro]

Yes, I should also have mentioned that I too felt my clubs weren't that great to be overcalling 2C as opposed to X. If I held AKQxx or AKxxx for example, I'd probably prefer to bid 2C personally - this shows a clear good suit, and is lead directing.

[DavidKok]

I would not bid 2♣ even with AKxxx and I still don't love it with AKQxx, though mostly because the hand is too strong by that point. Competing with 2m on five card suits is not winning bridge, and you need significant compensation to make up for that.

 

I would double over pass always. The hand is offensively oriented, and if we pass we will likely face the same issue but a level or two higher next round. Quick in, quick out.

[mw64ahw]

I bid X or NT takeout depending on partner.

 

Vulnerability would matter if bidding 2♣ and the shape wasn't there for the takeout

[LBengtsson]

Poor suits, stiff ♠K, no 4 card ♥ suit I would pass. You only get in to trouble if you bid here: partner will expect better. The opponents will probably outbid you in ♠s. The last thing I want is partner competing in an auction that goes 1♠ - X - 3♠/4♠ (weak) - ??? By passing that will not happen.

[helene_t]

The stiff king behind the opener who will often have the ace is often worth one trick in defence and zero when declaring (or being dummy). So pass is quite reasonable.

 

If you want to do something with this hand, then the chance of finding an 8-card fit is probably similar for double and 2♣. 2♣ might be a bit better when partner is a passed hand (especially if you play an undisciplined preempt style so partner's pass suggest a balanced hand) while dbl tends to work a bit better opposite a partner who could still have a 6-card diamonds or hearts. The risk of going for -800 or worse if bigger for 2♣ than dbl so vulnerability is also a consideration.

 

2♣ doesn't disturb opps over a 1♠ opening and could actually help opps a bit if they play 2/1 as LHO now gets the chance to make a negative double instead of the non-descriptive 1NT response. But over a 1♥ opening, the disruptive effect of 2♣ is worth consideriing, especially if they play 4-card majors.

 

2♣ is also lead directing but in this case you might not have a strong preference for a club lead, and you are likely to be on lead yourself, especially if they play 5-card majors.

 

Above all it is important to have an understanding with partner. If you always double with this shape, partner will know that they can raise your clubs aggressively but they can't assume that you have four hearts when you double.

 

As you can see from the other comments, almost all modern experts would double.

[bluenikki]

the chance of finding an 8-card fit is probably similar for double and 2♣.

 

I no longer have the notes from my calculations, but:

 

Suppose you have 5431 shape with shortness in opener's suit. Suppose also that an angel has whispered in your ear that your side has an 8-card fit.

 

Then the chance that is in your 5-card suit is significantly lower than the combined chances that it is in your 3- or 4-card.

 

Carl

[helene_t]

I no longer have the notes from my calculations, but:

 

Suppose you have 5431 shape with shortness in opener's suit. Suppose also that an angel has whispered in your ear that your side has an 8-card fit.

 

Then the chance that is in your 5-card suit is significantly lower than the combined chances that it is in your 3- or 4-card.

 

Carl

Yes but partner would prefer to bid a 4-card hearts to a 4-card diamonds.

But quite possibly you are right anyway.

[Douglas43]

I no longer have the notes from my calculations, but:

 

Suppose you have 5431 shape with shortness in opener's suit. Suppose also that an angel has whispered in your ear that your side has an 8-card fit.

 

Then the chance that is in your 5-card suit is significantly lower than the combined chances that it is in your 3- or 4-card.

 

Carl

 

My worry is that unless the angel also whispers in my partner's ear that it's only an 8 card fit, we might well get too high

[pescetom]

Suppose you have 5431 shape with shortness in opener's suit. Suppose also that an angel has whispered in your ear that your side has an 8-card fit.

 

Then the chance that is in your 5-card suit is significantly lower than the combined chances that it is in your 3- or 4-card.

 

This sounds like something from Ely Culbertson to me B-)

 

You may be right, but my gut feeling is that the combined chances of the short suits will be about the same as the long suit.

[AL78]

This sounds like something from Ely Culbertson to me B-)

 

You may be right, but my gut feeling is that the combined chances of the short suits will be about the same as the long suit.

 

It has to be factored in that that the probability of finding the fit in one of the short suits after a TOX should it exist is less than 100%. For example, partner with 4-4 in the red suits will likely bid hearts in preference to diamonds.

[pescetom]

It has to be factored in that that the probability of finding the fit in one of the short suits after a TOX should it exist is less than 100%. For example, partner with 4-4 in the red suits will likely bid hearts in preference to diamonds.

 

I was referring to the statistical probability of fit, but of course you are right in terms of actually finding a fit. Many with 4 hearts and 5 clubs would bid hearts after double, come to that. There is however also the issue that 2♣ is not very preemptive and if made on 5=cards then a raise requires 4+card fit to be protected by LoTT. There is also vulnerability, not specified here.

[sfi]

The risk of going for -800 or worse if bigger for 2♣ than dbl so vulnerability is also a consideration.

This point is the crux of the objection in my view. 2C is much more committal than double, so when you're wrong you can be very wrong. And partner won't be able to save you very much. If your partner sees the auction:

 

(1S) - 2C - (P) - P

(X) - P - (P) - ?

 

They won't be able to run much of the time even when it's right. Are they really bidding 2D with KTxxx and two small clubs, for example? And if you hear that auction you know you're in trouble long before dummy hits.

 

Contrast this to the difficulty of effectively penalising your side after a double. They're off to a good start if LHO can redouble to show values, but they still have to have the appropriate trump holding even if you wind up in some trouble. And if you belong in clubs, partner may well be able to pass to show no preference and you can scramble there anyway. Often the opponents can't quite untangle their holdings and wind up just bidding some suits or jumping to 3NT.

[eagles123]

E opened 1♠

 

South holds:

♠K ♥A94 ♦Q753 ♣KJ865

 

My personal bid was X. The intent was to show at least 3+ in every other suit, and roughly opening points.

 

My partner says this is not the best bid, and wants me to bid 2C instead. On one hand it does immediately show a 5 card suit, but doesn't convey anything about other suits.

However I'm not convinced this is the best bid, for this simple reason: My partner can now easily compete in any suit if he's got a good 4 card or 5 card suit.

 

What do people think?

 

 

if you polled 100 experts on that hand, I can almost guarantee that none of them would bid 2C. It's just a bad bid, deserves to find partner 3541 or some such where you're down in 2C and cold for 4H. I think it's a pretty clear double, can't give up with this good a hand, but even passing is significantly better than 2C. your partner is just plain wrong.

[Lovera]

However, I am of the opinion that the partner finds the bidding of 2 ♣ more useful for his line (it is probably white) than that of Double which after ♠ indicates ♥ fourths because he has a sufficient complement to ♣ for a suitable competitive bid to push the other line out of contract in ♠ and this may be more likely to hit some contract. The bidding of 2 ♣ must be considered (after 1 ♠) therefore ambiguous ensuring something else not easily biddable.

[nuttypro]

Some excellent points everyone, thanks so much!

 

I have an add on to my original question: let's say bidding goes:

N - declarer, my partner, is dealer and has passed. Agreement that we open with 11pt.

Both Vul.

 

To refresh everyone's memory, South holds:

♠ K ♥ A94 ♦Q753 ♣KJ865

 

North East South West

Pass 1♠ ?

 

Same question as before: X, 2C or pass? The only options I was considering were pass or X. I felt it was the only time I can get into the auction, and I did not think 2c is a good bid.

 

Thanks!

[sfi]

The considerations are basically the same as when partner's not a passed hand, but there are a couple of interesting differences. It's much less likely partner will push to a game and it's more likely that if you don't act now your side will be silent throughout. You also have a somewhat higher risk of winding up in trouble by acting, since partner's average point-count is lower.

 

The vulnerability isn't great for you to act either. With game being mostly out of the picture, being vul means there is a larger downside to acting. This is particularly true at matchpoints where opponents will often make a speculative double looking for +200. If they do that, you know they're likely to be rewarded. However, this is balanced at matchpoints by the chance to compete and not let them have a smooth auction to whatever they were going to reach.

 

Another point which Mike raised is that your hand is probably worth one more trick on defence than offence. Your SK will get picked off when your side declares the hand, which argues for conservative decisions.

 

No clear answers, I'm afraid - there are positives and negatives when partner's a passed hand. The scoring method also offers positives and negatives to be considered. The most important point is to know whether this hand is within range of a double in your partnership's style. I think it should be, but would not criticise a partnership for deciding this is too flawed for a double.

[DavidKok]

The hand remains a clear takeout double when partner is limited to 10 points, in my opinion. You can't afford to be deterred by a singleton king in their suit. It's a bidder's game! Of course this is subject to partnership understanding, as is everything else, but I think a partnership understanding that insists on pass with this hand will lose out in the long run. I've lost my fear of -800 or even -1100 years ago, it just doesn't happen that often.

[AL78]

I was referring to the statistical probability of fit, but of course you are right in terms of actually finding a fit. Many with 4 hearts and 5 clubs would bid hearts after double, come to that. There is however also the issue that 2♣ is not very preemptive and if made on 5=cards then a raise requires 4+card fit to be protected by LoTT. There is also vulnerability, not specified here.

 

I may be behind the times in terms of aggressive bidding, but there is no way I am overcalling 2♣ on KJxxx.

[pescetom]

I no longer have the notes from my calculations, but:

 

Suppose you have 5431 shape with shortness in opener's suit. Suppose also that an angel has whispered in your ear that your side has an 8-card fit.

 

Then the chance that is in your 5-card suit is significantly lower than the combined chances that it is in your 3- or 4-card.

 

I gave in to curiosity and simulated to find fits with the hand in OP.

 

If the angel meant that your side has at least one fit of exactly 8 cards, then the chance of clubs is 32.1% and the chance of the red suits combined is 32.8%, so almost the same.

 

If the angel meant that your side has at least one fit of at least 8 cards, then the chance of clubs is 61.6% and the chance of the red suits combined is 64.9%, so clubs a bit lower.

 

But if the angel meant that your side has exactly one fit of exactly 8 cards (and no longer fit in another suit), then the chance of clubs is 47% and the chance of the red suits combined is 53%, so clubs significantly lower (see second printout).

 

So I guess it's all down to semantics, even for angels.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Frequency of length of fit in each suit, irrespective of fit in the others:

Frequency of C fit:

Low 384018

8 319199

9 208878

10 73135

11 13510

12 1224

13 36

Frequency of D fit:

Low 603653

8 250172

9 113654

10 28503

11 3780

12 230

13 8

Frequency of H fit:

Low 747533

8 176401

9 62286

10 12424

11 1297

12 59

13 0

Generated 8964278 hands

Produced 1000000 hands

Initial random seed 1644939662

Time needed 8.167 sec

 

 

Relative frequency of fit suit when there is exactly one 8 card fit and no longer fit:

Frequency only C 8fit:

0 159652

1 148028

Frequency only D 8fit:

0 214614

1 93066

Frequency only H 8fit:

0 241094

1 66586

Generated 10000000 hands

Produced 307680 hands

Initial random seed 1644941882

Time needed 9.002 sec

[bluenikki]

I gave in to curiosity and simulated to find fits with the hand in OP.

 

If the angel meant that your side has at least one fit of exactly 8 cards, then the chance of clubs is 32.1% and the chance of the red suits combined is 32.8%, so almost the same.

 

If the angel meant that your side has at least one fit of at least 8 cards, then the chance of clubs is 61.6% and the chance of the red suits combined is 64.9%, so clubs a bit lower.

 

But if the angel meant that your side has exactly one fit of exactly 8 cards (and no longer fit in another suit), then the chance of clubs is 47% and the chance of the red suits combined is 53%, so clubs significantly lower (see second printout).

 

So I guess it's all down to semantics, even for angels.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Frequency of length of fit in each suit, irrespective of fit in the others:

 

 

 

Relative frequency of fit suit when there is exactly one 8 card fit and no longer fit:

 

Probably it doesn't matter, but I did not do a simulation. Instead, I produced a long ugly speardsheet full of binomial coefficients.

 

Best I can recall, the results were not as close as these simulations.

 

Carl

[Lovera]

The difference between the modern bid for this type of competing hands lies in bidding first a suit and then doubling when the points are well distributed in the other suits (when these are not well represented it is immediately doubled) while in the classic one the double is preferred for show points then declaring a suit. However, in both cases there is no disregard for having a Major suit fourth which is missing here and it is for this reason that 2 ♣ must be chosen ( which implicitly indicates points). The bid of Double has complications but due to its importance it is not advisable to resort to simplifications or excessive generality.