Just wondering how BBFers would bid this hand

[jillybean]

Hello again

 

[hv=pc=n&e=s864h8542dkq85caq&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1n(12-14)d(penalty)p(no%205%20card%20suit)pr(sos)p2c?]133|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints, what do you do?

[sfi]

Double, takeout with some values. I'm guessing your double would be penalty here? That would make it a much tougher call and you may simply have to bid 3NT at this point.

[Cyberyeti]

We play a penalty double, but have the agreement that once we have doubled 1N for penalties, we won't allow opps to play 2m undoubled so I would make a forcing pass.

[mikeh]

As you no doubt know, this problem is insoluble absent agreement.

 

I have differing agreements in my two partnerships but in both we play that the initial double creates a situation in which the opps cannot play 2m undoubled. That’s a pretty common agreement as you can see from the replies before mine

 

The next issue is how pass is defined. Obviously it’s forcing (since they can’t play 2m) but what would double mean? What would pass mean?

 

In both partnerships our rule (when pass would be forcing) is that double is takeout so pass would invite partner to double with a hand that would sit for a penalty double

 

However, this is a revealing auction. Dummy has presumably 4 clubs most of the time but may be stuck with, say, 4333 and not want to bid 2S out of fear opener is 2344/2434 etc

 

4333 very weak hands are the weak notrumpers Achilles heel but it’s surprising how often they are allowed to escape

 

Here, opener almost surely has at most 4 clubs. Thus they could conceivably be in a 3-3 fit and at best in a 4-4 fit, with a high probability of having a huge number of losers even in that ‘best case’ scenario

 

It’s common defence when both defenders have balanced hands and a significant hcp advantage to lead trump. Moreover from Axx partner should lead low

 

So on this hand I’d go for the throat. I pass and sit for a double.

 

In my most detailed partnership my pass shows 3+ clubs which may and hopefully will surprise partner but he should still double even with unexpected length

 

Note that many weak notrumpers, having a terrible responding hand, will bid 2C here and xx if it gets doubled precisely because they actually don’t have clubs. Obviously if they start running from 2C x’d you’ll keep on doubling

 

I expect 500 much of the time. Not all of the time but definitely often enough to justify the risk

[mikeh]

Can’t edit my post on my phone but I’d expect 800 much of the time

 

If we can make 3N, just how are they scoring 7 tricks in clubs?

[LBengtsson]

Its MPs, so +500 is better than +400. The ops are not in a 'comfort zone' here. I would expect partner to bid over XX with an unbalanced hand, so I will take that he has a good 15 balanced count, maybe more. I think using a weak NT opening in 3rd at red/white opposite a passed partner does deserve to be punished strongly. Whatever way, either by forcing pass over 2♣ or doubling now, I want to penalize the ops. They might even scramble to a worse contract, but if we can not get them down -2 here in any contract with good defense and seeing the weak NT bidder hand as dummy then I need to give up bridge! lol

 

Though as mikeh said, this is one for full partnership understanding after openers XX. If you have not agreements what to do then simply bidding 3NT should get a plus score but not the majority of the matchpoints.

[Cyberyeti]

Something doesn't add up here, how does the 1N bidder know to redouble rather than pass ? how does he know partner has a 0-2 count rather than a 7-9 count ? was the pass forcing ?

[LBengtsson]

Something doesn't add up here, how does the 1N bidder know to redouble rather than pass ? how does he know partner has a 0-2 count rather than a 7-9 count ? was the pass forcing ?

 

I have seen this before, where this is a variant of the Helvic convention. Instead of the partner of the opener XX, the partner passes (forcing) and the opener XX which then puts pressure on the opponent who doubled the opening 1NT bid. A clever bridge mechanic given the places at the table. Now the West player does not know whether North or East is weak. If the East hand has 0-2 points and balanced shape and could not bid after his partners X, then the penalty may be against East/West (if all hands are of balanced shape) when North/South are only making a part score. At IMPs it can be a good call as 1NT Redoubled bid and made is game.

[Cyberyeti]

I have seen this before, where this is a variant of the Helvic convention. Instead of the partner of the opener XX, the partner passes (forcing) and the opener XX which then puts pressure on the opponent who doubled the opening 1NT bid. A clever bridge mechanic given the places at the table. Now the West player does not know whether North or East is weak. If the East hand has 0-2 points and balanced shape and could not bid after his partners X, then the penalty may be against East/West (if all hands are of balanced shape) when North/South are only making a part score. At IMPs it can be a good call as 1NT Redoubled bid and made is game.

 

Yes I play something like this, but the pass should be alerted/explained as forcing not just as "no 5 card suit" if this is going on. Also a common variation if you play this is that XX shows a 5 card suit, and bids show some combination of 4 card suits, so pass denies those too.

[mikeh]

Something doesn't add up here, how does the 1N bidder know to redouble rather than pass ? how does he know partner has a 0-2 count rather than a 7-9 count ? was the pass forcing ?

The OP implies that the 1N partnership passes the double merely to deny a 5 card suit anywhere.

 

I think that to be a bad agreement, but it’s apparently the agreement with which we are faced as east

 

We play that the pass of our 11-13 1N, played not vulnerable, forces a redouble but only as part of a comprehensive set of agreements. Responder has either a desire to play 1Nxx or certain two suiters or certain 4333 hands. One suiters are handled by xx and other two suiters by immediate action.

 

Also, as defenders, after the double advancer is expected to run with a weak hand (0-3 or a bad 4) after a pass alerted as asking for a redouble…he can run to 2C with a disaster and redouble if doubled for penalty.

 

It’s not clear to me that responder’s pass was forcing to a redouble. If it wasn’t, then I agree with cyber that opener’s xx makes little sense. Indeed, the one drawback to our rumours is that once in a while the best spot for the notrump bidder is 1N doubled. Now, vulnerable that’s unlikely…if we can score 6 tricks and escape for 200, the opps probably cannot do both of bid a game and make it, so -200 isn’t great. So far, touch wood, we haven’t encountered that hand…where our forcing pass compounded our bad board. Though in a round robin match in the 2000 Bermuda Bowl I passed the double and the redouble of our then 10-12 1N with a flat 9 count. They could have beaten us 1000! But they misguessed, partner took full advantage and we made an overtrick😀

[mycroft]

I tell people when they ask about our weak NT and how to play against it that the double should be passable. Whether it's Penalty, "penalty" (15+, usually BAL), or conventional, it should be strong enough that partner can pass with the right hand (and should pass with most hands).

 

And then I tell them that no matter what is going on, the weak NTers won't play 1NTx unless it's right, and they have a much better idea (and much more experience) if it's right than you do. So, you need to have an agreement when they run. In particular, how high the double forces you - what contracts they can't play undoubled. That could be 1NT; not my favourite agreeement, but it's better to have one than not, but it could be. It could be higher, it just depends on how much you're willing to risk if they make it.

 

I play "they can play 2M undoubled (as 2Mx= is game), but not 2m". Probably not the best agreement, given I play mostly matchpoints, but it's our agreement.

 

Therefore, I pass. I also pass partner's double. If she bids, I go to game. If they run from 2♣X, I only have red cards left. If 2♥X-1 into 3NT=, oh well.

 

I too would be asking if North's pass forced XX, and if it did, what 2♣ showed vs bidding it directly (because for a fair number of players I know, the answers are "yes, and round suits"). But assuming their agreement is as posted in the OP, fine.

[Cyberyeti]

 

It’s not clear to me that responder’s pass was forcing to a redouble. If it wasn’t, then I agree with cyber that opener’s xx makes little sense.

 

My misgivings are based on experience that says how forcing that sort of pass is depends on how quickly it was made if it's not absolutely forcing as it is with us.

[pescetom]

My misgivings are based on experience that says how forcing that sort of pass is depends on how quickly it was made if it's not absolutely forcing as it is with us.

 

Rule up another point for a future electronic bridge that hides partner's timing unless he publicly opts for a tank.

[pilowsky]

Are forcing passes alertable here as they are in other systems?

What happens if the passer fails to pause prominently and their partner lapsing because of the failed pause prevaricates?

 

And you only discover it later when the monkey comes out of the sleeve - so to speak.

[jillybean]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I'm travelling and spending more time at the beach than the bridge club.

 

We were N/S here and unfortunately, good or bad agreements, partner forgot to start the run out with XX, -500

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa7haq7dt742ckj93&w=skq93hk6daj63c542&n=sjt52hjt93d9ct876&e=s864h8542dkq85caq&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1nd(pen)p(no5c%20run%20or%20xx)pr(start%20run%20out)]399|300[/hv]

 

Afterwards I thought it was a more interesting problem for East if I (North) had bid 2♣, sitting East I would have struggled for a bid.

 

Cyberyeti, don't get me started on ethical behaviour at the table. I'm coming back to the game after a break, partly due to the "do what you like" attitude of ruling the game. I'm already wondering how long I will keep playing.

[mycroft]

I return to "pass of 2♣ is forcing" :-)

 

I will admit that West's call is uncomfortable now. But that's why I don't double with "equal values". Well, that and

if she bids, I go to game

.

Sure, here everything works out magically (colours help). Trade the East and North hands, though, and now *we're* the ones going 500 (or 760) into partscore.

 

As far as alertability goes, I don't know the ABF or NZBL. As far as the ACBL is concerned:

Alert the passes listed below.

1. A pass that is Forcing when the hand passing has not previously shown any strength, unless the partner of the passing hand has shown a Very Strong hand.
   
2. A pass that shows the hand is not minimum strength in context of the current auction.

[mikeh]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I'm travelling and spending more time at the beach than the bridge club.

 

We were N/S here and unfortunately, good or bad agreements, partner forgot to start the run out with XX, -500

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa7haq7dt742ckj93&w=skq93hk6daj63c542&n=sjt52hjt93d9ct876&e=s864h8542dkq85caq&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1nd(pen)p(no5c%20run%20or%20xx)pr(start%20run%20out)]399|300[/hv]

 

Afterwards I thought it was a more interesting problem for East if I (North) had bid 2♣, sitting East I would have struggled for a bid.

 

Cyberyeti, don't get me started on ethical behaviour at the table. I'm coming back to the game after a break, partly due to the "do what you like" attitude of ruling the game. I'm already wondering how long I will keep playing.

I really don’t like the double of 1N

 

As someone who has played a LOT of weak 1N (10-12 nv 1-3 for many years, 11-14 1-2 for several and currently 11-13 nv) my opinion is that using double to show ‘equal values’ is a significant loser on balance.

 

Responder is well positioned to make a good decision when he has values…and meanwhile when he doesn’t, advancer is often guessing.

 

Say he has 4 hcp. Are the opps about to play 1N x or xx with 14 opposite 8? With the strong balanced hand on lead? A competent declarer will usually play almost double dummy and you’re going to get a zero or a big adverse swing. It’s not much better when it’s 5 hcp or even 6….declarer usually has an edge in these contracts.

 

But if you run…assuming you have somewhere to run to, then maybe doubler has 16 hcp and your side has the majority of the cards.

 

The lower the bottom of the double can be, the more advancer is reduced to guessing.

 

In my partnerships, we sit for the double with most 4 counts (pulling only to a long suit) and almost all hands with 5 hcp….yes, we still sometimes get burned but since the low end of our double is 15 (but obviously we’d double with say Axx KQJ10xx Ax xx…if we have a good suit and entries we upgrade) we’ll usually have some chance if advancer has 5 hcp.

 

One reason I stopped playing penalty doubles of a strong 1N was the same problem….almost all hands on which doubler really expected to go plus resulted in advancer, holding a bust, pulling. It go5 to the point that I suggested that double said ‘I have this beaten in my own hand…don’t pull from weakness’. As you may expect, the doubles did ok…but virtually never happened.

 

Even over 10-12 I am strongly of the view that one needs the equivalent of about 15 to double.

[AL78]

I really don’t like the double of 1N

 

Nor do I, and I can't think what would make it look like a good action with a flat weak NT hand. I wouldn't be surprised if EW were like another pair at my club that play on BBO sat next to each other with their ipads.

[akwoo]

I was about to suggest that, in the absence of good agreements, East should bid 2C (Stayman) at their second turn instead of passing, especially if North's pass was forcing, but if their agreement is that West can double with that junk...

[LBengtsson]

The problem with posting hands like this, jillybean, even though they are instructive, is that when a player has done something fundamentally wrong, as West did doubling South's 1NT bid, then all our answers become nonsensical. We expect West to be the strongest hand at the table, then find South has a stronger hand (points).

 

If West was trying to be 'clever' by making a X on this hand, due to favorable vulnerability, then the scene is set for a disaster to happen, because North is in a better position to judge where the bidding is headed than East. 2♣X makes comfortably for South. East/West can not make 3NT.

[jillybean]

The problem with posting hands like this, jillybean, even though they are instructive, is that when a player has done something fundamentally wrong, as West did doubling South's 1NT bid, then all our answers become nonsensical. We expect West to be the strongest hand at the table, then find South has a stronger hand (points).

 

What can I say, it's club bridge. I do find the answers instructive, although not always for the original reason I posted the hand. I can also see that it would be frustrating to find the hands do not match the bidding, would it be better if I posted these hands in the beginner forum?

[mycroft]

A lot of players (even in weak NT countries) think that "double = equal values+" is a good agreement. They argue that you need to compete when you could have the hand. Mike has written above in great detail what I would say about why that's wrong (in particular, "you have a balanced 9. They've found their fit. What do you do?" and "you have a balanced 4-5. Whose hand is it?")

 

If you have this agreement, you're in on a lot more hands than those who play the way Mike and I recommend. But decisions on game, say when you're vulnerable and they're not, are a "can't get it right beyond a straight guess", whereas going plus on a partscore board will almost always get you a decent score, even if it's +50 into +110 (because there will be a bunch of -50s/-100s that got pushed too high, and +50s from when they got pushed too high).

 

The question is very interesting, because the colours and the strength of the hand argue for defending even if they have a fit, trying for 500. That's really dangerous at other colours, and it's a question worth investigating. The reveal that West/their agreement has hooped the partnership because it's a bad one - oh well. That doesn't take away from the question, and "what agreements should one have when they run from 1NTx in order to maximize our advantages".

[helene_t]

The problem with posting hands like this, jillybean, even though they are instructive, is that when a player has done something fundamentally wrong, as West did doubling South's 1NT bid, then all our answers become nonsensical.

I don't agree.

 

Of course the post-mortem becomes a bit silly when it turns out that a non-forcing pass would be the winning call because partner has overbid, but that's not the point of the discussion.

 

There can be four or five reasonable calls here: double, 2NT, 3♣, 3NT. Plus pass if that is forcing. So it's a quite good problem. That none of the reasonable choices would have worked at the table is not a big deal.

[smerriman]

I'm coming back to the game after a break, partly due to the "do what you like" attitude of ruling the game. I'm already wondering how long I will keep playing.

Well, let me just put it out there that I hope you do keep playing, since regardless, I enjoy reading the interesting discussions that always stem from your posts, and the forums have been quite quiet recently without them..

[jillybean]

Well, let me just put it out there that I hope you do keep playing, since regardless, I enjoy reading the interesting discussions that always stem from your posts, and the forums have been quite quiet recently without them..

 

:) Thanks, good to hear that someone enjoys the strange hands I post!