What do you bid, what else do you consider ?

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&w=sq952hj83d5cak752&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1h2dd2h(Good%20diamond%20raise)p3d]133|200[/hv]

 

What do you bid ? do you think about doing anything else ?

 

As far as I remember, (one of my ops had this problem) 5 card majors weak no trump, unsure what they do with 5M332.

[smerriman]

I would have bid 3♦ instead of doubling. But I'm probably wrong.

[AL78]

I would probably bid 3♥ now.

[akwoo]

I bid 4♥. You're likely to make opposite many good SUBminimums - say ♠Kx ♥KQxxx ♦xxx ♣Qxx

[DavidKok]

3♦ last round. There is no correct bid now, since no followup to double shows a hand that shouldn't double. If 3♣ was a non-jump fitbid that would be good as well, but with an unpassed hand it's just a game force with clubs for me so that doesn't work.

[Cyberyeti]

OK, there are enough people that think this is a decent hand as I did.

 

What actually happened was that partner hesitated before passing over 2♥, now what do you think you may be constrained to do.

[mw64ahw]

Not sure what the X is trying to say, but 4♥ now, with a good chance of making opposite a non-min.

[pescetom]

Not sure what the X is trying to say, but 4♥ now, with a good chance of making opposite a non-min.

 

Did you read the preceding post, and is there a TD ? :)

[pescetom]

I would have bid 3♦ instead of doubling. But I'm probably wrong.

Could someone who plays Support Double please comment on the implications of 3♦ and 4♦ instead?

[Cyberyeti]

Did you read the preceding post, and is there a TD ? :)

 

County match, teams, playing TD

[fromageGB]

Without the hesitation I would bid 3♥ as it does not maybe have enough for a certain 4 opposite a partner who kept quiet, but with that hesitation I think I still bid 3 with justification.

[smerriman]

Could someone who plays Support Double please comment on the implications of 3♦ and 4♦ instead?

Not sure what this means; support doubles are by opener, not responder, so not applicable to this auction.

 

With a hesitation, 3♥ seems the only option.

[Cyberyeti]

Not sure what this means; support doubles are by opener, not responder, so not applicable to this auction.

 

With a hesitation, 3♥ seems the only option.

 

And here is the rub, partner has hesitated with a complete heap, J10x, AKQxx, xxxx, x game is still not terrible (you need to avoid a spade ruff) but is sub optimal when trumps are 5-0. We couldn't however beat 3.

[mikeh]

Ignoring what opener held for his bizarre BIT, as west, were I polled by a TD, I’d state that west has an easy 4H bid over 3D. Ironically, the misbid (as I see it) of the double gives him no realistic choice now, since having doubled rather than cuebid, he’s had the chance to learn that north likes his hand for diamonds. Given that there are only 40 hcp in the deck, that suggests that opener has little to no wastage in diamonds, hence west’s hand grows up.

 

Now, it’s tough to argue that ‘any good player would bid 4H, with no logical alternative’, as I would see matters, while also saying that west is entitled to be viewed as a good player since, imo, few good players, in a 5 card major system, would double 2D.

 

Support with support is a mantra for a reason. Partners tend to like learning early of support…it lets them evaluate better.

[Cyberyeti]

I thought hesitating on a heap so partner takes the low road was one of the more heinous offences around and got a PP most of the time. This one is slightly complicated as he has very good hearts and it's not clear what X would have meant.

[LBengtsson]

Support with support is a mantra for a reason. Partners tend to like learning early of support…it lets them evaluate better.

 

Agree. If partner (opener) is 4♠5♥ shape, there is little chance that a 4♠ contract will play any better than a 4♥ contract, and the same applies if he has ♠AKxx ♥AKxxxx ♦xx ♣x or similar and can make a small slam.

 

West has three card with an honor support for partner's suit, a stiff in the opps suit and a AK in a side suit. Bidding X instead of 3♦ here is the wrong bid imo. If you do not show support immediately, there is a chance that the opps, on certain hands with distributional values, could be bidding 5♦ before the bidding comes back around to you. It is more easy for partner and for you to judge if you support his ♥ suit immediately imo.

[Douglas43]

it seems clear-cut to support hearts. Could have done without the hesitation. The hesitation tends to imply extras, so I'd expect my proper action to be 3H rather than 4H, trying not to take advantage

[Gilithin]

I thought hesitating on a heap so partner takes the low road was one of the more heinous offences around and got a PP most of the time. This one is slightly complicated as he has very good hearts and it's not clear what X would have meant.

If you have agreed Reverse Weasel then it seems clear that 4♥ is your only ethical call here but that 3♥ is the systemic one - which did you choose? Has the 1♥ opening really promised 5 though? I thought you played Acol with 4 card majors and you have consistently reported here that bridge in East Anglia has not yet caught up with the 21st century.

[DavidKok]

Maybe I'm just in a privileged environment, where I feel confident that my fellow club members aren't skirting the edges of the rules (and they feel the same about me), but I think many people take 'crazy' actions just to avoid possible accusations of making use of unauthorised information. I much prefer to make the bid that I feel my hand indicates, and if the opponents feel slighted by my or my partner's tempo I suggest they call the director. This whole 'my partner paused so now I must trash the hand' attitude never worked for me - and actually puts great pressure on me when I have a tough decision, because if partner were to subscribe to this theory there is an added downside to taking a minute to think!

Also pausing to think isn't bad in and of itself. I've so far been in several situations where I took a while to think, and after that my opponents asked politely if we agreed there had been a break in tempo (and we agreed), and that was the end of it. You're not supposed to stop playing simply because people burn some time, with or without a good reason.

In fact, I feel that more often than not this argument is a blame transfer ("I didn't know whether I'm worth 3♥ or 4♥, but thankfully I don't have to decide because partner paused for three extra seconds, so if we score 3♥+1 I have my story straight.").

 

You are clearly worth 4♥ on the auction, although partner might raise a brow at your lack of support the previous round.

[Cyberyeti]

If you have agreed Reverse Weasel then it seems clear that 4♥ is your only ethical call here but that 3♥ is the systemic one - which did you choose? Has the 1♥ opening really promised 5 though? I thought you played Acol with 4 card majors and you have consistently reported here that bridge in East Anglia has not yet caught up with the 21st century.

 

Was my opps auction, I overcalled the diamonds

[helene_t]

I don't think the hesitation constrains us. It could easily be a hand that was on the edge of doubling 3♦ for penalties, in that case the hesitation could be discouraging but it might not be, and it could also suggest a bit of extras. Anyway, pass is not an LA, it's between 3♥ and 4♥, and I don't think the hesitation suggests one over the other.

 

I think I bid 4♥ as I am afraid that 3♥ doesn't encourage enough and may suggest a weak hand with 6-2 in the majors or some such.

 

Obviously I should have shown my heart support before.

[pescetom]

I don't think the hesitation constrains us. It could easily be a hand that was on the edge of doubling 3♦ for penalties, in that case the hesitation could be discouraging but it might not be, and it could also suggest a bit of extras. Anyway, pass is not an LA, it's between 3♥ and 4♥, and I don't think the hesitation suggests one over the other.

 

I think I bid 4♥ as I am afraid that 3♥ doesn't encourage enough and may suggest a weak hand with 6-2 in the majors or some such.

 

I'm not in a hurry to judge a choice of 3♥ / 4♥, but for different reasons.

 

As TD I would first try to establish what the agreement about West's double is. If it shows support and something like his actual hand then things get more interesting and a poll is in order. But if as seems likely it was just a misbid (I have one partner who will occasionally pull this stunt due to decades of 4 card majors) then he has to get into the auction now, and I'm not in a hurry to hang him or his partner whatever he chooses. Yes a poll would probably establish that 3♥ is an LA and is less suggested by the BIT than 4♥, but they don't have to have an illegal agreement for him to figure out that 3♥ will both go unpunished and reach the same result (so in a sense, 4♥ is the "ethical" bid now).

 

I hope and imagine they are not playing Reverse Weasel, if that is an illegal agreement whereby a deliberate BIT denies extra values (even the descriptions of Weasel seem to have disappeared from the web, although it is still widely played). In any case this is not a hand that nails them for this or even an intentional BIT, IMO.

[Cyberyeti]

I'm not in a hurry to judge a choice of 3♥ / 4♥, but for different reasons.

 

As TD I would first try to establish what the agreement about West's double is. If it shows support and something like his actual hand then things get more interesting and a poll is in order. But if as seems likely it was just a misbid (I have one partner who will occasionally pull this stunt due to decades of 4 card majors) then he has to get into the auction now, and I'm not in a hurry to hang him or his partner whatever he chooses. Yes a poll would probably establish that 3♥ is an LA and is less suggested by the BIT than 4♥, but they don't have to have an illegal agreement for him to figure out that 3♥ will both go unpunished and reach the same result (so in a sense, 4♥ is the "ethical" bid now).

 

I hope and imagine they are not playing Reverse Weasel, if that is an illegal agreement whereby a deliberate BIT denies extra values (even the descriptions of Weasel seem to have disappeared from the web, although it is still widely played). In any case this is not a hand that nails them for this or even an intentional BIT, IMO.

 

The double is standard takeout, I don't know if they were a regular partnership but they were experienced players. The double would be completely normal playing 4 card majors, so I wonder if this was a scratch partnership playing 5M when the doubler normally plays 4.

 

There would be more interesting implications if they were playing 4M as I would suggest the hesitation now suggests at least 5 hearts.

[Douglas43]

The double is standard takeout, I don't know if they were a regular partnership but they were experienced players. The double would be completely normal playing 4 card majors, so I wonder if this was a scratch partnership playing 5M when the doubler normally plays 4.

 

There would be more interesting implications if they were playing 4M as I would suggest the hesitation now suggests at least 5 hearts.

 

I think the auction strongly implies that partner has 5 hearts anyway? Not 4 spades, no more than 3 diamonds, unlikely to have 4 clubs. Might be 3=4=3=3 or maybe 3=4=2=4 and outside the 1NT range, but if playing 4cM/weak NT I'd probably double 2♥ as "extras" with that.

 

Having seen the comments above I would still vote for 3♥ as the bid not implied by the hesitation

[Cyberyeti]

I think the auction strongly implies that partner has 5 hearts anyway? Not 4 spades, no more than 3 diamonds, unlikely to have 4 clubs. Might be 3=4=3=3 or maybe 3=4=2=4 and outside the 1NT range, but if playing 4cM/weak NT I'd probably double 2♥ as "extras" with that.

 

Having seen the comments above I would still vote for 3♥ as the bid not implied by the hesitation

 

This is the whole point, 3♥ is the bid not suggested by the hesitation, but this is what the hesitator (with a heap) wants you to bid.

 

For the rest of your comment above depends whether X is good hand or good hearts (3433 was what I was thinking of).