[silvr bull]

IMPs. Random BBO opponents.

---

Note: We open 12-14 NT, so North could have a balanced 15+ HCP, or ♣s with almost any strength of hand.

[whereagles]

just pass.. bad omens all around

[gszes]

3N

There is enough "stuff" here and heart stoppers to
try 3n. I just hope p realizes I may be distributionally
challenged due to space constraints and not go to nuts with
clubs.

Pass runs a huge risk of missing a vul game if p is afraid to
reopen with only a doubleton dia (more than sufficient for 3n) and
then there is always the question do we want to pass a reopening
x for penalty or try for 3n.

3N also acts as a power limiting bid so opener should not worry about
us having too much more than we possess.

[Cyberyeti]

Difficult to evaluate, if you're going to pass a working 13 count, anybody's guess what you'd do next. This is a terrible pass, and I have no sensible bid now, if I pass, partner may well rebid clubs which will snooker me into bidding 3N which may well not be good.

[billw55]

It often happens that once the wrong call is made, subsequent calls can become awkward. South should open 1♦ and not have this problem.

[mikeh]

I don't understand the vehement criticism of passing originally. I think it close. This is NOT a working 13 count and it is silly to assert that it is. Only a walrus thinks that Queens and Jacks are really worth a lot, and that controls don't matter, and that having most of our hcp in a short suit and little in our long suit is just fine.

I have no issue with those who open (you will see that I would open myself), and indeed my current partner it obvious, but he is hyper-aggressive. I'd open myself, but pass isn't silly. It isn't a 'wrong' call. It is just a call that the critics wouldn't make, but that doesn't mean that anybody who disagrees with them is 'wrong'. We can all see that opening might well have worked better. However, who the heck knows what problems we'd now be having. For one thing, it is quite likely that RHO would be remaining silent, and we'd be rebidding 2♦ over partner's 1♠ or 2♣. While I'd expect to be able to handle the auction, and I recognize that our pass may lead to a bad result, it may actually lead to a good one.

As for the problem now, I think pass is pretty clear. 3♦ simply endplays partner in the auction. Bidding notrump is for people who don't know how to bid.

I'm playing for penalties if/when partner reopens with a double, which he may not be able to do out of a fear of diamonds or, remotely, because he has too many hearts.

I expect 500 or more if he does double, which will be adequate or better compensation for the game we may, or may not, have missed. if we belong in 6♦, which is entirely possible (picture KJxx x AKx Axxxx as a hand and he may well have more that this) tant pis as the French sometimes say. After all, maybe he has KJxx Jx xx KQJxx (where we defend undoubled and still get a good result).

If he reopens with a black suit, I will probably have to punt with 3N, which could be ugly but I have to do something.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2014-October-05, 13:38, said:

I don't understand the vehement criticism of passing originally. I think it close. This is NOT a working 13 count and it is silly to assert that it is. Only a walrus thinks that Queens and Jacks are really worth a lot, and that controls don't matter, and that having most of our hcp in a short suit and little in our long suit is just fine.

Separate queens and jacks may not be worth a lot, but a QJ in a long suit is a very decent holding and the ♥10 to back up the Q is decent. K&R gives 12.8 which I know needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, but I don't think is far off.

Any hand which makes game trivially opposite a 7 count with no 5 card suit (KJxx, x, Kxxx, xxxx) on the normal trump break can't be too bad.

I much prefer opening this to AQx, Kxxx, QJxxx, x which I suspect most people open (I know almost everybody would here).

[akwoo]

I would've opened, but...

I think 3♦ right now is fine. After all, you're a passed hand, so it's not forcing. If partner bids 3N or 3♥ (asking for one stopper, presumably having between half a stopper and one stopper already) with a balanced 15 count, we should be fine. Partner should know to pass with many 3316 hands.

[the hog]

silvr bull, on 2014-October-05, 08:00, said:

IMPs. Random BBO opponents.

---

Note: We open 12-14 NT, so North could have a balanced 15+ HCP, or ♣s with almost any strength of hand.

I would have opened the bidding, though it is close and this is not a great hand. I pass now and hope that opener can re-open with a x which I will pass. As for the 3NT bid now, well, I think that is a very poor bid - C void. If partner cannot provide at least 1 good D card it is difficult to see this making.

[Jinksy]

akwoo, on 2014-October-05, 22:00, said:

I would've opened, but...

I think 3♦ right now is fine. After all, you're a passed hand, so it's not forcing. If partner bids 3N or 3♥ (asking for one stopper, presumably having between half a stopper and one stopper already) with a balanced 15 count, we should be fine. Partner should know to pass with many 3316 hands.

3♦ sounds like a fit-showing bid to me.

[Cthulhu D]

I'd open to avoid the problem yeah. I think this is a clear opener given the unbalanced shape and 6th diamond. Particularly playing a short club system where 1D is unbalanced you can avoid a world of pain opening here.

Jinksy, on 2014-October-06, 01:12, said:

3♦ sounds like a fit-showing bid to me.

A non jump bid? I'd play it as diamonds.

[rhm]

the hog, on 2014-October-05, 23:58, said:

I would have opened the bidding, though it is close and this is not a great hand. I pass now and hope that opener can re-open with a x which I will pass. As for the 3NT bid now, well, I think that is a very poor bid - C void. If partner cannot provide at least 1 good D card it is difficult to see this making.

I do not think it is close.
If you pass this hand why do you open balanced 12 and 13 HCP hands? KNR does not evaluate this hand properly, neither do I think 3NT is such a poor bid.
If partner has a diamond honor, which looks to me likely now, 3NT looks promising to me.
Of course you would be in a much more comfortable position had you opened the hand.
3NT tries to catch up.

Rainer Herrmann

[mcphee]

For those who elect to bid something other than pass at this point are begging for trouble I believe. Its not like we are going to run clubs. If you are playing wk NT does partner not have to re-open when he has the 15-17? I will become very happy when I see dble and get to pass, I have a great lead and expect a minimum of 500.

[MrAce]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-06, 01:12, said:

3♦ sounds like a fit-showing bid to me.

If you have a style where you don't open a 6-4 hand with a void and no wasted hcps, you better do not play fit showing non jump bids. Because you will need these bids to be natural A LOT.

[rhm]

mcphee, on 2014-October-06, 04:06, said:

For those who elect to bid something other than pass at this point are begging for trouble I believe. Its not like we are going to run clubs. If you are playing wk NT does partner not have to re-open when he has the 15-17? I will become very happy when I see dble and get to pass, I have a great lead and expect a minimum of 500.

Is it likely that partner has 15-17 balanced?
If he does we will almost certainly make 3NT and we will have a diamond fit.
Meanwhile in 2♥ doubled you have two trump tricks whether you ruff clubs or not.
However, it looks to me much more likely partner has clubs.

Rainer Herrmann

[Jinksy]

Cthulhu D, on 2014-October-06, 03:49, said:

A non jump bid? I'd play it as diamonds.

A non-jump bid by a passed hand at the three level, above P's opened suit, sure. It sounds better than expecting us to play us for a hand with Hs too good to X, too poor to defend, strong enough to bid now and too weak to open.

(and yeah, I'd have started with 1♦ on this one)

[rmnka447]

I'm for passing right now.

I have no problem with passing initially, that's what I'd do. 11 HCP, 1 1/2 QTs, and bad values in my longest suits just aren't an opener IMO.

With partner's ♣ bid, the hand appears to be a misfit. Holding ♥ Q10xx just adds to that impression. RHO has made a vulnerable WJO, so has no more than possibly 7 spaces for the other 3 suits including ♣s combined. So it looks like nothing is likely to break well.

With 3-4 probable tricks at a ♥ contract, I'll play for the penalty.

[silvr bull]

My vote for 2NT is now added. Before I comment about that, however, I would like to talk about the initial decision to open or pass. I agree with everyone who says I should open a hand with as much playing strength as I have - provided that responder has a doubleton honor or better in ♦. If responder has a stiff small ♦, then my playing "strength" is much weaker than responder would expect from me opening the bidding. Also, my defense against anything other than a red suit leaves much to be desired, and responder would have a right to be disappointed in my hand. If I pass first to limit my hand, I can then make stronger bids later to tell partner that I do have some good stuff. Unfortunately for me, I do not know how to tell partner later than my hand turned out to be less than he should expect from an opening bid. Consider too if responder has 11 HCP in a mirror image "opening hand", like Kxxx AJx void QJxxxx. If I open 1♦, responder will expect his opening hand to result in a good play for game somewhere, but I think he will be badly disappointed by my hand. Also consider what happens when you open 1♦, responder bids 2♣ and RHO calls 2 ♥, or maybe 3♥. I see no good alternative to passing with this (sub) minimum hand (a NT rebid would promise the equivalent of a strong 1NT opening hand), and partner will have little knowledge about my values, so he will have to guess about defensive and offensive strength that I probably do not have. My personal preference in questionable situations is to limit my hand soon, and then bid more later with any extras I hold. My first opportunity to limit this hand was to pass as dealer, and I would do so again.

I chose to bid 2NT in the op situation, despite my ♣ void, because I hoped it would be sufficiently forward going for opener to pass with a minimum 3rd seat opener, or to bid 3NT with good values. Passing 2♥ hoping opener will double back in so you can pass for juicy penalty brings to mind the old adage: Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it. If West has ♥AJ or KJ, we could easily not beat 2♥ doubled into game unless opener has good values, and then we might be cold for 3NT. If I bid the obvious 3♦ in the op, then opener will have a problem if he has good values but no ♥ stopper for 3NT, and I surely do not want to push opener into bidding 4♣.

[mycroft]

So, it depends on what style of weak NT you play.

From what I know of an Acol style, if you don't open 1♦ with this hand (where you'd be allowed to pass a 2♣ response, not that you would with a void), you're going to have no way to adequately describe it afterward.

From a K-S perspective, I either have rebiddable diamonds or a sound opener ("a raise of responder's major will show 15 playing points, so I'd better be close to that"). I don't like my diamonds if I have to bid them again, and I'm not sure I want to show 15 if partner bids hearts. So while I'd probably open (where if my void were in a major, I wouldn't), I don't see pass as horrible (Playing a strong NT, I *do* see pass as horrible).

Having said all of that, now I can assume that partner has either better clubs than my diamonds, or 15+ BAL or short in one of the reds. I wish I was playing adjective bridge now and could make a "forcing" pass. But I can't. So I'm not going to get this one right (or if I do, partner won't) 100% of the time, oh well. I'll probably punt 3NT and hope that we're not missing 500 into a negative or 800 into making.

[mikeh]

silvr bull, on 2014-October-09, 00:04, said:

My vote for 2NT is now added. Before I comment about that, however, I would like to talk about the initial decision to open or pass. I agree with everyone who says I should open a hand with as much playing strength as I have - provided that responder has a doubleton honor or better in ♦. If responder has a stiff small ♦, then my playing "strength" is much weaker than responder would expect from me opening the bidding. Also, my defense against anything other than a red suit leaves much to be desired, and responder would have a right to be disappointed in my hand. If I pass first to limit my hand, I can then make stronger bids later to tell partner that I do have some good stuff. Unfortunately for me, I do not know how to tell partner later than my hand turned out to be less than he should expect from an opening bid. Consider too if responder has 11 HCP in a mirror image "opening hand", like Kxxx AJx void QJxxxx. If I open 1♦, responder will expect his opening hand to result in a good play for game somewhere, but I think he will be badly disappointed by my hand. Also consider what happens when you open 1♦, responder bids 2♣ and RHO calls 2 ♥, or maybe 3♥. I see no good alternative to passing with this (sub) minimum hand (a NT rebid would promise the equivalent of a strong 1NT opening hand), and partner will have little knowledge about my values, so he will have to guess about defensive and offensive strength that I probably do not have. My personal preference in questionable situations is to limit my hand soon, and then bid more later with any extras I hold. My first opportunity to limit this hand was to pass as dealer, and I would do so again.

I chose to bid 2NT in the op situation, despite my ♣ void, because I hoped it would be sufficiently forward going for opener to pass with a minimum 3rd seat opener, or to bid 3NT with good values. Passing 2♥ hoping opener will double back in so you can pass for juicy penalty brings to mind the old adage: Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it. If West has ♥AJ or KJ, we could easily not beat 2♥ doubled into game unless opener has good values, and then we might be cold for 3NT. If I bid the obvious 3♦ in the op, then opener will have a problem if he has good values but no ♥ stopper for 3NT, and I surely do not want to push opener into bidding 4♣.

This is all flawed thinking.

It is always a good idea to try to anticipate how the auction might go, but you really shouldn't start assuming that the auction will go in a particular, improbable way and then allow that to dictate your decisions.

Let's start with the decision to pass.

I said earlier that while I'd probably open, I don't see pass as horrible. However, I didn't get there the way you seem to have done.

It is always possible to construct hands for partner and the opps where a close decision works out poorly. make your hand AKx Q10xx QJxxxx void and I think virtually no-one would pass, yet the same nightmare scenarios can be constructed. Playing scared bridge is playing bad bridge. Here, if you open, you have an easy rebid over every response that partner can make and that should be all that really concerns you. That doesn't mean passing is awful....take away the diamond J and replace it with a small diamond and you'd get a lot more passers (me for one), yet on many layouts that missing J would be irrelevant.

Then, having passed, 2N is flat out silly. It is an awful distortion. Partner will look at a club suit such as AKQxxx and be confident he has 6 tricks for you. AQJxxx will look like a good shot at 6 tricks....you may have the K or the K will be onside...and you have some clubs so you can repeat the finesse. Or with a minimum hand he can and should retreat to 3♣...over which you can confuse him immensely via 3♦, which you may survive but at a cost to partnership trust when he sees your hand.

As for worrying about AJ or KJ in hearts to your left and not being able to beat 2♥...well, that is possible, I suppose, if you play in fields in which vulnerable opps make weak jump overcalls on A9xxxx in a suit. Most of us don't and even if we do, you'd have to be very unlucky to have it happen here.....it is far more likely that rho has AKxxxx or AKJxxx or AJ9xxx, and when he is missing a card, partner may hold it...he may well not, but what I am saying is that it is scared and losing bridge to refuse to play for a penalty because of the extremely low risk that the cards lie poorly.

I get the sense from your two current threads that you have what is a common problem in terms of bidding. You make up your mind about what a bid should mean, based on your hand, and how the cards are placed, including partner, in a way that justifies your decision.

This approach will lead to poor outcomes and frustrated partners.

Bridge is about probabilities. Bidding is about a dialogue, taking into account agreed-upon vocabularies and assessments of probability. When you substitute, on a hand by hand basis, your fears of how the actual hand may be, you become unreliable as a partner and a failure as a bidder.