[Echognome]

I'm afraid I perpetrated both of these. Your task is to guess my hand, to see what hands, if any, make sense for the bidding.


1) You are playing something pretty close to SAYC. You are dealer and the auction goes:

1♥ - (X) - P - (1NT)
P - (P) - X - (P)
?

What does partner have for his double?

2) Your opponents are playing Precision. Your defense to a Precision 1♦ opening is: X = D's or 15+ any, 1NT = 11-14 takeout, else natural. You might not like the methods, but we'll say the bidding would have gone the same had you been playing standard methods.

(P) - P - (1♦*) - P
(1♥) - P - (P) - 1NT
(P) - ?
*Precision 1♦, but promises 0 diamonds.

What does partner's delayed 1NT show?

[whereagles]

1. Hum.. 8-9 hcp and a hand that didn't feel like bidding 1NT over the double for whatever reason.

2. This seems easier: 11-14 with something like 3343 or 3334 shape.

[Echognome]

I almost forgot to add that the first board was played at MPs and the second board was played at IMPs. If your guesses vary according to scoring, then feel free to say so. I don't remember the vulnerabilities, but if that matters feel free to say so as well.

[Codo]

In Hand One, this is a clear pen- double. As he did not bid first round, there are two possibilities:
A. He did not know, that it is a must to bid 1 NT as soon as possible, esp. at MPs.

B. He has an just semi-balanced hand and had no clear bid in the first round of bidding. Maybe something like xxx,x,Axx, KQJTxx.

I think he has the latter hand.


2: he has a balanced 11-14, but no t.o. of Diamond.

[david_c]

Dunno about the first one, but I would play you for a trap pass, i.e. pure penalties.

The second one is clearly natural, a weak NT sort of hand.

[hotShot]

1) With X opp showed ♠'s, so partner has no interest in bidding his own. His hand does not look good in NT (probably weakish with only QJT), and is to weak to enter the 2 level. He has 2 ♥ and leaves you with the decision to bid 2♥ with minimum or pass with more than that.
e.g. Qxxx - xx - QJxx QxX

2) He is very balanced (4333) 11-14, probably with 4♦ and wants you to set the final contract.

[pclayton]

1) (edited per Mike). This is a matter of agreeement; but its usually pure penalty.

2) Dunno. Sounds like a positional 10 count - with less why are we balancing? Not sure I like the methods over 1♦ but whatever.

[Echognome]

Just for my own understanding, are the trap passers saying that they had 9+ but chose not to redouble? If so, why?

[MickyB]

Redouble is normally described as 10+ in the states and 9+ here. I could easily imagine a hand that would want to take penalties of 1NT but sell out to 2♠, so if XX would have set up a forcing pass situation you might choose to pass initially.

[pclayton]

Echognome, on Apr 7 2006, 07:10 AM, said:

Just for my own understanding, are the trap passers saying that they had 9+ but chose not to redouble? If so, why?

#1 is an old-fashioned sequence. There isn't any logic to it, other than you are trying to get the opps up one level higher before you wallop them.

[mikeh]

I am not going to guess at the 2nd one, but for the first one I would guess a 4=1=4=4 9-10 count, where doubler did not want to bid 1N (wrong shape) and did not want to redouble because it would set up too many forcing situations wherein opener might let the opps off the hook.

[awm]

I think the first auction should be minor suit takeout (assuming you play value-showing redoubles). With a good enough hand to penalize, why not redouble initially? With spades, probably responder would bid them. But with something like a weakish 5-5 minors hand, there's no convenient bid (seems awkward to guess a minor since you might guess wrong).

The second auction actually seems quite normal to me, I'm sure I've made this bid numerous times. It's a weak notrump hand, something like 12-14. A five-card major or diamond suit is pretty unlikely, as is doubleton diamond, but pretty much any other pattern makes sense (including a five-card club suit).

[P_Marlowe]

Echognome, on Apr 7 2006, 10:10 AM, said:

Just for my own understanding, are the trap passers saying that they had 9+ but chose not to redouble? If so, why?

Hi,

I dont know, what to make of the 1st auction,
but I can answer your question:

The trap passer did not want to create a forcing
pass seq., that's why he did not redbl.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kfgauss]

1. If you play that you always redouble (or bid) with a good hand, then this is either a: Some random 8-9 taking a crack at 1N. Note that a random 8-9 won't ever have a good suit, as 1S or 2m would be appropriate, so this doesn't make much sense. b: Takeout for the minors. If your partnership defaults to "what it sounds like" as opposed to "what it should be" then (a) is probably the answer.

Some people play pass..X in these auctions as similar to pass..X in auctions where the opps show a 2-suiter (e.g. 1H 2N P 3C; P P X) -- i.e. a generally defensive hand as opposed to a hand that actually actively desires to penalize certain suits, which doubles/redoubles initially (and some people play the reverse, too, I think). If you're one of these, that's what it is -- i.e. a 10+ flattish hand.

If I'm playing with a pickup partner, I assume the latter as partner shouldn't be trying confusing things.

2. This is a balancing notrump, (10)11-14 or so. Since partner's already passed and this is imps, I'd expect 13-14 most of the time for this particular auction, but you're never going to game, so if you feel like doing it with less, that's fine.

Andy

[edited to get rid of b ) = smiley problem and add an extra comment]

[Salokin]

Echognome, on Apr 7 2006, 08:50 PM, said:

1♥ - (X) - P - (1NT)
P - (P) - X - (P)
?

1) i think he should have a BAL hand to weak to XX
i.e. 7-10 HCP and probably with length in both minors

Echognome, on Apr 7 2006, 08:50 PM, said:

(P) - P - (1♦*) - P
(1♥) - P - (P) - 1NT
(P) - ?
*Precision 1♦, but promises 0 diamonds.

2) this also should show some minor suit length

[Echognome]

Ok, for the first one I held a 4=0=5=4 8 count. It was MPs and I was just trying to not sell out to 1NT. But making a "takeout" double of partner's suit is probably not best. Starting with 1♠ would have been wise.

For the second one I held a 1=2=5=5 11 count. My diamonds were Kxxxx and clubs Axxxx. I think playing it as a normal balancing 1NT makes more sense.

[whereagles]

Echognome, on Apr 10 2006, 01:29 AM, said:

Ok, for the first one I held a 4=0=5=4 8 count.  It was MPs and I was just trying to not sell out to 1NT.  But making a "takeout" double of partner's suit is probably not best.  Starting with 1♠ would have been wise.

For the second one I held a 1=2=5=5 11 count.  My diamonds were Kxxxx and clubs Axxxx.  I think playing it as a normal balancing 1NT makes more sense.

Echognome:

> making a "takeout" double of partner's suit is probably not best.

Hum.. yeah.. that sounds like a funny concept


> For the second one I held a 1=2=5=5 11 count. My diamonds were Kxxxx and > clubs Axxxx.
> I think playing it as a normal balancing 1NT makes more sense.

Precision 1♦ is very fruitful in situations like these You could try double, followed by correcting the likely spade bid to 2/3♣, showing the other suits. Since you passed first time, pard shouldn't be too surprised with your lack of spades. SHOULDN'T.. not won't