[Thymallus]

Non vul v vul in 4th seat I held

♠KQT95
♥QJ62
♦93
♣76

Bidding went

LHO 1NT (12-14) Partner X (16+ or other strong hand) RHO 2 ♣

I figured,

I don't like double since I don't have diamonds and we haven't discussed this sort of auction (scared of a cock up!)

I didn't like to go straight to 3 N .. 4 of a major might be better
I didnt like to bid 3 ♠ since this would use up lots of space and shut out the hearts.

So I bid 2♠ thinking that p would read this as a free bid and therefore a game try

Needless to say he passed and we made 10 tricks for a rock solid bottom.

What should I have bid? double I suppose.

Thanks in anticipation
John

[gwnn]

I'd have bid 2♠ too, probably. It's unlikely that you'd bid that with anything less. Especially if no previous discussion. Pass is obviously bad and X would mean at least some ♣ defense. Of course if p has 16+, he ought to have quite a few values in clubs. But with no exact discussion I'd bid 2♠. X is good if it's kind of "responsive" (we own more than half the deck).

[Echognome]

gwnn, on Oct 25 2006, 02:26 PM, said:

I'd have bid 2♠ too, probably. It's unlikely that you'd bid that with anything less. Especially if no previous discussion. Pass is obviously bad and X would mean at least some ♣ defense. Of course if p has 16+, he ought to have quite a few values in clubs. But with no exact discussion I'd bid 2♠. X is good if it's kind of "responsive" (we own more than half the deck).

I disagree entirely. I think this is purely systemic and an untenable problem without discussion.

In my regular partnerships, 2♠ would show a hand that is very weak and cannot stand partner doubling opponents. In other words, pass is forcing and showing some values. Double is penalty. So I would pass for now and sit it if partner doubled. Or if I didn't want to sit 2♣X, I would either pass and then pull or bid at the 3-level now. In my opinion, it is better for partner to know we have some values when we are in a penalty auction.

For what it's worth, we pull immediately over (1NT) - Dbl - (2m) and pass is forcing, but over (1NT) - Dbl - (2M), pass is NF. So then double is T/O from both sides. You may like a different system, but I believe it is ultimately by agreement.

[kenrexford]

If 2♣ is explained as natural, it seems that the practical solution is to cuebid 3♣. If partner responds a major, I raise it. If partner responds 3♦, I bid 3♠. If partner responds 3NT, I respect that and pass.

[FrancesHinden]

As Echognome says, it's a good auction to have discussed.

You would like to make a take-out double, and that's what I happen to play with all regular partners, but I agree you don't want to do that without discussion.

As partner has shown 16+ and you have 8 HCP, you may as well force to game. For lack of other agreements, just cue bid 3C and give up on a possible penalty.

[Echognome]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 25 2006, 02:54 PM, said:

As Echognome says, it's a good auction to have discussed.

You would like to make a take-out double, and that's what I happen to play with all regular partners, but I agree you don't want to do that without discussion.

As partner has shown 16+ and you have 8 HCP, you may as well force to game. For lack of other agreements, just cue bid 3C and give up on a possible penalty.

Sorry. I stand corrected. Saying 'untenable' is probably a bit much. I agree with Frances that 3♣ is best without discussion as at least you get across your values.

[whereagles]

Echognome, on Oct 25 2006, 02:42 PM, said:

In my regular partnerships, 2♠ would show a hand that is very weak and cannot stand partner doubling opponents.

If you allow me a free comment, I consider this strategy technically incorrect. When RHO bids 2♣, you no longer are forced to remove pard's double of 1NT with a weak hand. It is not logical to dig yourself back into a dangerous situation by bidding 2♠ after RHO's 2♣.

In light of the above, 2♠ should logically show a competitive hand, not interested in penalizing opps. Pard should know to invite with 3♠ if he has a fair hand.

[Wackojack]

Without agreement I would assume that a double in this situation is for penalties. So 3♣ is the practical bid as proposed by Kenrexford. However, I would readily agree to change this to double of 2♣ or 2♦ for take out if partner wanted to play it that way.

What intreagues me is how to bid if RHO passes. (!NT-x-p-?) I suggest 2NT. This is obviously not to play, so If I were the doubler I would respond by bidding any 5 card suit or lowest 4 card suit.

[HeartA]

Thymallus, on Oct 25 2006, 08:17 AM, said:

So I bid 2♠ thinking that p would read this as a free bid and therefore a game try

Needless to say he passed and we made 10 tricks for a rock solid bottom.

What should I have bid? double I suppose.

Thanks in anticipation
John

Since your pd showed a hand of 16+, it's your turn to show game interest. It is true that 2S is a free bid, yet it doesn't show game interest (without HQJ, you would do the same). 3C would be my first choice. If pd bid 3H, I would raise to 4; otherwise I would bid 3S if possible.

I don't agree with what Echognome said "2S would show a hand that is very weak and cannot stand partner doubling opponents". In my opinion, 2S shows 5+ spades but no interest in game (only competitive for part scores). Pass would show a weak hand with nothing to bid and of course, no interest in game.

[HeartA]

Wackojack, on Oct 25 2006, 12:04 PM, said:

What intreagues me is how to bid if RHO passes. (!NT-x-p-?) I suggest 2NT. This is obviously not to play, so If I were the doubler I would respond by bidding any 5 card suit or lowest 4 card suit.

I would pass if RHO passed, especially for this vulnerability (white to red). If vulnerability is reversed, you may treat pd's dbl as 1NT opening and bid 2C as stayman.

[1eyedjack]

whereagles, on Oct 25 2006, 04:20 PM, said:

Echognome, on Oct 25 2006, 02:42 PM, said:

In my regular partnerships, 2♠ would show a hand that is very weak and cannot stand partner doubling opponents.

If you allow me a free comment, I consider this strategy technically incorrect. When RHO bids 2♣, you no longer are forced to remove pard's double of 1NT with a weak hand. It is not logical to dig yourself back into a dangerous situation by bidding 2♠ after RHO's 2♣.

In light of the above, 2♠ should logically show a competitive hand, not interested in penalizing opps. Pard should know to invite with 3♠ if he has a fair hand.

I think that it is fairly common practice to treat an immediate pass over 2C as being forcing on partner to take some action other than to defend 2C undoubled. We accept that there will occasionally be hands where passing 2C out is right, but these are so rare that it is a poor use of resources to cater for that possibility.

By contrast, the opportunities that are opened up if pass of 2C is forcing are considerable. In a context where pass is forcing, you are already "dug ... into a dangerous situation" if the hand happens to be that rarety where passing it out is right. But you are dug into that situation by your system, not by your choice to bid 2S.

Within the context of that agreement, it is normal to bid immediately, before partner has had an opportunity to double 2C, to show weakness, and to pass first then pull the double with strength. Perhaps if the protective double is takeout (despite a forcing pass) this method has less merit, but it remains a point to discuss.

[awm]

One of the ways weak notrumps win a lot of IMPs and MPs is that people don't know their defensive methods very well. It's important to discuss these in a regular partnership (or if you're about to play a lot of boards against weak notrumpers). Some of the major issues:

(1) What is the minimum strength to double 1NT? Is it different in balancing seat?
(2) If the auction goes 1NT-X-Pass, what does a bid here mean? Does it depend on whether the pass is forcing? How does advancer distinguish a bad hand with a suit from a bad balanced hand that doesn't want to defend?
(3) If the auction goes 1NT-X-bid, then is pass forcing? Is double penalty or takeout? What does a free bid promise in terms of values? If pass is forcing, then you have the option of bidding directly, or passing and then bidding: which shows the better hand?

My answers to these questions with most partners are:

(1) 15+ in direct, 13+ in balancing.
(2) A bid shows a bad hand, and is natural. If pass was non-forcing, then 2♣ may simply be the start of a scramble on a bad balanced hand. If pass is forcing, then 2♣ natural and passing followed by 2♣ when a redouble is passed to me starts the scramble. In any case good hands normally pass the double, with the exception of hands with concentrated values in a single long suit which bid 3-suit (invitational).
(3) Pass is not forcing, double is takeout. A free bid promises some values but not enough to force. With a better hand, jump (forcing) or cue or start with a takeout double and then bid/cue later or bid 2NT (two lowest suits, unusual). In any case it's usually safe to pass with length in the opposing suit as partner will balance with a takeout double.

These answers work pretty well in my experience, but they are not the only set of reasonable answers. On the hand given, with no agreements, I'd try a 3♣ cue (least of evils, at least we will not miss game). With my agreements I would double and bid spades over diamonds.

[whereagles]

awm, those seem good agreements to me, though I might lower the double requirements to 14/12, so that both don't pass on 13-14/12 and miss out on a game.

[gwnn]

Echognome, on Oct 25 2006, 04:42 PM, said:

gwnn, on Oct 25 2006, 02:26 PM, said:

I'd have bid 2♠ too, probably. It's unlikely that you'd bid that with anything less. Especially if no previous discussion. Pass is obviously bad and X would mean at least some ♣ defense. Of course if p has 16+, he ought to have quite a few values in clubs. But with no exact discussion I'd bid 2♠. X is good if it's kind of "responsive" (we own more than half the deck).

I disagree entirely. I think this is purely systemic and an untenable problem without discussion.

In my regular partnerships, 2♠ would show a hand that is very weak and cannot stand partner doubling opponents. In other words, pass is forcing and showing some values. Double is penalty. So I would pass for now and sit it if partner doubled. Or if I didn't want to sit 2♣X, I would either pass and then pull or bid at the 3-level now. In my opinion, it is better for partner to know we have some values when we are in a penalty auction.

For what it's worth, we pull immediately over (1NT) - Dbl - (2m) and pass is forcing, but over (1NT) - Dbl - (2M), pass is NF. So then double is T/O from both sides. You may like a different system, but I believe it is ultimately by agreement.

In regular partnerships, discussed situations etc. If some situation has not been discussed otherwise only like "SAYC" or so, pass should most of the time be a weaker hand than bidding in such a position. Of course I like this forcing pass stuff but not if we hadn't discussed it.

[the hog]

gwnn, on Oct 26 2006, 12:26 AM, said:

I'd have bid 2♠ too, probably. It's unlikely that you'd bid that with anything less. Especially if no previous discussion. Pass is obviously bad and X would mean at least some ♣ defense. Of course if p has 16+, he ought to have quite a few values in clubs. But with no exact discussion I'd bid 2♠. X is good if it's kind of "responsive" (we own more than half the deck).

Whoah, you are kidding me. I would bid 2S on KJxxx and out. Passing on this hand after a X is totally puting too much pressure on partner to re open.
With your hand I would bid 3C.