[pclayton]

My pard started with 2♦ and now bid 5♣. Opinions about that?

[inquiry]

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 12:58 AM, said:

My pard started with 2♦ and now bid 5♣. Opinions about that?

2♦ was wrong. So 2♦ then 5♣ was also wrong.

Let's have the simple 2♣ initial response...

1♦-p-2♣-4♠
PASS-P-?

Partners pass has to be forcing, since 2♣ was game force, and suggest uncertainty rather to go on or defend. That is good news for us. We have an offensive hand and parnter is willing for us to bid on... even in clubs if necessary. We also control of both suits our side didn't bid. It might be wrong, but I am bidding 6♦ now. If partner had some random 13/14 count and balanced he would have doubled. If he was stacked in spades he would have doubled. The one fear I have is a club ruff, but i am not certain that a 5NT pick a slam would get the job done here, and they might just as easily ruff a diamond anyway.

IF I had started 3♠, i am not so certain I am better or worse off after 4♠, but if partner passes, I guess I am doubling now, because my hand is better defensively than the splinter implied. Next move is up to partner, but he doesnt know about my clubs.

[Codo]

I had choosen 3 ♠, second choice 2 ♦. Why should I hide my support?

After 3 ♠ X now is easy.

[pclayton]

Across the table I held: ♠Jxx ♥Kxx ♦AKxxx ♣Qx. I felt a showed a minimum with no clear direction when I passed over 4♠. I don't think my pass was forcing, since 2♦ only showed a limit raise +. Its even conceivable that we'll defend 4♠ here. Surely better hands can Double, 4N, 5♣ or 5♦ over 4♠ (What do you think 4N shows?).

As far as 'good minimums', I felt this fell into the 80% percentile. Opposite a hand that is making a slam try, I had no spade wastage, a key card in his side suit and the ♦AK.

The funny thing was, we actually gained IMPS for 6♦ -1. RHO held some 8=4=0=1 freak and unless the defense finds their heart ruff, 5♠ is cold. -850 was a very common score.

Later my pard told me that he thought 5♣ was informational, in case they competed to 5♠. He was also perplexed how I knew he had spade shortage, but I think this is rather self-evident.

[Cascade]

I bid 3♠.

I am not so sure about double now.

Partner had the opportunity to double if he wanted with a defensive hand.

Partner's pass must be forcing and therefore suggest extras otherwise he can just bid 5♣. He won't be passing on a nebulous hand to see whether I want to double 4♠ since I have already shown my singleton spade and he knows I don't have a stack. I expect ♠ xxx or ♠ Axx or similar and a decent hand for the pass.

I have controls in both side suits and a little extra distribution - the 5th club, the 5th diamond, the doubleton heart (depending on how you look at it).

On the other hand I only have one key-card. There is no reason though why partner cannot have three key-cards with say no control in clubs

♠ Axx
♥ KQx
♦ AKxxx
♣ Qx

What I bid now is a problem though ...

If I try 4NT then we are in trouble if partner shows two key-cards.

If I try 5♣ I suppose it is conceivable that partner will think I have no control in hearts.

But I can't really think of a good alternative so I bid 5♣.

[rogerclee]

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Across the table I held: ♠Jxx ♥Kxx ♦AKxxx ♣Qx. I felt a showed a minimum with no clear direction

I think this is only true if partner interprets pass as nonforcing. I do not think it should be, though, since any hand with extras now has to make a guess without any input from partner.

[Cascade]

I think that double should show something specific in this auction (after the 3♠ splinter) not specifically offering defense.

[pclayton]

It is curious how both 2♣ and 3♠ should set up as force and 2♦ doesn't. When pard passes 4♠, its a totally different type of problem, because the pass indicates different things depending on what call you started with.

[pclayton]

rogerclee, on Dec 29 2007, 10:47 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Across the table I held: ♠Jxx ♥Kxx ♦AKxxx ♣Qx. I felt a showed a minimum with no clear direction

I think this is only true if partner interprets pass as nonforcing. I do not think it should be, though, since any hand with extras now has to make a guess without any input from partner.

I don't know anyone that would play a pass after a limit raise or better at green as forcing.

[rogerclee]

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Dec 29 2007, 10:47 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Across the table I held: ♠Jxx ♥Kxx ♦AKxxx ♣Qx. I felt a showed a minimum with no clear direction

I think this is only true if partner interprets pass as nonforcing. I do not think it should be, though, since any hand with extras now has to make a guess without any input from partner.

I don't know anyone that would play a pass after a limit raise or better at green as forcing.

Well, for instructive value, can someone explain why? I don't know what "everybody plays" here; I hadn't thought about it before, and was just thinking what I thought it should be. Playing it forcing seems to gain a lot of the time, especially when partner's inv+ is a GF. It seems to me that if you play pass is NF, its only purpose is to say that you have a minimum without a spade stack. Any hand with extras, but not an extreme amount of extras, has to double. This might feel more comfortable at these colors, but if you're r/w, this is a tougher problem.

Also, how about if the overcall had been 5S; would pass be nonforcing here too?

[Cascade]

A limit raise might be a decent 9-count with a bit of distribution and five diamonds.

Opener's most likely hand is a minimum balanced hand.

It seems crazy to me that when you combine these you have set up a force at the four-level (which might commit you to the five-level) when you have barely half of the deck.

[rogerclee]

Cascade, on Dec 29 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

A limit raise might be a decent 9-count with a bit of distribution and five diamonds.

Opener's most likely hand is a minimum balanced hand.

It seems crazy to me that when you combine these you have set up a force at the four-level (which might commit you to the five-level) when you have barely half of the deck.

Opener's most likely hand is minimum balanced. However, (and I'm not sure how to compute this at all) I suspect that it is not his holding a majority of the time.

I think you'd also agree that making an inverted minor on a distributional 9-count happens fairly infrequently; most of mine are actually just GFish-type hands that want to allow for the possibility that partner has a bunch of diamonds and that 5D/6D is better than 3NT.

Maybe I'm being sort of silly, but hitting 4S and watching it make doesn't hurt me too badly. Watching us go +150 instead of +500 would hurt a lot more.

[Echognome]

rogerclee, on Dec 29 2007, 11:12 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Dec 29 2007, 10:47 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 29 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Across the table I held: ♠Jxx ♥Kxx ♦AKxxx ♣Qx. I felt a showed a minimum with no clear direction

I think this is only true if partner interprets pass as nonforcing. I do not think it should be, though, since any hand with extras now has to make a guess without any input from partner.

I don't know anyone that would play a pass after a limit raise or better at green as forcing.

Well, for instructive value, can someone explain why? I don't know what "everybody plays" here; I hadn't thought about it before, and was just thinking what I thought it should be. Playing it forcing seems to gain a lot of the time, especially when partner's inv+ is a GF. It seems to me that if you play pass is NF, its only purpose is to say that you have a minimum without a spade stack. Any hand with extras, but not an extreme amount of extras, has to double. This might feel more comfortable at these colors, but if you're r/w, this is a tougher problem.

Also, how about if the overcall had been 5S; would pass be nonforcing here too?

Mikeh explained so well in a previous thread. Maybe he remembers which one and can link it, but since I don't, I'll just explain the concept.

Pass is forcing as far as the partnership is already forced. Sounds crazy I know.

So if partner makes an inverted raise that is limit or better, how far would we have been forced? We wouldn't have been forced to game. So we would either have been forced to 2NT or 3m depending on your agreements. So let's just say 3m since it's higher. So if the overcall had been 3♠ then pass would not have been forcing and it's even conceivable to let them play 3♠ undoubled.

Once I learned that rule, it made these FP situations sooo much easier.

[whereagles]

jdonn, on Dec 29 2007, 12:13 AM, said:

whereagles, on Dec 28 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

1♦ . (pass) 2♣ (4♠)
pass (pass) 5♦

Life seems easy so far.. lol.

1. This is why I don't like 2♣. What if partner DOUBLES 4♠? Merry guessing.

2. If you splinter you can happily defend 4♠X when it's right.

3. I don't understand your arguments. They were
- People don't have suitable followups to splinters, which I don't understand or agree with (3NT to play, cuebids, what could be easier?) In fact it's 1♦ 2♣ auctions where many have bad agreements or no agreements.

4. - This hand is not suitable for a splinter, so your argument was just repeating your point. Well in fairness to you, you were more making an argument about splinters in general than about this hand when you said people often splinter on unsuitable hands.

5. "I hate having chicken for dinner because my wife always burns it." That ignores the point that when cooked properly, chicken can be delicious

6. And then you finish by saying pard might be weaker than your 11 count? Huh?

1. At that stage you don't know opps are going to bid 4♠. Ok, you can suspect they might, that's too long a shot to take profilatic action. At least for me.

2. I got a huge distributional hand. Unless pard is doubling on a 4-4-3-2 shape (which I can't guess), I'm not sure about leaving the dbl in is best.

3. The problem with splinters is they waste so much bidding space that they have to be limited in hcp AND playing strength. This hand has the right hcp for splintering but has too much playing strength.

4. Correct. I think splinters are often misplayed due to lack of follow-up strategy.

5. Try brazilian rodízio. Just blows any chicken Chicken is pretty tastless anyway. Requires a lot of spice to taste like something... lol.

6. Weaker in distributional terms. I consider my hand stronger than pard's usual balanced 12-14

[jdeegan]

2♦. Yoicks. I just have to weigh in on this. 2♣, imho, SUCKS because you can't guarantee game in a minor suit opposite partner's minimum with only a confirmed one suit fit in diamonds. 3♠ could work, but it uses a lot of bidding space and is, in effect, a one trick pony. The 2♦ bid appears to me to be ideal as it is flexible and lays a solid predicate for further dialogue.

Personally, I have had problems playing inverted minor raises - probably because I'm not very good at using them. Still, if one is going to play them, this seems the ideal hand.

[FrancesHinden]

It doesn't seem very popular, but I much prefer 2D to 2C, assuming we have some decent follow-ups.

I'm used to playing an immediate splinter as a void, but if it shows a singleton I am happy with 3S here, particularly if we don't play any decent kit after an inverted raise.

After the 4S overcall I bid 5D whatever I bid last round. I wouldn't double 4S having splintered due to my lack of defence.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 31 2007, 02:48 AM, said:

It doesn't seem very popular, but I much prefer 2D to 2C, assuming we have some decent follow-ups.

I'm used to playing an immediate splinter as a void, but if it shows a singleton I am happy with 3S here, particularly if we don't play any decent kit after an inverted raise.

After the 4S overcall I bid 5D whatever I bid last round. I wouldn't double 4S having splintered due to my lack of defence.

With the actual hand, if pard bid 2♦, I'm raising to 3♦ (too weak to show my spade stopper) using typical methods.

This is a great advertisement for 2m+ 1 = weak NT. After this start we can sort out stops efficiently.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Dec 31 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

This is a great advertisement for 2m+ 1 = weak NT. After this start we can sort out stops efficiently.

Funnily enough, I do play 2m+1 = weak NT (or rather weak or super strong NT), but I find the benefit of that is not in subsequent stop-hunting but rather sorting out the game/slam bidding when opener doesn't have a weak NT, as well as allowing the partnership to stop in 2NT.

My husband once wrote some very complicated relay kit after an inverted raise to sort out matching weak doubletons and avoid hopeless 3NTs. We bid 100+ hands with it to try it out, and found that opener had a weak NT we always played in 3m, 2NT or 3NT anyway, so we gave it up as all that happened was that oppo knew more about our shape.

[pgeerkens]

On minor-raised hands, the two most critical decisions for the partnership are:
1) Are we game-going, or just part-score?
2) Are we playing a minor or NT?

Using Lawrence & Wirberg's SST/WP analysis I get:
1) SST = 3, so expected tricks = (13-3) = 10 + power adjustment
2) My 11 HCP are all working, and partner has 12+ HCP for 23 total points.
i) If partner has 0 or 1 points in spades, our power adjustment is +1,
and we want to be in at least 5D;
ii) If partner has 4+ points in spades, we probably want to play in 3NT;
iii) The problem comes when partner has a couple of point in spades, and
otherwise a bare minimum. We want to buy the hand for 3D, but will
compete to 4D if we can buy the hand and double them at the 4 level.

I believe the bidding 3S initially gives partner the most assistance in making a sensible decision on what his hand is worth opposite mine.

After the 4S interference (If opponent knows I am stiff or void, does he bid 3S or 5S instead of 4S?), and partner's forcing pass (clearly forcing after my GF splinter), I bid 5C. Slam is still possible, so all I can do is to inform partner that C/D controls are the key to the decision.

[helene_t]

I tend to avoid 2♦ because I never have good agreements about follow-ups, but in theory it should be the correct bid, I think.

2♣ I really hate, partner will never understand I have 5-card support if I don't show it immediately.

3♠ I can live with and in fact it would be my choice in the absence of good agreements after 2♦. But if 2♦ denies a small singleton, you might at well not play it since you will very often have a singleton when you have primary support and no 4-card major.

I'd like 3♠ to show a very specific hand, and bid hands like his one via 2♦.