[gwnn]

Does this exist? If it exists, try to construct a possible hand.

p-p-1♠*-2♣
2♠-4♣-p-p
4♠-end

where 1♠ can be ridiculously light and the initial pass denies 12+balanced and 10+unbalanced(and a very sexy 9 count)

do the form of scoring and vulnerability matter?

[helene_t]

Maybe a hand with ♣xxx, it improves due to partner being bound to have shortness.

But I'm not so fond of bidding partner's hand on the basis of opps' bidding. More a matter of principle than of experience. So no, I prefer to say it doesn't exist.

[TimG]

I can imagine a hand that will drive to 4♠ even opposite a 3rd hand opening (especially if the partnership has some restrictions to opening a weak two with a void or side four-card major). But, I find it difficult to come up with a hand that is consistent with an initial 2♠ and a later 4♠. helene's ♣xxx suggestion is good, but I'm not sure it's enough.

[kenrexford]

Weird tactics, so yes.

There is a well-known tactical ruse wherein a person who has superior informational advantage can on occasion operate in a way that low-balls, with full expectation of coming back in later. "Walking the dog," if you will.

The type of hand that I would expect is not, therefore, a hand with "xxx" in clubs and renewed interest based upon assumptions now formed. The hand type that I would anticipate would feature a club void, long trump support, and a trick source.

For example, imagine holding a hand like ♠Kxxxx ♥xx ♦AQ10xxx ♣V. You pass first seat because this seems to make sense. After another pass, partner opens 1♠, and you hear a 2♣ overcall. Although I would take a specific action, it is entirely plauible that someone might decide to low-ball 2♠, expecting that this will not end the auction and expecting that he can later be "forced" into a 4♠ call and perhaps buy it there, or maybe induce a bad double. This has some appeal and might work.

So, I'd expect that Responder is operating out of superior informational advantage and has club shortness (probably a void), a side trick source, and extra trump support, with willingness to risk an unlikely pass-out at 2♠ for tactical reasons.

[kfay]

kenrexford, on Feb 28 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Weird tactics, so yes.

There is a well-known tactical ruse wherein a person who has superior informational advantage can on occasion operate in a way that low-balls, with full expectation of coming back in later. "Walking the dog," if you will.

For example, imagine holding a hand like ♠Kxxxx ♥xx ♦AQ10xxx ♣V. You pass first seat because this seems to make sense.

This seems to be an opener in light of the OP but I agree with your post on general principles.

[gwnn]

kevin you're the only person on this planet who has the general principle of agreeing with kenrexford no matter what.

[cherdano]

kenrexford, on Feb 28 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

For example, imagine holding a hand like ♠Kxxxx ♥xx ♦AQ10xxx ♣V. You pass first seat because this seems to make sense. After another pass, partner opens 1♠, and you hear a 2♣ overcall. Although I would take a specific action, it is entirely plauible that someone might decide to low-ball 2♠, expecting that this will not end the auction and expecting that he can later be "forced" into a 4♠ call and perhaps buy it there, or maybe induce a bad double. This has some appeal and might work.

So, I'd expect that Responder is operating out of superior informational advantage and has club shortness (probably a void), a side trick source, and extra trump support, with willingness to risk an unlikely pass-out at 2♠ for tactical reasons.

I am very happy that my partners don't do this. Ever.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Feb 28 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 28 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

For example, imagine holding a hand like ♠Kxxxx ♥xx ♦AQ10xxx ♣V.  You pass first seat because this seems to make sense.  After another pass, partner opens 1♠, and you hear a 2♣ overcall.  Although I would take a specific action, it is entirely plauible that someone might decide to low-ball 2♠, expecting that this will not end the auction and expecting that he can later be "forced" into a 4♠ call and perhaps buy it there, or maybe induce a bad double.  This has some appeal and might work.

So, I'd expect that Responder is operating out of superior informational advantage and has club shortness (probably a void), a side trick source, and extra trump support, with willingness to risk an unlikely pass-out at 2♠ for tactical reasons.

I am very happy that my partners don't do this. Ever.

Same here. masterminding these auctions and 'walking the dog' went out with the Betamax.

[skjaeran]

If someone actually bid like this, this sequence exist - for this person.

For myself, no, I can't imagine bidding like this, maybe I could prepetrate this in an extreme situation, although I doubt that.

[Apollo81]

he had some spades in with his clubs until his third call

this actually happened to me once during a midnight when i was tired, i had 5 small hearts and thought i had 3325 shape but I was really 3505 and was able to rectify the situation at my second call

[han]

Agree with awm.

[kenrexford]

If you never walk the dog, then the dog piddles in your house too much.

This specific instance may be strange, but the general principle seems to be sound, and quite effective. When one partner has a wild informational advantage over the opponents, that seems to be an asset to protect. If you always blast to a predicted bid with a predicted hand type, the opponents will be quite able to read the situation well. So, mixing it up a bit (with a partner who recognizes and appreciates the value of that approach) can be quite lucrative.

I cannot remember who it was, maybe Edgar Kaplan, maybe Al Roth, but one of the old school geniuses noted many similar principles frequently. A lesser example is bidding "two only hearts" because you know that 4♥ will yield 4♠ and you expect that 4♠ will fail by one trick NV and that 5♥ cannot be made. +170 beats +100.

I've seen many examples of this. One of my favorite auctions against world-class players in a team game in Gatlinburg was a classic. The auction at both tables was almost identical, with all directions bidding something at some point. There were two differences, however. At our table, my first bid as Responder was different than that at the other table. Rather than raise hearts after a spade overcall, I bid a passive and ever-so-slightly misleading 1NT. The other difference was that the last pass at our table, allowing us to declare 4♥, was replaced with a 4♠ call at the other table, a better decision.

For some, this approach drives them crazy. Personally, I love it when one partner uses his creative, tactical skills, because he is good at it. Not psyches. Tactical underbids or tactical aberrances as to contract selection.

[kfay]

gwnn, on Feb 28 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

kevin you're the only person on this planet who has the general principle of agreeing with kenrexford no matter what.

Woah woah woah. You can come up with a better reason why partner is bidding this way?

[gwnn]

kfay, on Feb 28 2008, 11:19 PM, said:

gwnn, on Feb 28 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

kevin you're the only person on this planet who has the general principle of agreeing with kenrexford no matter what.

Woah woah woah. You can come up with a better reason why partner is bidding this way?

yep. having a pd who always invents non-existent sequences, with no intentions of walking the dog etc.

[awm]

How about a hand like:

♠AQxxx
♥xx
♦Jxx
♣xxx

It seems like jumping to 4♠ right off with this hand is kind of pushy, because we are very balanced and partner could have some balanced hand at the other side of the table where we just go down a bunch opposite air.

But now that opponents found a big club fit, it seems like partner probably has a void in clubs. With a ten-card fit and a void opposite three small, odds of game just got way better, not to mention that 4♠ might be a good sacrifice against 4♣.

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on Feb 28 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

Does this exist? If it exists, try to construct a possible hand.

p-p-1♠*-2♣
2♠-4♣-p-p
4♠-end

where 1♠ can be ridiculously light and the initial pass denies 12+balanced and 10+unbalanced(and a very sexy 9 count)

do the form of scoring and vulnerability matter?

Yes, it does exist.

It means that partner wants to be doubled in 4♠. Whether he'll be happy at the end of the board after his wish has come true is an entirely different question.

I have had the fortune to have played with some true expert partners who were excellent at these types of auctions. This is a way to win lots of IMPs or MPs against average opponents, who will double "on the bidding" without asking themselves first whether the opponents are indeed insane.

The key thing is that you need to be reasonably sure that you can predict what your opponents will do. Therefore, the time to make these bids is when you know your opponents (or you have recognized the 'type'). These type of expert players do not only play the cards, they also play the opponents (without any exception they have a good table presence too).

And no, I will practically never bid like this myself. I am the unlucky expert type of player. I can only play my cards and my conventions and not my opponents. But the fact that I can't play my opponents doesn't mean that there aren't any other players who can.

Rik

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on Feb 29 2008, 10:17 AM, said:

It means that partner wants to be doubled in 4♠.

Spot on. I saw that tip in Zia's book. Not sure if he would recommend the strategy in this case, but maybe. Obviously depends on the kind of opps.

[Echognome]

awm, on Feb 28 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

How about a hand like:

♠AQxxx
♥xx
♦Jxx
♣xxx

It seems like jumping to 4♠ right off with this hand is kind of pushy, because we are very balanced and partner could have some balanced hand at the other side of the table where we just go down a bunch opposite air.

But now that opponents found a big club fit, it seems like partner probably has a void in clubs. With a ten-card fit and a void opposite three small, odds of game just got way better, not to mention that 4♠ might be a good sacrifice against 4♣.

The only problem with this is that opponents are allowed to reevaluate as well and we have zero defense if they figure out that a 5♣ call is right.