[han]

Anyways, you got yourself into trouble by making an idiotic bid on the last round. Is there anything that you can do to control the damage?

Scoring: IMP

---

(1H) - p - (2H) - 2S
(4H) - p - (p) - ??

Your call?

[jillybean]

What sort of ***** would bid like this? When I have these types of auctions atleast
I put them in the b/i forum. no offense intended

[han]

A *** like me.

[mikeh]

1. I would have bid 2♠ as well

2. That is, in itself, not much of an argument that it wasn't idiotic.. but I really think it was the correct bid

3. We now have to double. I would have bid 2♠ on the same hand and suit without any minor suit honours... it is primarily a competitive bid at the time, but doesn't deny or promise a decent hand. Since I have a good hand, I double to bring partner back into the picture

4. I have gone -590 on these auctions, and -300/500 is not beyond the realm of possibility, but you can't pass. This is analogous to another recent thread where the expert consensus was that we had to bid over their game, since the opps could be stealing... and they could easily be stealing here... or it could be a double game swing....

[jdonn]

Haha yesterday Justin gave me this bidding problem a round earlier. I said double after some thought. And the more we thought about it and discussed it the more I realized double is automatic even with "only" a 16 count (unless you play 3♠ is a good hand of course). It's certainly counterintuitive, but 2♠ is auto game-miss bid even though it's very instinctive.

This round I won't answer since I already know what happened, but I have very strong feelings that also aren't necessarily intuitive....

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Apr 3 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

Haha yesterday Justin gave me this bidding problem a round earlier. I said double after some thought. And the more we thought about it and discussed it the more I realized double is automatic even with "only" a 16 count (unless you play 3♠ is a good hand of course). It's certainly counterintuitive, but 2♠ is auto game-miss bid even though it's very instinctive.

This round I won't answer since I already know what happened, but I have very strong feelings that also aren't necessarily intuitive....

If you double, are you not virtually forced to bid 4♠ over 4♥?

It seems to me that the chance that 4♠ is right are too high to pass, and I don't see a second double as any kind of option at all.

If we anticipate a 4♥ call, and that isn't irrational, then it seems to me that 2♠ then double allows us to defend when right, play 4♠ when right and even, with a very odd hand over there, get to 5minor when right, whereas double and 4♠ rules out at least one of these options.

[hotShot]

This hand is much better than what I would usually hold for an 2♠ bid. So I would have bid something else.
Both (3)4♠ or dbl would have been acceptable bids last round, but bidding one of them now is bad style. So stick to your first bid and pass.

[han]

I actually think that 3S good hand is automatic the first time and I also think that that's how we play it. Maybe cherdano can confirm this.

I'd still like to hear your counter-intuitive but strong thoughts on the second question Josh.

[han]

hotShot, on Apr 3 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

This hand is much better than what I would usually hold for an 2♠ bid. So I would have bid something else.
Both 4♠ or dbl would have been acceptable bids last round, but bidding one of them now is bad style. So stick to your first bid and pass.

How many IMPs do you get for good style?

You made a bid that you now think was very poor. What good does it do to say "ok, that's what I did last round, I should stick with that decision.

[mikeh]

han, on Apr 3 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

I actually think that 3S good hand is automatic the first time and I also think that that's how we play it. Maybe cherdano can confirm this.

I'd still like to hear your counter-intuitive but strong thoughts on the second question Josh.

If 3♠ at one's first call is strong, then 2♠ is idiotic, but I don't play it that way... it is purely preemptive for me. Maybe that is idiotic.... but I was surprised to see that it's strong meaning seems 'normal' to those who have commented on the issue so far. I don't see this as remotely the same as jumping to 3♠ over a weak 2♥, for example. And I really don't like the idea that I have to bid either 2 or 4♠ with a preemptive hand.

[655321]

Double.

Without a firm agreement that 3♠ shows a strong hand, I would never make the bid.
Don't mind the initial 2♠ bid. Of course, that means you need to double now, but I don't see that as a problem. Sometimes partner will be able to bid 4♠. Sometimes partner will be able to pass when they are not making. Sometimes partner will pass when they are making, but does this happen often enough for 2♠ then double to be clearly worse than double then 4♠, or double then double, (or even 3♠ originally)? My guess would be no.

BTW, if you think 2♠ was an idiotic bid, you should see some of the bids I have made!

[rogerclee]

Am I the only one who thinks 4♥x is making overtricks and that 4♠ is getting killed? Call me a coward, but I'll check this out without too much thought, the only other possibility being 4♠.

I think that if you x again, partner is pulling almost never.

[jdonn]

han, on Apr 3 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

I actually think that 3S good hand is automatic the first time and I also think that that's how we play it. Maybe cherdano can confirm this.

I'd still like to hear your counter-intuitive but strong thoughts on the second question Josh.

Well, pretty much what Mike is posting is what I would call standard expert thinking here. You bid first then double to leave more options open on the second round. Or as he says among other things, 2♠ then double "allows us to defend when right". This is generally good advice.

However I think on this hand in particular, it will far too often allow us to defend when wrong as well. This hand has a VERY high offense to defense ratio relative to a random hand of this shape and strength. No singleton heart honor or aces in the minors, but spades good enough to play opposite a singleton (heck, opposite a void). I claim that partner will pass the double of 4♥ waaaaaay too often, either because 4♥ is making, or very often because it's down 1 when we make 4♠. Sometimes both.

When you combine all that with the simple fact that a 2♠ overcall the first time will miss a LOT of games as you play in 2♠, especially when partner lacks spade support, I think deeper than a cursory analysis should show very convincingly that double the first time is correct, and that even if you bid 2♠ the first time you should bid 4♠ the next time instead of doubling.

Yes Mike, you are going to have to bid 4♠ if you double first. Just as I believe you should if you underbid 2♠ the first time. I simply think the intuitive bidding on this hand is lazy thinking.

[Apollo81]

This is close between Dbl and 4♠, I know I wouldn't pass. I think I would bid 4♠ actually. A round earlier I would have bid 3♠.

[gnasher]

I think that an initial 3♠ should be strong. A preemptive overcall is less effective once they have found a fit and limited one of their hands.

If 3♠ would be weak, I would risk 2♠ on the first round, because I don't want to be compelled to bid 4♠ on the next.

For the same reason, I would now double 4♥. Partner will expect me to have a strong 2♠ overcall with short hearts, typically a small singleton, and about three defensive tricks. Luckily, that is what I have.

[FrancesHinden]

I would also have bid 3S the first time. I also think this shows a good hand. After all, it's got a bit late for pre-emption once RHO has defined their hand very closely and it can easily be our hand.

Now, in spite of everything jdonn has said, I can't bring myself not to double.

[Cascade]

han, on Apr 4 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

I actually think that 3S good hand is automatic the first time and I also think that that's how we play it. Maybe cherdano can confirm this.

I'd still like to hear your counter-intuitive but strong thoughts on the second question Josh.

I think that is an excellent agreement.

There is much less point in pre-empting after the opponents have found their major fit. In after doesn't the very definition of pre-empt mean that we need to get in before them. Actually there is a possible small advantage to a pre-empt at this stage of the auction - they won't be able to use their fancy game-tries.

However I think it is much more likely we will have a decent hand too good for 2♠ - I'd bid 2♠ on a lot of rubbish that I wouldn't ordinarily overcall at the two-level after they have found a fit to help partner with a lead or suggest a sacrifice or to push them one-level higher. So it makes a lot of sense for this jump to be stronger.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Apr 4 2008, 09:27 AM, said:

han, on Apr 3 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

I actually think that 3S good hand is automatic the first time and I also think that that's how we play it. Maybe cherdano can confirm this.

I'd still like to hear your counter-intuitive but strong thoughts on the second question Josh.

Well, pretty much what Mike is posting is what I would call standard expert thinking here. You bid first then double to leave more options open on the second round. Or as he says among other things, 2♠ then double "allows us to defend when right". This is generally good advice.

However I think on this hand in particular, it will far too often allow us to defend when wrong as well. This hand has a VERY high offense to defense ratio relative to a random hand of this shape and strength. No singleton heart honor or aces in the minors, but spades good enough to play opposite a singleton (heck, opposite a void). I claim that partner will pass the double of 4♥ waaaaaay too often, either because 4♥ is making, or very often because it's down 1 when we make 4♠. Sometimes both.

When you combine all that with the simple fact that a 2♠ overcall the first time will miss a LOT of games as you play in 2♠, especially when partner lacks spade support, I think deeper than a cursory analysis should show very convincingly that double the first time is correct, and that even if you bid 2♠ the first time you should bid 4♠ the next time instead of doubling.

Yes Mike, you are going to have to bid 4♠ if you double first. Just as I believe you should if you underbid 2♠ the first time. I simply think the intuitive bidding on this hand is lazy thinking.

I agree this hand is far too short on defensive tricks to double the second time.

[mikeh]

Cascade, on Apr 3 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

han, on Apr 4 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

I actually think that 3S good hand is automatic the first time and I also think that that's how we play it. Maybe cherdano can confirm this.

I'd still like to hear your counter-intuitive but strong thoughts on the second question Josh.

I think that is an excellent agreement.

There is much less point in pre-empting after the opponents have found their major fit. In after doesn't the very definition of pre-empt mean that we need to get in before them. Actually there is a possible small advantage to a pre-empt at this stage of the auction - they won't be able to use their fancy game-tries.

However I think it is much more likely we will have a decent hand too good for 2♠ - I'd bid 2♠ on a lot of rubbish that I wouldn't ordinarily overcall at the two-level after they have found a fit to help partner with a lead or suggest a sacrifice or to push them one-level higher. So it makes a lot of sense for this jump to be stronger.

I am sorry to rain on the parade of all of the '3♠ is strong' advocates, especially since they include players whose opinions I greatly respect. I am not denying that, on some hands, it is worthwhile.. this hand is great for the usage. But it really is not right to argue that there is no need for a preempt once rho has defined his hand.

We may as well say that we should always pass once the opps open 1N. Heck that bid is better defined than most players single raise of an opening bid.. why bother bidding at all?

We can usefully preempt over the 2♥ raise for several valid reasons.

1. RHO might be about to make a game try, leading to correct evaluation by RHO. They are more likely to bid a good game or avoid a bad game if we give them room

2. RHO may be about to make a slam move... a very tiny group of hands, but not unheard of... I have this as no. 2 not because of its importance... it is the least of the issues, but it is similar, in a way, to no.1: give the opps room and they will bid more accurately than if we take away bidding space (of course, on occasion the info we give them from our preempt will backfire on us)

3. We may have a game!!!! Yes, it is true... when we hold a long, strong suit, our partner may have enough to bid game and allow us to make it

4. We may have a making partscore, giving the opps the choice of overbidding and going down or defending a making contract

5. We may want to get a lead or, without knowing it, dissuade partner from a normal but unfortunate lead in a plain suit. Usually, leading our preemptive suit will be safer than leading away from an honour in a suit in which we are both weak and short. And sometimes partner will lead an Ace in our suit that we would never score.. who leads A from Axx in an unbid suit against 1♥ 2♥ 4♥?

6. We may have a save, which we can't get unless we TELL PARTNER about our hand.

7. We may have a penalty available. Note that if we lump pure preempts in with 2♠ hands, which I would expect (at equal or unfav vul) to contain at least a semblance of a defensive trisk or 2, partner cannot afford to double unless he has them set in his own hand. While, if he knows that our 2-bid likely delivers a trick or maybe a trick and a half, he can take a piece of more failing contracts after a 2-level bid. I am assuming that we aren't simply passing with preemptive hands.. we are either doing almost nothing by bidding a quiet 2♠ or doing too much by bidding 4♠

There may be other reasons others can list, but I think these are enough to demonstrate that, while there may be compelling reasons to use 3♠ as strong, the lack of any need for a preempt isn't one of them.

And I simply don't agree that there is no difference, for example, between KQJxxxx x Jxx xx (an equal vulnerability 3♠ bid to me) and KQJxxx xx Axx xx (an equal vulnerability 2♠ bid for me). If you think 4♠ is correct for the first, water it down to the point that you'd prefer to bid 3 if 3 were preemptive.