[jwmonty]

3D. I remember this hand from when it ran in the magazine. Hardly anyone on the MSC panel wanted to bid this, and it seems the same is true here.

It seems really obvious to me to bid diamonds now. Partner has five good diamonds at least, and is more likely to have six. With Jxx, you have more, and better, diamonds than you could have been expected to hold on the auction. With AK A A on the side, you contribute four tricks in a diamond contract, plus a likely heart ruff (if partner has a weak hand with a doubleton heart, the opps have nine combined and probably either will, or should, bid 3H anyway).

If partner has KQ109x(x) of diamonds and out, a diamond contract is where you want to be. In notrump, opener will hold up his ace and kill partner's hand. If partner has more than that, or holds the ace of diamonds instead of the king, he can bid 3H to ask you for a stopper.

Bidding some number of notrump now won't get the job done. Partner will think you have some kind of, perhaps, 4=3=1=5 shape with extra values. Even if he credits you with more than one diamond, he will expect a doubleton rather than three of them. In any event, if you are going to play a partscore diamonds has to be better than notrump. You don't want to be in notrump unless it is game.

A 3D bid here clears away any confusion that could result from a different call. It tells partner: Good hand, unexpected diamond fit, let's consider game, and we can expect to make 3D if there is nothing better for us to do. Isn't this just about perfect? The only argument I can really see against it is that this hand is so strong you should gamble on a game anyway (because partner won't necessarily know when to carry on toward game). So if not 3D, blasting 3NT (another bid with little support) seems like the alternative.

[mikeh]

It is not surprising that no-one likes his or her choices. This is a relatively unexplored area of bridge theory, and we have to cater to a lot of uncertainty about partner's hand. Years ago, I passed my partner's direct seat takeout double of 1♠ with J1097xxx xx xx xx... not because I was sure I could beat it, but because I had nowhere to go, and so on this hand, if partner was 2=2=6=3 with Q109xxx in diamonds, what do we expect him to do?

playing partner for AQ98xx in diamonds seems somewhat optimistic to me.

and opposite any lesser diamond holding, we are flat out down in 3N... rho will hold 5+ hearts and lho almost certainly holds 3+.

Raising diamonds is the best way to ensure a plus opposite a bad hand, but makes it impossible for partner to evaluate a so-so hand..... should he venture game with AQ98xx but not KQ109xx?

My view is that 1N is the best, even tho it is an underbid in terms of point count... if I held Axx in hearts (say one less black spot) I would bid 2N, intending to shut out rho's 5 card heart suit. 1n has the advantage of showing at least diamond tolerance and a good hand, so that partner has the best chance to do the right thing.. he can pull to 2♦ with the long weak suit, and may work out that he needs a good suit, headed by the Ace, since he rates to have no sure side entry, in order to bid or invite 3N.

Nothing is perfect.. this is as far from a wtp? as I can recall.

[OleBerg]

2♥

I am forcing this one to game.

Should partner have four spades, hearts are a favorite to be quite open.

[rogerclee]

jwmonty, on Feb 27 2009, 09:03 AM, said:

3D.  I remember this hand from when it ran in the magazine.  Hardly anyone on the MSC panel wanted to bid this, and it seems the same is true here.

It seems really obvious to me to bid diamonds now.  Partner has five good diamonds at least, and is more likely to have six.  With Jxx, you have more, and better, diamonds than you could have been expected to hold on the auction.  With AK A A on the side, you contribute four tricks in a diamond contract, plus a likely heart ruff (if partner has a weak hand with a doubleton heart, the opps have nine combined and probably either will, or should, bid 3H anyway).

If partner has KQ109x(x) of diamonds and out, a diamond contract is where you want to be.  In notrump, opener will hold up his ace and kill partner's hand.  If partner has more than that, or holds the ace of diamonds instead of the king, he can bid 3H to ask you for a stopper.

Bidding some number of notrump now won't get the job done.  Partner will think you have some kind of, perhaps, 4=3=1=5 shape with extra values.  Even if he credits you with more than one diamond, he will expect a doubleton rather than three of them.  In any event, if you are going to play a partscore diamonds has to be better than notrump.  You don't want to be in notrump unless it is game.

A 3D bid here clears away any confusion that could result from a different call.  It tells partner:  Good hand, unexpected diamond fit, let's consider game, and we can expect to make 3D if there is nothing better for us to do.  Isn't this just about perfect?  The only argument I can really see against it is that this hand is so strong you should gamble on a game anyway (because partner won't necessarily know when to carry on toward game).  So if not 3D, blasting 3NT (another bid with little support) seems like the alternative.

I like this post a lot and agree that 3♦ is the best call.

[kenrexford]

I partner actually bids, that tells us nothing about his values. He coud be 4333 with a 0-count. When he passes, however, this shows some sort of values. Hence, this is not, IMO, aking to a rebid after partner makes a forced call.

Of course, I have no idea what is standard.

Using my personal logic, though, it seems that NT ranges are different here. What they are seems to be in debate. But, I cannot imagine that 1NT shows 15-17 and 2NT 18-19.

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Feb 27 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

This is a relatively unexplored area of bridge theory

Yes, probably because it doesn't happen so often that p has a trap pass at the 1-level when we have a strong hand with length in the enemy suit ourselves.

[mikeh]

OleBerg, on Feb 27 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

2♥

I am forcing this one to game.

Should partner have four spades, hearts are a favorite to be quite open.

I can't see this. I suppose that it is possible that partner holds 4 spades, a penalty pass of 1♦ and enough to make game, but surely we don't need to bid 2♥ in that case?

I can't imagine him passing over 1N with that kind of hand, and in the meantime, when he does have the more common weakish hand with nothing but long diamonds, we have committed our side to a minus score: unless we are intending to pass 3♦... and if we are, 1N will get us to a safer 2♦ anyway.


As for the 3♦ call, which I like a lot... but not more than 1N.... my concerns are twofold.

1stly, we may flat out be too high. Yes, this is improbable, and if it were the only major issue, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

The second issue, and the main reason I prefer 1N, is that partner is endplayed in the auction over 3♦. He should be bidding 3♥, to try for 3N, if he has a good 6 card suit, but how can he tell that KQ10xxx isn't enough... or that AQ9xxx isn't enough? I'm not saying that 1N answers that question either, but it isn't as emphatic about diamonds as is 3N: I would expect that he will only bid 3N over 1N if he has goodish diamonds headed by the AQ or AK... since our typical diamond holding for 1N will be Hx rather than Hxx. A fine distinction, certainly, but this is a complex problem and I think that fine distinctions come into play most prominently in such problems.

[OleBerg]

mikeh, on Feb 27 2009, 07:39 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Feb 27 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

2♥

I am forcing this one to game.

Should partner have four spades, hearts are a favorite to be quite open.

I can't see this. I suppose that it is possible that partner holds 4 spades, a penalty pass of 1♦ and enough to make game, but surely we don't need to bid 2♥ in that case?

I can't imagine him passing over 1N with that kind of hand, and in the meantime, when he does have the more common weakish hand with nothing but long diamonds, we have committed our side to a minus score: unless we are intending to pass 3♦... and if we are, 1N will get us to a safer 2♦ anyway.


As for the 3♦ call, which I like a lot... but not more than 1N.... my concerns are twofold.

1stly, we may flat out be too high. Yes, this is improbable, and if it were the only major issue, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

The second issue, and the main reason I prefer 1N, is that partner is endplayed in the auction over 3♦. He should be bidding 3♥, to try for 3N, if he has a good 6 card suit, but how can he tell that KQ10xxx isn't enough... or that AQ9xxx isn't enough? I'm not saying that 1N answers that question either, but it isn't as emphatic about diamonds as is 3N: I would expect that he will only bid 3N over 1N if he has goodish diamonds headed by the AQ or AK... since our typical diamond holding for 1N will be Hx rather than Hxx. A fine distinction, certainly, but this is a complex problem and I think that fine distinctions come into play most prominently in such problems.

I am with you quite some of the way.

In general, when you answer these "what should you bid" questions, I see two approaches.

1) What would you do, if this happened at the table.
2) What is theoretically the best bid.

I used 1) on this. If this happened at the table, I would be too afraid, that partner and I were not on the same wavelength if I bid 1NT.

1NT might very well be the theoretical best bid, but as I am not even certain what I believe it should show, I wil not try and guess what partner thinks.

And yes, normally I'd use 2), even at the table, but as others have mentioned, this is quite an unexplored area.

[jdonn]

Gerben42, on Feb 27 2009, 04:09 AM, said:

1NT can't be right, partner will pass too often when we have 3NT. I'll bid 2NT with Josh's reasoning but instead trying to get the strength right....

You're right, I answered too quickly and messed up my ranges over minors vs majors. I balance 1NT over a minor with 11-14, double then 1NT with 15-16, double then 2NT (over a 1 level bid) with 17-18. Anyway I still don't see why this is hard, we have a balanced hand so we show our range. As for bidding 3♦, I would rather show my balanced hand as balanced, and avoid making a bid that probably no one in the universe knows the range of. Partner will at least have an inference that my hearts aren't amazing since I didn't double 1♥.

To me all the worrying about partner's hand is misplaced, since ours is so easy to show.

[skjaeran]

Tough problem.
1NT in balancing seat would show 11-14 to me.
1NT now would be 15-17 and 2NT 18-20 IMO.
Put me down for 2NT, I think that's the best chance to reach game when it's right. The downside is that it's most probably the wrong contract when we're left to play there...

[bid_em_up]

deleted, misread problem.

[helene_t]

I thought 1NT must be right on values since if it wasn't, we would have bid 2NT immediately:
1NT: 11-14
x then 1NT: 15-17
2NT: 18-19
x then 2NT: 20-21

... and our choice of x indicates that x then 1NT includes 18 points.

But apparently some have different agreements. Actually I am not sure if I have discussed this with my Lancaster partner.

[H_KARLUK]

1nt (15-17)
X then 1Nt promises more

[mtvesuvius]

H_KARLUK, on Feb 27 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

1nt (15-17)
X then 1Nt promises more

I'm not sure if the standard Balancing NT in different where you live, but AFAIK a Balancing 1NT is 11-14, so rebidding 1NT now would show the 15-17ish type hand.

[H_KARLUK]

Adam
Maybe you make some guess about th best minimum for doubler's partner. Then hopefully we find out a solution.

[Winstonm]

I don't think there is much doubt we have some game contract - partner's passing the double and our Jxx in diamonds argues that partner has some values outside diamonds or the diamonds will run. Question is will Ax of heart be enough stopper. I think it is imperative to get this right-sided if NT is right and I would bid 2H, hoping it would be construed as I mean it.

[mikeh]

1NT is definitely an underbid on high card point count values, but aren't we allowed/supposed to think about the play when we make bids, especially when the auction tells us as much as this one does?

Sure, 1N here shows '15-17', but we can be morally certain that we can't make 3N if we have a diamond loser, and what partner would pass a positionally strong 6 card diamond suit after we show 15-17? Is partner a walter the walrus, who will reason that AQ10xxx is only 6 points and therefore we can't have enough for game opposite 15-17? He knows that even xx in our hand gives us chances.

As I mentioned earlier, this is an easy 2N if we held Axx in hearts.. they'd need to be on a 4=5 or 4=6 fit before rho is running the suit. But when partner holds 6 diamonds, there is far too much risk of the opps having 3=6 or 4=5.

I disagree with those who argue that 1N could be on a stiff diamond. We would either have a double of 1♥ (suggesting but not mandating playing for a penalty) or a biddable black suit... no way would we be making a bid that begs for a minus score opposite Q10xxxx in diamonds, which is an entirely foreseeable holding.

Neat problem

[hatchett]

I also like the arguments for 3♦. Put me down for that bid.

[OleBerg]

mikeh, on Feb 27 2009, 10:35 PM, said:

Neat problem

Couldn't agree more.

[mtvesuvius]

OleBerg, on Feb 28 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

mikeh, on Feb 27 2009, 10:35 PM, said:

Neat problem

Couldn't agree more.

With the Smiley Face or what he said?