[kgr]

Scoring: IMP

---

(1♦)-p-(1♠)-p
(2♣)-All pass
I could have presented this as a bidding problem for E or for W and also for N.
How could EW have avoided this disaster (You will not like this, but 2♠ by E the first round would have shown ♣ and ♥ 2-suiter).

[hrothgar]

kgr, on Mar 17 2009, 01:29 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

(1♦)-p-(1♠)-p
(2♣)-All pass
I could have presented this as a bidding problem for E or for W and also for N.
How could EW have avoided this disaster (You will not like this, but 2♠ by E the first round would have shown ♣ and ♥ 2-suiter).

This is precisely WHY many pairs play that the 2♠ bid on the first round shows SPADES...

In any case, if you can't bid spades on the first round, then you need to introduce them on the second

[655321]

West could (should, IMO) make a takeout double of 1♦.
East should bid 2♠ in the passout seat.

[whereagles]

2♠ at some point by East.

[Cascade]

Even if 2♠ is natural the first time I don't think I am bidding that.

But 2♠ on the second round is attractive.

[jdonn]

I feel much more strongly that west should double 1♦ than that east should bid 2♠ on the second round.

[Cascade]

I agree.

Somehow when i first looked at this problem i thought that the opening bid had been 1♣

[dburn]

jdonn, on Mar 16 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

I feel much more strongly that west should double 1♦ than that east should bid 2♠ on the second round.

Curiously enough, while I agree that West should double 1♦, I can understand a partnership style that precludes it (double is either shape-suitable or a strong hand). But I cannot for the life of me understand an East who passes out 2♣.

For drill: what is 2♦ at East's second turn in this auction? It isn't silly to play double as majors, either equal length or longer hearts, and 2♦ as majors with longer spades.

For extra drill: if you do play 2♠ as natural, how strong is it? At first sight it may appear that you ought to have a pretty good hand to wander into an auction where LHO has opened, partner has not acted, and you are bidding a suit that will not always break very well. But experience suggests that an immediate 2♠ is better played as a decent weak jump overcall with a good suit, while a delayed 2♠ shows a good hand.

[jdonn]

For another drill we can spend time wondering what all the bids mean when we find out defending 2♣ in what might not have been a fit was our best spot. But there is only so much heart I can put into this discussion when we both appear to think both players should have acted and merely differ in extent of blame.

I find your suggestion about a direct 2♠ being weaker decidedly bizarre.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Mar 17 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

I agree.

Somehow when i first looked at this problem i thought that the opening bid had been 1♣

As a traditionalist, I'm pleased to learn that this still isn't a double of 1♣.

[paulg]

gnasher, on Mar 17 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 17 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

I agree.

Somehow when i first looked at this problem i thought that the opening bid had been 1♣

As a traditionalist, I'm pleased to learn that this still isn't a double of 1♣.

Does your partner agree?

[kgr]

Thanks all for the answers.
After the hand I agreed with my partner that I should have DBL'ed with the West hand. With 3/3 majors I guess this is a minimum DBL? At the table I didn't DBL because I feared that we would go to an unmakeable 4/3 fit.
In pass out seat I would suppose that both 2♦ and 2♠ by East would be natural. We play that a direct 2♦ or 2♠ shows 6♣-4♥ and 6♥-4♣.
Regards,
Koen
PS: Opps looked at our score of the previous round (20-10). As a result they were fully aware that they needed a good score to win the event....The 3 hands resulted in a big loss for us and going from 1st to 3rd place.

[MFA]

R/W east can't really bid 2♠ over 1♠, but balancing 2♠ seems very easy. Selling to 2♣ is strange. I would also have doubled as west, but it is minimum and I'm not religious about it.

[jdonn]

MFA, on Mar 17 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

R/W east can't really bid 2♠ over 1♠, but balancing 2♠ seems very easy. Selling to 2♣ is strange.

Why would it be strange to fail to balance into a suit an opponent has bid holding an aceless 9 count when their suit (which may not even be a fit) is likely to be breaking badly?

I don't doubt that many would balance with 2♠, perhaps including me. But I think this thread is just another case of the subconcious impact of knowing the full hand. Yes, bidding is great when RHO is a 4 count with three spades....

[OleBerg]

jdonn, on Mar 18 2009, 01:12 AM, said:

I don't doubt that many would balance with 2♠, perhaps including me. But I think this thread is just another case of the subconcious impact of knowing the full hand. Yes, bidding is great when RHO is a 4 count with three spades....

I am far from certain, that my partnership would reach 4♠.

But I would ever, never sell-out to 2♣.

Worst-case scenario leaves partner with 7 hcp, but that would mean opponents are close to game. In many of these cases another try would have been made.

Even if we assign full values to the opponents, game is not that far-fetched.

[mikeh]

I agree that somebody arguably should have done something, and another current thread explored some of the parameters of the modern takeout double.

I tend to think that I would usually double as west, simply because I have so much that it I pass, partner will never play me for this, and I have no convenient way back into the auction later. But maybe I am being influenced by seeing the whole hand.

I also tend to think that I would reopen with 2♠, hating it for the reasons suggested by josh. In another thread I suggested that when one lacks the tools to make a better call, one should not overbid in an effort to make up for it. The context was different, altho it involved spades as well.

Here, the missing tool was a natural 2♠.. I believe that this is an incredibly useful tool, and am astounded that anyone still plays it as the other two suits, given that we have double, and 2N for them, and (as I play it, 2♦ as well). How many ways do we need to enter the auction with a specific holding? And at such a cost.

West has an easy game bid after a natural and immediate 2♠ call, even with his diamond holding, and he probably has it over a delayed call, given the methods.

I see the blame as equal and I also don't think that anyone did anything utterly silly. This is the kind of result, given the method, that I could have if I were having a glass-half empty kind of day as either player...ok, make that a glass 3/4 empty.

[MFA]

jdonn, on Mar 17 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

MFA, on Mar 17 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

R/W east can't really bid 2♠ over 1♠, but balancing 2♠ seems very easy. Selling to 2♣ is strange.

Why would it be strange to fail to balance into a suit an opponent has bid holding an aceless 9 count when their suit (which may not even be a fit) is likely to be breaking badly?

It would be strange because this hand has just about zero defense against clubs but quite some tricks with spades as trumps. Having no aces but KQJ QJ in my suits is an argument for bidding 2♠, not against doing so.

Quote

But I think this thread is just another case of the subconcious impact of knowing the full hand. Yes, bidding is great when RHO is a 4 count with three spades....

I can't stop you from thinking so if you wish. I'm just stating my opinion to the problem and that is I find it strange not to bid 2♠.

[hanp]

I agree that not bidding 2S in the passout seat is strange.

[neilkaz]

Somebody got psyched...2♠ in P/O seat for me

[gnasher]

I don't think 2♠ on the second round is clear. East has no reason to think anyone has psyched, he has poor spade spots, and the auction suggests a misfit. 2♠ could easily be going for 500, and this is an auction where if you are in trouble they will catch you .