[MFA]

NV vs NV.

♠AKQ8
♥A4
♦AKJ94
♣87

I had this nice hand in a team match against a young dutch team in the Bonn tournament.

(pass) - 1♦ - (1♠) - pass
(1NT) - DBL - (2♣) - 2♥
(pass) - 2♠ - (DBL*)...

My X of 1NT was in principle takeout of spades. I felt I had too much not to do something. In that context partner's 2♥ didn't promise the world.

LHO's double of my 2♠ cuebid was "don't lead my suit"!

What now? Are you ready to take your chances right there in 2♠X? Would be a rather amusing situation .

Any other comments? Please don't focus too much on whether to open an appropriate no. of notrumps instead of 1♦. That is not the point.

[gnasher]

I'd have passed 2♥. Game seems almost impossible.

I'm not sure that I'd have thought of passing out 2♠x if you hadn't suggested it, but it is quite tempting. It might work out well opposite something like xx Kxxxx xx xxxx - win the trump lead, heart to the king, diamond to the jack, top diamond, ace of hearts, low diamond, making if LHO is 5224. It's unlikely to be worse than -300, and if it goes down we're probably not making 3♦ anyway.

[Phil]

I assume there's two more passes after the double on my left?

I've painted myself into a corner here. I suppose I agree with the double of 1N, but partner certainly bid 2♥ on the assumption that I have more than Ax of hearts.

I pass. I don't think 3♦ will play any better than 2♠.

[mikeh]

I pass as well, altho I am not perhaps as optimistic as some... if LHO is 5-5 in the blacks, then I expect a stiff diamond much of the time... but it is hard to see how we can be more than -300, and I would estimate the chances of being +470 as about equal with that... while -100 rates not to lose much, if anything, to 3red suit.

Besides, think of the story we have: making this is worth more than the imps we may gain on the hand... both in the bar, on the net, and for the rest of the match.

[MFA]

gnasher, on May 22 2009, 03:56 PM, said:

I'd have passed 2♥.  Game seems almost impossible.

I don't fancy passing 2♥. I might have tricked partner into bidding a four card suit. Game is not impossible; xx, Kxxxx, xxxx, xx is good for 5♦; ♥K & ♣Jxxx is good for 3NT.
I like taking a cautious view, but here 2♥ could be a ridiculous contract, I think.
2♠ is only forcing for one round and doesn't promise a rebid, so we can get out in 3♦ which is a big favourite to make.

[Cascade]

I would have opened 2NT thereafter the bidding problems are likely to be partners.

[jdonn]

I would have just passed over 1NT, or bid 2♦ if I did anything. I don't have takeout double shape, and there is no evidence anyone has a fit in anything. Look at the problem I created for myself by doubling, now I have to guess between playing a 4-2 fit or forcing even higher with perhaps no fit. We could have game even when partner passes over 1♠, but maybe partner is broke, or maybe he can balance into a long suit if he isn't broke, or maybe opener was going to rebid 2♣ or 2♥ and give me another chance. I just think this whole mess was very predictable.

But I don't even think that double was the worst action taken. What is 2♠? Why not just bid 2NT (or 3NT if you really think you're worth it after partner's free bid) and keep the issue simple instead of making a cuebid that won't help partner at all and will enter confusing territory?

[the hog]

"My X of 1NT was in principle takeout of spades. I felt I had too much not to do something. In that context partner's 2♥ didn't promise the world."

This is a comment I don't really understand. If the x was t/o of S, then you did not have a double, having "too much" notwithstanding. You have fooled your partner and created a problem for yourself.

I would pass 2S now. I think you will get punished badly if you bid 3D.
Btw I would also have opened 2NT.

[cherdanno]

I think you just have to pass 1Nt.
FWIW I hate opening 2NT with this hand. It's both an underbid and a misbid.

[MFA]

I prefer to stay optimistic in these situations with substancial values. Therefore my double of 1NT, where pass surely is possible. I'm certainly not trusting my opponents to have a patent on all the rest of the high cards, and in practice someone usually has a distributional surprise somewhere - making it a bidder's game. Passing tends to be betting on the parlay that it's flat all around with the upside of cashing out a few 50's.

The_Hog, on May 23 2009, 08:20 PM, said:

"My X of 1NT was in principle takeout of spades. I felt I had too much not to do something. In that context partner's 2♥ didn't promise the world."
This is a comment I don't really understand. If the x was t/o of S, then you did not have a double, having "too much" notwithstanding.

'Having too much' means I can't count on partner to be getting back in the auction when it's right, if I don't help him. I don't expect (or want) heroics from him on minimal hands if it goes pass to him. Still these minimal hands could be useful for me with this powerhouse.

The Hog:

Quote

You have fooled your partner and created a problem for yourself.

Yep surely, that's why I think 2♠ is a necessary move now. This is actually a fine scenario, since partner has just said he has something.

jdonn:

Quote

But I don't even think that double was the worst action taken. What is 2♠? Why not just bid 2NT (or 3NT if you really think you're worth it after partner's free bid) and keep the issue simple instead of making a cuebid that won't help partner at all and will enter confusing territory?

Fortunately my partner is not that easy to confuse. 2♠ is a tell-me-more cuebid that can't force anywhere due to the logic of the auction. We even have the understanding that with two possible cuebids, we prefer to bid our values. This sorts out stoppers for notrumps.

The Hog:

Quote

I would pass 2S now. I think you will get punished badly if you bid 3D.

Punished badly, what is that supposed to mean? The risk here is onesided, and that is I might have thrown away our plus score. Thansformed +50/+100 into -50/-100. But I think people here are way too pessimistic about our situation.

[MFA]

Well, I pushed the tray in with 2♠-X thinking like mad if I should pass this out. I probably would have, but I was still undecided. Like mikeh says, if it makes it'll be a story, so...

Partner had xxx, KTxx, xxx, xxx and bid 3♦ which made four on a friendly lie. West had a very minimal 5224 and 9 tricks are easy in spades. Cash on top spade and play diamonds. 3NT makes too but is not worth the shot after this bidding.

1♦ was passed out in the other room, not nearly as much fun as I was having in mine.

[jdonn]

Well I won't argue too much further except to say I think you have one available cuebid, not two. Club bids should be natural since you made a takeout double of spades-only before clubs were bid.

[Cascade]

cherdanno, on May 24 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

I think you just have to pass 1Nt.
FWIW I hate opening 2NT with this hand. It's both an underbid and a misbid.

So you would upgrade to 2♣?

[cherdanno]

Cascade, on May 24 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

cherdanno, on May 24 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

I think you just have to pass 1Nt.
FWIW I hate opening 2NT with this hand. It's both an underbid and a misbid.

So you would upgrade to 2♣?

If I were to show a balanced hand, I would bid 2C-2NT. But in fact I would open 1♦ followed by 2♠.

[Cascade]

cherdanno, on May 25 2009, 07:01 AM, said:

Cascade, on May 24 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

cherdanno, on May 24 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

I think you just have to pass 1Nt.
FWIW I hate opening 2NT with this hand. It's both an underbid and a misbid.

So you would upgrade to 2♣?

If I were to show a balanced hand, I would bid 2C-2NT. But in fact I would open 1♦ followed by 2♠.

I guess that depends on your 2NT range.

For me this is middle of the road in a good 20-22 range.

My partner did convince me that 1♦ was reasonable on a similar hand a day or two ago. However there is a real risk of being passed out on a game hand - ♦ Queen and any club stopper will make 3NT or any five spades will make 4♠ a favourite. (After 2NT I am superaccepting a transfer.)

[Winstonm]

I think you need to rethink your usage of the double in this sequence: the only time it is of any real value is if your partner has made some kind of trap pass of 1S. Otherwise, why takeout 1S when the opponents have no fit for spades? And why waste a bid needed to show a superior hand type (meaning strong hand) for such a low-occurrence event as a 1S trap pass?

I would prefer to be able to double 1N for penalties - the time for takeout bids is when the opponents have shown a fit or there is a strong likelihood of their having a fit.

In your system, a pass is required as you don't have a takeout hand.

[MFA]

Winstonm, on May 24 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

I think you need to rethink your usage of the double in this sequence:  the only time it is of any real value is if your partner has made some kind of trap pass of 1S.  Otherwise, why takeout 1S when the opponents have no fit for spades?  And why waste a bid needed to show a superior hand type (meaning strong hand) for such a low-occurrence event as a 1S trap pass?

I would prefer to be able to double 1N for penalties - the time for takeout bids is when the opponents have shown a fit or there is a strong likelihood of their having a fit.

In your system, a pass is required as you don't have a takeout hand.

No, I'm satisfied with take-out doubles here. "Strong hand" makes it impossible for partner, if it could be any strong hand. Most strong hands would therefore want to pass, which is also a sensible plan even with this nice 21 count.

Take-out doubles provide a nice basis that partner can choose his bidding from. We can investigate fit in any of the remaining three suits. Partner could easily have useful distribution without the strength for initial action.
As is the case with most take-out doubles, it could be off shape if there is compensating power (and a reasonably attractive catch-up plan).

[the hog]

MFA, on May 25 2009, 05:26 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 24 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

I think you need to rethink your usage of the double in this sequence:  the only time it is of any real value is if your partner has made some kind of trap pass of 1S.  Otherwise, why takeout 1S when the opponents have no fit for spades?  And why waste a bid needed to show a superior hand type (meaning strong hand) for such a low-occurrence event as a 1S trap pass?

I would prefer to be able to double 1N for penalties - the time for takeout bids is when the opponents have shown a fit or there is a strong likelihood of their having a fit.

In your system, a pass is required as you don't have a takeout hand.

No, I'm satisfied with take-out doubles here. "Strong hand" makes it impossible for partner, if it could be any strong hand. Most strong hands would therefore want to pass, which is also a sensible plan even with this nice 21 count.

Take-out doubles provide a nice basis that partner can choose his bidding from. We can investigate fit in any of the remaining three suits. Partner could easily have useful distribution without the strength for initial action.
As is the case with most take-out doubles, it could be off shape if there is compensating power (and a reasonably attractive catch-up plan).

But what this means is that the X of 1NT was NOT "in principle a tkeout of S". In fact it can mean a variety of hand types. Sorry to be pedantic, but if you explained it as a t/o of S, I think a director call is coming.

[Winstonm]

MFA, on May 24 2009, 05:26 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 24 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

I think you need to rethink your usage of the double in this sequence:  the only time it is of any real value is if your partner has made some kind of trap pass of 1S.  Otherwise, why takeout 1S when the opponents have no fit for spades?  And why waste a bid needed to show a superior hand type (meaning strong hand) for such a low-occurrence event as a 1S trap pass?

I would prefer to be able to double 1N for penalties - the time for takeout bids is when the opponents have shown a fit or there is a strong likelihood of their having a fit.

In your system, a pass is required as you don't have a takeout hand.

No, I'm satisfied with take-out doubles here. "Strong hand" makes it impossible for partner, if it could be any strong hand. Most strong hands would therefore want to pass, which is also a sensible plan even with this nice 21 count.

Take-out doubles provide a nice basis that partner can choose his bidding from. We can investigate fit in any of the remaining three suits. Partner could easily have useful distribution without the strength for initial action.
As is the case with most take-out doubles, it could be off shape if there is compensating power (and a reasonably attractive catch-up plan).

That sounds to me a lot like the "Alice in Wonderland" argument. You can't say it is a takeout of 1S and then say except when it isn't a takeout of 1S. And if you hadn't noticed, there are only 2 unbid suits, heart and clubs, so the double should imply some hand like 1363 or 1354, etc.

Again, unlikely hand types unless partner holds 4 or more spades.

[gnasher]

The best meaning for double of 1NT is probably an unbalanced hand with four hearts, isn't it? This seems a lot more useful than either strong balanced or semi-three-suited.