[sathyab]

I'd like your comments on how you would bid the following pair of hands.

Scoring: IMP

---

The bidding at one table went:

p-(2♥)-2♠-(3♥)-X-all pass

South argued that North should have more in defense, especially at IMPs. North countered by saying that he would be forced to pass on too many hands that they should still be in the bidding and suggested that South has an easy 3♠ bid here.

What if it was MP and the opponents were Vul ?

[Phil]

On record as saying North has a resp x (but its close) and South has an easy 3♠ call.

[aguahombre]

double responsive, showing some cards...3S=minimum overcall to start with? However, the North cards are about the normal expectation, so maybe the double is questionable.

[P_Marlowe]

X is ..., (*)
Passing the double out is normal.

North should simply shut up, sometime they got you,
sometime South is weaker, and if he has to run in this
case, he will get killed in 3S, sometimes the 3H bidder
is the richest guy on the table.

With kind regards
Marlowe

(*) Unless you have agreed, that it is responsive, in
which case South forgot the agreement.

[sathyab]

aguahombre, on Jul 11 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

double responsive, showing some cards...3S=minimum overcall to start with? However, the North cards are about the normal expectation, so maybe the double is questionable.

Oh, are you saying then that even without North's double South will re-balance with 3♠ ?

[sathyab]

P_Marlowe, on Jul 11 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

X is ..., (*)
Passing the double out is normal.

North should simply shut up, sometime they got you,
sometime South is weaker, and if he has to run in this
case, he will get killed in 3S, sometimes the 3H bidder
is the richest guy on the table.

With kind regards
Marlowe

(*) Unless you have agreed, that it is responsive, in
which case South forgot the agreement.

I forgot to mention that NS were playing responsive doubles.

[Jlall]

Why would south pass? lol.

[gnasher]

North's action is too aggressive - I think he needs another queen, or at least to have his high cards somewhere more useful.

For South to pass a responsive double with that hand is insane.

[kenrexford]

North's double would be right, IMO, with as little as Jx in spades additional. So, I don't hate it.

South's pass was weird.

[jdonn]

I think north should pass but obviously south passing the double was much worse.

[aguahombre]

sathyab, on Jul 11 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jul 11 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

double responsive, showing some cards...3S=minimum overcall to start with? However, the North cards are about the normal expectation, so maybe the double is questionable.

Oh, are you saying then that even without North's double South will re-balance with 3♠ ?

Yes. applying the rule of whatever, and playing him for about his normal expectancy of cards.

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Jul 11 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

I think north should pass but obviously south passing the double was much worse.

Ok, fine.

A follow-up question then, for you, acquahombre and gnasher who suggested passing as North.

Do you agree with acquahombre's answer to my question whether South should re-balance with 3s if North passed ? Rebalancing at the 2-level is fairly automatic when opponents have limited themselves, but how about the 3-level ?

And what if it were MP and let's make your side VUL. Would you pass and if you did, would you expect South to re-balance with 3s there as well ?

Not that results on a given hand prove anything. But this is a double part-score hand. EW make 3h and NS make 3s.

[gnasher]

After ... 3♥-pass-pass, if I were to act again as South, it would be with double. 3♠ is far too committal.

However, I don't think this hand is worth any further action. If partner has reasonable values he doesn't have three spades, so there's no reason to think that we should be playing the hand. Looking at the two hands, I'd definitely prefer to defend 3♥ than to try to make 3♠. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of a layout where both contracts make.

Another argument against bidding again is that we're not just risking one down. With trumps 4-1, 3♠ might go two or three down, and could well be doubled.

[655321]

Agree that North's double is marginal and South's pass is a joke.

I would pass as North, and would also pass out 3♥ as South. But arguing that double is therefore correct because 3♠ is cold is just resulting. I don't mind North's double, I just don't think double is clear.

[sathyab]

gnasher, on Jul 11 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of a layout where both contracts make.

I didn't analyze the hand thoroughly when I said both sides make their respective major suit part-scores, but I didn't say it was cold. When you look at all four hands, it didn't appear that defense had five easy tricks in either contract. And I will be the first to admit that the line of play to make 3♠ is non-trivial. But if the defense can not beat you easily I think a good declarer has the advantage on such hands.

I think making 3♥ is a lot easier. My feeling is that 3♥ is likely to make a lot more often than 3♠, but that 3♠ is more likely to fail by one trick rather than two or more. Anyway here's how the actual lay-out was.

Playing in 3♠, let's say you get a small heart lead, win in dummy, take a winning trump finesse, pull three rounds, the 2♥ bidder showing up with ♠Qxx.

Your combined ♦ holding is K8xx opp Q9x, so they can't attack the suit profitably if the J and T are divided. Also you do have ♣J8xx opp K9x. Let's assume the ♣A is with LHO as RHO may have opened 1♥ otherwise. Now you succeed whenever you find RHO with a short honor in ♣s, stiff or doubleton Q or T and make a winning guess. He obliges by holding the stiff ♣T.

As for defense vs 3♥, you lead a high ♠ and looking at xx J93 AJx AQxxx shift to a trump in a hurry, as partner's card says he has a stiff or doubleton ♠. Partner takes the Ace and returns a trump. Declarer wins in hand and plays the ♠Q, you win and shift to a ♦ hoping your partner has the Ten, but no luck. Partner plays the ♦K and the last trump. Declarer takes a long time to play out the rest, as you wait for the inevitable.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Jul 12 2009, 03:39 AM, said:

I think north should pass but obviously south passing the double was much worse.

Agree with Josh. Questionable double and poor pass.

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Jul 11 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 11 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

I think north should pass but obviously south passing the double was much worse.

Ok, fine.

A follow-up question then, for you, acquahombre and gnasher who suggested passing as North.

Do you agree with acquahombre's answer to my question whether South should re-balance with 3s if North passed ? Rebalancing at the 2-level is fairly automatic when opponents have limited themselves, but how about the 3-level ?

And what if it were MP and let's make your side VUL. Would you pass and if you did, would you expect South to re-balance with 3s there as well ?

Not that results on a given hand prove anything. But this is a double part-score hand. EW make 3h and NS make 3s.

Without getting into a deep analysis, I really don't think I want to be in 3♠ here. If I do it's very marginal. In any case I don't mind when (what I consider) correct bidding leads to missing a contract that makes because both players are maximum for passing it out.

And as gnasher said, if I were to reopen as south it would definitely be with double.

Btw what do you mean rebalance? Our last bid wasn't a balance.

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Jul 11 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

Btw what do you mean rebalance? Our last bid wasn't a balance.

I just meant to ask if you would balance with 3♠, not re-balance.

[gnasher]

sathyab, on Jul 12 2009, 12:57 AM, said:

As for defense vs 3♥, you lead a high ♠ and looking at xx J93 AJx AQxxx shift to a trump in a hurry, as partner's card says he has a stiff or doubleton ♠. Partner takes the Ace and returns a trump. Declarer wins in hand and plays the ♠Q, you win and shift to a ♦ hoping your partner has the Ten, but no luck. Partner plays the ♦K and the last trump. Declarer takes a long time to play out the rest, as you wait for the inevitable.

Surely this diamond switch is a misdefence? A spade continuation works whenever a diamond does, and also when partner's diamonds are headed by K9.

3♥ was, however, makeable earlier: declarer should have taken a club finesse at trick three.

3♠ seems to have been an extraordinarily lucky contract, and I wouldn't be at all worried about having missed it.

[sathyab]

gnasher, on Jul 12 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

3♠ seems to have been an extraordinarily lucky contract, and I wouldn't be at all worried about having missed it.

Yes, 3♠ was a lucky contract no doubt as I mentioned too and I wouldn't worry about it either at IMPs. My interest in part-scores hands (or most hands of any kind for that matter) is mainly related to MP. That dummy for 3♥ was pretty beefy, xx J93 AJx AQxxx and it doesn't have to be anywhere close to that strength. If North passes instead of making a responsive double and say South has the ♣Q instead of West, what should he do ? Shouldn't he legitimately be worried that some of the high cards in North's hand are in West's instead and how would you feel like taking further action, say by way of a double as you suggested earlier, especially at adverse vulnerability. Yes, North might like an additional Queen for a responsive double, but doesn't it make partner's life a lot easier if you have to, on occasion overstate your hand by a Quack in competition if the alternative was to understate it by an Ace ?