[jonottawa]

Dude, how do you talk and do that at the same time?

Why do I disagree? Because I've never heard of nor support the ''never trap Pass with a strong hand" principle'.

I suspect that principle was developed by the same guy who developed the 'balance randomly' principle.

[jikl]

I pass, and if partner has the perfect trap pass hand for this I say sorry; I expect this maybe 2-3 out of 10 times. I will make a profit.

There are so few redeeming features about my hand apart from the 2 As and 1 K I used to open this. No suit quality, not even a singleton in ♥; put the A somewhere else and leave me with the small singleton in ♥ and I might be tempted.

It is a hand I am happy let them to play at the one level. Partner either has crap which means they have stuffed up, or partner has a monster with ♥s, or noone has anything more than a 9-11 count, or heavy point overcall and poor suit, or sort of good suit without high honours (J109xxx) and middling points. If first option, pass is good. If second option pass is bad, third option, let them play at the one level in what is likely a misfit, 4th option these often play like NTs and they have more points, 5th option partner has KQ874 of ♥ and 9-10ish and is borderline these can go either way. And you want me to commit to a penalty sequence at the one level?

Sean

[Cyberyeti]

I look at what opponents overcall on for a start. If their overcall is very wide ranging (so the overcaller's partner really has to raise if he has a vaguely sensible hand) the odds of partner having something reasonable improve.

I really don't want to have to explain to partner why I didn't reopen after he passed with AK, Q109xx, Axxx, Kx where 1♥ might be held to 2 tricks. Maybe they'll escape somewhere, but it's likely to be dialling at least 500. Our style is to pass routinely on this sort of thing and reopen very freely.

[bluecalm]

The way I play this with most partners is that double here shows 15+ (4s, 5c) or 18+ balanced which doesn't want to bid 1/2nt. We came to the conclusion that reopening here is pointless with 12-14 and balanced hand so we actually have systematic solution. You just simply must pass.
It's just to point out that my post wasn't just simply " me too". I just appreciated that Fred made very good argument and made the point clearly. I remember some time ago wanting to play the double here as simply reopening (one that doesn't promise extra strength) but my pd convinced me that it's not a good idea and that I will never have a hand in 12-14 range that want to reopen here.
I believe this is a way of playing quite popular among polish club players btw.

[jdonn]

I think doublers may be failing to fully consider that if partner has a trap pass the opponents have only 5 or 6 hearts. They may easily belong in spades or diamonds and be able to find it. What good is the hunt for a big penalty if it gives up the penalty altogether and gets a minus instead? In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the double is a loser specifically when partner has a trap pass because the opponents are so likely to run somewhere better anyway!

[fred]

This hand aside, FWIW this area of bidding has always struck me as one for which many players, including plenty of decent ones, tend to exhibit notably poor judgment.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Hanoi5]

Isn't it enough to read Balancing by Lawrence?

[jdonn]

Hanoi5, on Dec 30 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

Isn't it enough to read Balancing by Lawrence?

Great book, but more than a little out of date if you ask me. I believe it's over 30 years old. Same for Lawrence's overcalls. His hand evaluation book has the most value currently IMO.

[nigel_k]

Obviously if you've agreed in advance never to trap pass with a strong hand then it's a different problem than the posted one. If partner has a trap pass with a weaker hand I think you still want to double. Sure they might find a better spot somewhere else but we've got enough spades that it's also quite likely they won't. LHO could have a normal overcall and partner something like Kxx K10xxx Axxx x.

If partner is not trapping then the hand doesn't belong to us and I wouldn't expect to go plus by outbidding them. But that doesn't mean we have to defend 1♥ for an almost certain minus. We're not vulnerable so the main danger is they double us in something, but it just seems more likely we can push them higher and maybe beat them a trick.

I just don't see that the upside of defending 1♥ can outweigh the downside when partner has a penalty pass and we leave him stranded.

[blackshoe]

Much of Lawrence's stuff was written in the 80s. I suppose a lot of it could be "out of date", but has there been anything as good written since?

[Jlall]

Actually pretty sure I learned a lot about this type of situation because Fred posted similar things like 5 years ago about this, and also because Hamman pretty much completely echos what Fred says if you ask about hands like this. Yay forums.

[Siegmund]

This is the type of hand that everybody who reads a book that says "strain to reopen with a double anytime you are sorta short in overcallers suit and are interested in competing somewhere" just doubles with and never posts on a forum

I don't think it occurs to a lot of us to question the automatic action on deals like this. The replies to this thread seem to be a mix of "of course everybody passes this" and "of course everybody doubles this."

Just throwing one more question into the mix - does anybody's answer change MP vs IMP or at different colors? Or are we equally split about this hand no matter what the conditions?

[eyhung]

jdonn, on Dec 30 2009, 06:52 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Dec 30 2009, 08:41 PM, said:

Isn't it enough to read Balancing by Lawrence?

Great book, but more than a little out of date if you ask me. I believe it's over 30 years old. Same for Lawrence's overcalls. His hand evaluation book has the most value currently IMO.

Lawrence's overcalls book just got updated to a second edition, I browsed through it recently and it's a lot more current. He now recommends jump raises as pre-emptive, introduces the concept of the mixed raise (and the jump cue), and goes over a lot of areas that should be discussed by any serious partnership. It still doesn't treat this situation, though, because it's a problem for opener, not overcaller/advancer.

Balancing doesn't seem quite so out-of-date as the original Overcalls. If anything, I find the frequency of balancing auctions keeps going down -- my opponents are responding lighter and lighter.

[eyhung]

jonottawa, on Dec 30 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

This forum needs an optional 24-hr mask function where the stars (especially Fred) can make a post that shows up as a post but doesn't reveal itself for 24 hrs (or whatever an appropriate time frame might be.)  These 'me too' posts make me throw up in my mouth a little.

I don't see why you're so eager to attribute fawning patronage. I think there are plenty of people who are willing to go on board against stars, including stars (for example, jdonn and jlall frequently disagree). But when all the stars agree on a certain action, I find it telling, and I learn. So I'm find with hearing a chorus of similar viewpoints -- as long as people are being honest about their opinions.

For what it's worth, I used to aggressively double in these types of situations but stopped doing so after Fred posted something that pointed out why it wasn't such a good idea. I like to think my results have gotten better since then.

[mohitz]

Jlall, on Dec 31 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

Actually pretty sure I learned a lot about this type of situation because Fred posted similar things like 5 years ago about this, and also because Hamman pretty much completely echos what Fred says if you ask about hands like this. Yay forums.

http://forums.bridge...wtopic=5976&hl=

Sorry gwnn! Btw, note that Jlall felt *very strongly* about doubling then!

[barryallen]

fred, on Dec 30 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Dec 30 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

If partner is not trapping, I still expect to do better most of the time by competing than letting them play 1♥.

Strongly disagree. Consider these questions and assume partner is not trapping:

- How likely is it that you can get a plus playing in notrump?
- How likely is it that the deal belongs to the opponents in notrump?

Then ask yourself the same questions for each of the four possible trump suits.

I think you will conclude that the opponents own notrump, spades, and hearts. Either side could own diamonds. We own the clubs

Then consider:

- Given that the opponents own all the strains that matter, it sure would be nice if we had a HCP advantage! How likely do you think that is?

Then consider:

- How likely is it that our side belongs in game?
- How likely is it that the opponents belong in game?

Then consider:

- How likely is it that Pass will lead to a disaster?
- How likely is it that DBL will lead to a disaster?

Of course I don't know the exact answers to these questions or how one might go about trying to add them up, but the answers are so one-sided that the implication seems clear to me (and hence my strong disagreement with your statement).

The standard bearers for DBL like to claim "If I DBL, the opponents might subsequently guess wrong in the bidding", but they tend to forget:

1) If you DBL your side might also subsequently guess wrong in the bidding.
2) The opponents may have already guessed wrong in the bidding - DBLing can nullify an opponent's misguess that has already happened.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Very nice analysis. This is one of those hands where you feel you should be doing something, fully aware that it's more likely worms than spaghetti in the tin.

[jonottawa]

I apologize. I posted this on rec.games.bridge and EVERYBODY passed. My opinion that while a close decision most people [LATE EDIT: including experts] would bid absent external influence was obviously wrong.

[bluecalm]

Quote

My opinion that while a close decision most people would bid absent external influence was obviously wrong.

Well... I think most players would bid. Maybe both rec.games.bridge and this forum isn't the best representation of bridge playing population

[nige1]

I understand Fred & Co's arguments but I double because my partners trap-pass on strong hands, relying on protection.

I find this so unnatural that I asked a director whether partner's pass is alertable but was told "not nowadays".

Unfortunately, opponents often wake up to bid games or slams. This is the Biltcliffe gambit, named by Eric Crowhurst after one of his expert partners. A Biltcliffe can be accepted or declined. If you protect again it can be twice declined and so on. An example and one of my few good results: twice protecting against partscores on the same deal -- eventually wakening up opponents to bid a grand-slam -- depending on a two-way finesse -- that they got wrong

[bluecalm]

Would you guys trap with QJ7543 A 984 A53 after 1H opening from partner and 1S overcall from opponents vul against not?

I am watching high level match from vugraph archives and member of one of the best partnerships (some says the best) in the world did trap with that.