[rwbarton]

None vul, IMPs, casual game. You deal and hold

Scoring: IMP

---

You have no preempt showing the minors so you pass and the auction continues:

(2NT) [1] - 3C [2] - (P) - ?

[1] 5+5+ minors, 4-8 HCP
[2] Takeout for the majors with better hearts

What now?

[Jlall]

Hey,

I would bid 3S.

3H is an option, and it perhaps depends which bid you define as "equal length." IMO it is bad to have 3C and 3D both possibly having equal length, depending on which suit is better. The primary factor is finding the best fit. One of 3C or 3D should always be longer in the corresponding major, and the other has to incorporate equal. It makes sense to me for 3C to incorporate equal length or longer hearts, with 3D dedicated to longer spades (because 3C leaves room for 3D so it should be more frequent).

If that is the case, then 3S is obvious despite partner possibly being 4-6, since they might be 5-5.

If 3H always included 1+ more heart than spades, then 3H is probably right, but then you need a bid for equal length.

Personally I think 3D should show a hand with inv+ values, rather than a hand with 1 more spade than heart.

[jjbrr]

He said takeout with better ♥. Where did you read equal length?

3♥ was my first instinct. Shouldn't encourage partner too much hopefully.

Edit: sorry, maybe I'm wrong. I thought better=longer. If not, then 3♠.

[Jlall]

jjbrr, on Mar 26 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

He said takeout with better ♥. Where did you read equal length?

He specifically said better not longer. I have played this convention a lot and usually people agree to 3C=better hearts, 3D=better spades, meaning with equal you are split into which is better and have 2 bids for it.

My only point is that you should have 3C=longer hearts or equal, and 3D=longer spades, and that "better" when you're equal doesn't mean much and hinders your bidding a lot.

[jjbrr]

i edited before you pwned me, for the record.

[debrose]

Jlall, on Mar 25 2010, 11:58 PM, said:

It makes sense to me for 3C to incorporate equal length or longer hearts, with 3D dedicated to longer spades (because 3C leaves room for 3D so it should be more frequent).

If that is the case, then 3S is obvious despite partner possibly being 4-6, since they might be 5-5.

If 3♣ shows either equal length or longer hearts, then over a 3♦ ask by advancer, equal length should always bid 3♠. Therefore, I'm not sure 3♠ is obvious on the hand in question, since with 5-5 partner should bid that himself over 3♦. So if you think 4-6 is possible, and have these agreements, 3♦ seems like a better choice.

[gnasher]

Pass.

Whichever major we pick risks being a 6-card fit, and the majors are breaking just as badly as the minors. 3♣ has two advantages: (1) It won't be doubled and (2) We have 100 honours.

[whereagles]

I'd try 3NT and stick to it if doubled.

[rwbarton]

Thanks everyone, lots of good discussion. To be honest my partner and I had never encountered this situation before in real life, so "takeout with better hearts" was the entire extent of our agreement. The treatment of using 3♣ for hands with equal length in the majors, with a 3♦ ask in response, is clearly an improvement (even if perhaps not optimal).

Quote

Pass.

Whichever major we pick risks being a 6-card fit, and the majors are breaking just as badly as the minors. 3♣ has two advantages: (1) It won't be doubled and (2) We have 100 honours.

This is what I was actually wondering about. Anyone else have an opinion about pass?

[jjbrr]

It could certainly work, though there is no reason to expect we won't play in a 5-card fit, that partner's ♥ aren't better than our ♣, or even that we might make a game. We do have an ace more than we promised. though I admit it's very unlikely that we'll make game or even go plus for that matter.

We know ♣ will be a miserable contract, especially with a million diamond losers. We don't know either major will be miserable; it's just likely.

I don't imagine we have any inference about RHO's pass vs double?

[rwbarton]

jjbrr, on Mar 26 2010, 04:14 PM, said:

I don't imagine we have any inference about RHO's pass vs double?

I didn't ask, but I'm pretty sure our opponents didn't have an agreement on that point.

[fred]

rwbarton, on Mar 26 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

Anyone else have an opinion about pass?

I think it is smart.

You will need a lot of luck to actually make 3C, but I also think it is most unlikely that you will get a plus score by bidding. If partner has enough to make 3 of a major opposite this hand, you are going to be playing in 4. Winning 10 tricks given the known bad breaks, will require a huge hand opposite (and quite possibly some good luck as well). With some huge hands partner may not let you out at the 4-level.

More important, the chances of getting a large minus score if you do anything other than Pass are significant in my view. Would you really be surprised if RHO's spades look like your clubs?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jjbrr]

It's not clear to me, also, that this won't be doubled. What hands can the guy have to pass 3♣? The answer is weak hands with ♣ and ♦, so there is a strong argument for double.

So gnasher's points might be somewhat tenuous, though like I said, passing is def a possible winning action.

[fred]

jjbrr, on Mar 26 2010, 08:34 PM, said:

It's not clear to me, also, that this won't be doubled. What hands can the guy have to pass 3♣? The answer is weak hands with ♣ and ♦, so there is a strong argument for double.

It is clear to me.

LHO doesn't know how many clubs you have or how strong/shapely your partner's hand is.

Besides that, people never DBL in situations like this, even if they "should"

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[rwbarton]

At the table I applied gnasher's logic and passed. This was not a success as the full deal was

Scoring: IMP

__ __ __ P
2N 3♣ P P
P

---

Understandably, partner expected to get another chance to bid, presumably raising my major to slam. On the N/S cards, 6♥ seems hopeless if W's bid was truthful, since E/W can either get a spade ruff or have two natural trump tricks. 6♠ is not a great spot, but it survives when W is 1255.

On this hand, West did well not to double. If W doubles, partner should maybe settle for 4♥ after my pass showing a misfit.

[ONEferBRID]

side issue: " ... Majors... better Hts ..."

This is at least the 2nd time I've seen good/expert players use "better" to actually mean LONGER .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

For example in a definition of Trash ( or Garbage ) Stayman:
1NT - 2C!
2D - 2H = garbage stayman, 4s4h, 5s5h, 5s4h. Opener passes or corrects to 2S with equal or better spades.

The author meant "longer" spades.

[gnasher]

Maybe 4♣/♦ over 2NT should show an extreme two-suiter?

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on Mar 27 2010, 08:53 AM, said:

Maybe 4♣/♦ over 2NT should show an extreme two-suiter?

Yup.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on Mar 27 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

Maybe 4♣/♦ over 2NT should show an extreme two-suiter?

I think they are better used for strong 1-suiters. 3♣ with the op hand is fine.

[CSGibson]

I actually have a systematic bid for your partner's hand, too - 6♥. It is invitational to 7 if partner has the ace of hearts.