[masse24]

Is a bid other than pass mandatory here?

E-W vulnerable.

Sitting South you hold:

---

West opens with 1♣, (X), XX, ?

What is your call?

I passed, thinking the redouble let me off the hook.

It was passed around to my partner who...PASSED! ....thinking I wanted to play in 1♣XX. It made +4.

I was under the impression that the intervening bid (redouble) allowed me to pass with nothing. Partner said my pass indicated I wanted to play it in 1♣ redoubled.

[gwnn]

pass is perfect. it does not show minimum values though, just that you don't know what to bid.

[kfay]

Some like to play the pass here (of 1 of a minor XX) as for penalties.... it's not for me.

Pass or 1♦ both seem fine.

[bluecalm]

I think pass should be for penalty.
If you don't know how your partner will understand it passing with this hand is very bad. It's not like you have some kind of xxx xxx xxx xxxx and are truly fixed. You have decent suit in the circumstances. Easy 1♦ which can be useful if partner is on lead later on.

Quote

Partner said my pass indicated I wanted to play it in 1♣ redoubled.

Isn't it the most natural meaning of the bid without any discussion ? I wouldn't ever pass any rdbl if I didn't want to play there without having firm agreements about meaning of such pass.

[blackshoe]

I'm in the bid 1♦ camp.

[matmat]

I'm bidding, and i suspect i'd choose 1♥ at the table...

[655321]

Either your partner has fairly uncommon agreements or (my guess) doesn't know what he is talking about. While it is true the pass over most redoubles is for penalty (at the 2 level, or sitting over the bidder) it is far more usual for the pass in this auction to show no clear choice, for example you would pass with a 3334 hand so that partner can bid his best suit.

Whether you should be passing with this hand, or else bidding (1♦ or even 1♥) is a different question. Pass seems reasonable enough to me because if partner bids a red suit you know you have an eight card fit.

bluecalm, on Jun 12 2010, 08:40 AM, said:

I think pass should be for penalty.
If you don't know how your partner will understand it passing with this hand is very bad. It's not like you have some kind of xxx xxx xxx xxxx and are truly fixed. You have decent suit in the circumstances. Easy 1♦ which can be useful if partner is on lead later on.

Quote

Partner said my pass indicated I wanted to play it in 1♣ redoubled.

Isn't it the most natural meaning of the bid without any discussion ? I wouldn't ever pass any rdbl if I didn't want to play there without having firm agreements about meaning of such pass.

Eh what? As the takeout doubler here I wouldn't ever pass this redouble without having a firm agreement that partner's pass was penalty. Since I would be unlikely to agree to this meaning anyway I guess I wouldn't ever pass. And as advancer, it wouldn't occur to me that partner would assume my pass was for penalties.

[bluecalm]

It's all matter of agreement and what you are used to.
I am just saying that the most natural understanding barring any agreements is that pass means "I don't mind to play there" just as any other pass in any other auction without specific conventional understanding.

My favorite agreement which I have with all semiregular partners is that pass over minor is for penalty and pass over major is no clear choice. This is useful one to have because people play all kind of systems and their minor suit openers rarely promise real 5+card suit while their major suit openers tends to be much more honest and it's hard to imagine playing there.

You can say that having xxx xxx xxx xxxx is a problem over 1♣ but you can easily have xx xxx xxx QJTxx there and not being able to pass with the intention of playing there may prove to be expensive. Over a major this is very rare occurrence. Also 1♣/1♦xx making doesn't bring a game bonus to the opponents

[Phil]

I would go so far as to say that an agreement thàt pass is for penalties is a poor way to play.

LHO has an opening bid. Partner has not promised an opening hand (but close to it - and could have a lot). RHO has expressed an opinion that they have the balance of power.

What do you think is more useful?

Playing pass for penalties. For this to be right we need a lot of trump, since we are usually seriously outgunned. I will concede that if redouble get psyched a lot then a pass for penalties is more appealing.

Playing pass as at least two places to play. This allows us to scramble out to our best fit (not always possible when our best fit is a 5-3 diamonds).

The latter is much more important to me. We are running and to have to play an inferior fit when 300 points a trick is at stake is undesirable.

[awm]

As one who prefers to play pass as penalties in this auction (and picked up a top board in the platinum pairs because of it) I very much disagree with Phil.

When you have the hand for a penalty pass, playing pass as scramble frequently trades a very good score for a very bad score. Instead of defending 1mXX (quite possibly a sizable plus score and/or top score at MP) or at minimum forcing the opponents to bid their own contract, you are often going for a big number yourself by trying to declare a contract on a misfit hand where the opponents have the majority of the values.

When you have a hand for the scramble pass, it is certainly possible that playing pass as penalty (thus forcing you to guess a contract) gets a bad result. However, look at what needs to happen. First, opponents need to actually double you at the one-level (which they fairly frequently will choose not to do). Second, the one-level contract you "guessed" needs to score worse (doubled) than the one-level contract partner would've pulled to. Third, you could sometimes manage to bid the cheapest suit and redouble for rescue (i.e. you hold 4-4 majors after 1♣-X-XX, you can bid 1♦ and then rewind). Fourth, even if all the bad things occur, you generally scored something like -500 instead of -300 or -800 instead of -500 (i.e. one trick difference). This is bad, but not nearly so bad as trading +400 in for -500 (a common result on the penalty pass hand). In all, I think this is a pretty big combination of things that have to happen in order to save a few imps, and more than compensates for the somewhat higher frequency of "scramble pass" over "business pass."

I will mention that one of my regular partners looked at a very large number of deals from top flight competition and observed that this situation (1m-X-XX and fourth chair has a penalty pass) was a place where sizable numbers of imps were lost due to pairs not playing pass as business.

[bluecalm]

Quote

LHO has an opening bid. Partner has not promised an opening hand (but close to it - and could have a lot). RHO has expressed an opinion that they have the balance of power.

What do you think is more useful?

Obviously I think pass with the intention of playing there is more useful, that's why I play it that way. I don't have much to add as to why after awm's excellent post.

[peachy]

It is near impossible for you to have a hand that wants to play 1CXX, by simple arithmetic. If Pass was agreed as to play 1CXX, then the only situation it covers is when opener or redoubler has psyched and don't have what they promised.

So the math is: Opener 13, Takeout Doubler 12, Redoubler 10, which leaves the fourth hand anywhere from 0-7, on average 3HCP. And 3HCP is not enough to leave them in 1CXX when they have the majority of HCP in the deck.

Better to play that Pass tells partner you want him to pick the suit, you don't care. A bid means you have a clear preference what suit you want as trump. Here, Pass is better than 1D IMO, because if you bid 1D, you might be in 4-3 diamonds while having 4-4 hearts. You will always find 4-4 diamond fit if there is one, when doubler bids his suits up the line.

[bluecalm]

Quote

So the math is: Opener 13, Takeout Doubler 12, Redoubler 10, which leaves the fourth hand anywhere from 0-7, on average 3HCP. And 3HCP is not enough to leave them in 1CXX when they have the majority of HCP in the deck.

This reasoning doesn't make sense. Just because on average you don't have a hand to leave them in 1♣xx doesn't mean those hands don't come up. It's like I would say: "on average you have 10hcp and 3.33♥" and 3.33♥ and 10hcp is not enough to open 1♥ therefore playing 5 card majors is pointless. This is simply bad logic.
You can easily have xx xxx xxx KQTxx there and it's pretty average hand; 6 baggers will happen too. 1mxx making is 180 points. We can easily want to let them play there even if they make sometimes, especially if prospect of donating 800+ are looming over us (as with above mentioned hand).

[peachy]

bluecalm, on Jun 12 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

This reasoning doesn't make sense. Just because on average you don't have a hand to leave them in 1♣xx doesn't mean those hands don't come up.

I am fine with it if it doesn't make sense to you. The likelihood of the fourth hand having a penalty pass is so small that it is negligible, IMO. Playing Pass as to play, IMO is like carrying an umbrella with you every day in Las Vegas in the summer because there actually HAVE been days when it rains there.

I am not saying that my view is the "only" one and this thread has an opposing view from a good player. I just prefer it the way I described it.

[awm]

About the frequencies, you don't need a lot of points to pass 1♣XX. While the auction indicates that the player in fourth chair doesn't have a lot of points, he is actually fairly likely to have a bunch of clubs. Doubler doesn't have many clubs, the redouble is typically played as denying a fit and is usually a fairly balanced hand, and while opener certainly could have clubs, it is quite common in standard methods for him to have only 3-4 of them. Combining these, it is quite common for clubs to be 4-1-3-5 or 3-1-3-6 the like around the table, with advancer having the long suit.

With a club holding like QJTxx or JT9xxx, it's perfectly acceptable to pass 1♣XX even without outside cards. We expect to take three trump tricks. Takeout doubler will often take four tricks and beat the contract. If it doesn't work out, perhaps we score -230 or even -630. However, the opponents usually had 3NT in these cases, which makes the first score quite a good result and the second score roughly a push.

In fact it is not unusual for advancer to have a very slightly better hand, say JT9xxx of clubs and a side king (which I think is roughly the hand I had in the platinum pairs). Now 1♣XX is extremely likely to fail.

Again, taking the hand given where "scramble" seems most useful, supposing we bid 1♦ instead what will happen? It is possible that partner has four or more diamonds and we are in the best spot. It is possible that we would've been better off in hearts, but in deference to the colors opponents decide to try for their own game rather than defending 1♦X anyway. It is possible that we play 1♦X for -500, and even though 1♥X would be -300, opponents were making game anyway and we still win the board. It is possible that even though hearts is a better fit, 1♦X plays for the same number of tricks as 1♥X anyway. It is possible that partner would've bid 1♠ over a scrambling pass (i.e. say partner is 4333) and that bidding 1♦ actually reached a superior strain. It's even possible that a confident 1♦ call talked the opponents out of doubling us for penalty, whereas a forcing pass "scramble" would've convinced the opponents to defend. I just don't see this situation as one where we rate to lose a lot of imps very frequently by bidding 1♦.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

I am just saying that the most natural understanding barring any agreements is that pass means "I don't mind to play there"

Just because it's the most natural meaning doesn't mean that it's the most common meaning and can be assumed. After all the natural meaning of the initial double is penalties but of course everyone plays it as takeout.


Pass = no preference is absolutely std in America and has been for many decades. Now some people like Adam may want to play pass for penalties, but I'm sure he doesn't assume that it is the default.

[Phil]

awm, on Jun 12 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

As one who prefers to play pass as penalties in this auction (and picked up a top board in the platinum pairs because of it) I very much disagree with Phil.

When you have the hand for a penalty pass, playing pass as scramble frequently trades a very good score for a very bad score. Instead of defending 1mXX (quite possibly a sizable plus score and/or top score at MP) or at minimum forcing the opponents to bid their own contract, you are often going for a big number yourself by trying to declare a contract on a misfit hand where the opponents have the majority of the values.

When you have a hand for the scramble pass, it is certainly possible that playing pass as penalty (thus forcing you to guess a contract) gets a bad result. However, look at what needs to happen. First, opponents need to actually double you at the one-level (which they fairly frequently will choose not to do). Second, the one-level contract you "guessed" needs to score worse (doubled) than the one-level contract partner would've pulled to. Third, you could sometimes manage to bid the cheapest suit and redouble for rescue (i.e. you hold 4-4 majors after 1♣-X-XX, you can bid 1♦ and then rewind). Fourth, even if all the bad things occur, you generally scored something like -500 instead of -300 or -800 instead of -500 (i.e. one trick difference). This is bad, but not nearly so bad as trading +400 in for -500 (a common result on the penalty pass hand). In all, I think this is a pretty big combination of things that have to happen in order to save a few imps, and more than compensates for the somewhat higher frequency of "scramble pass" over "business pass."

I will mention that one of my regular partners looked at a very large number of deals from top flight competition and observed that this situation (1m-X-XX and fourth chair has a penalty pass) was a place where sizable numbers of imps were lost due to pairs not playing pass as business.

I can't ever remember being able to show a profit penalizing the opponents

- at the one level; and
- when we don't have the balance or power.

Adam's main argument is centered on picking up these rare penalties. The fact he scored a nice board in an important event is neat, but it might demonstrate that passing for penalties is not expert SOP if he didn't have company. I am interested in the seeing the hand if he doesn't mind posting it.

The suggestion both sides can go for a number at the one level is bizarre to me. Its a very odd board when neither side can make more than 5 or 6 tricks - in anything.

I don't understand the comment "forcing the opponents to find the right contract". With fair clubs opener rides this out otherwise he pulls. So what distress are they under?

The case of bidding 1♦ and redoubling is a neat trick but it is the only 44 combination where we can pull this off at the one level.

[helene_t]

If opps play 4-card majors, I think you have to play 1♠-x-xx-pass as penalties as otherwise you will be forced to play at the 2-level in what is frequently a 7-card fit and could be a 6-card fit.

Against minor suit openings I think Adam and Phil have both reasonable points and it probably doesn't matter much how you play it. Just my GBP 0.02.

[pooltuna]

masse24, on Jun 12 2010, 08:10 AM, said:

Is a bid other than pass mandatory here?

E-W vulnerable.

Sitting South you hold:

---

West opens with 1♣, (X), XX, ?

What is your call?

I passed, thinking the redouble let me off the hook.

It was passed around to my partner who...PASSED! ....thinking I wanted to play in 1♣XX. It made +4.

I was under the impression that the intervening bid (redouble) allowed me to pass with nothing. Partner said my pass indicated I wanted to play it in 1♣ redoubled.

Bid either 1♥ or 1♦ that way partner is sure you don't want to play 1♣XX.

[the hog]

Bid 1H for heaven's sake. Your partner has doubled, you have 4H. Why do you want to make life difficult for her by passing. Wh knows, some people xx on any 9+ count. You might even catch a H raise or better.
I totally agree with Phil's posts.