[rmnka447]

Pass.

I'd really like to bid. But there's a pretty big chance that if we win the contract, it will have to be played entirely out of the strong hand.

Defending against ♥s might not be a picnic either. It seems like opener must have a very distributional hand to make a game try without a really big hand which would negate some of the high cards in this hand. And, of course, this hand looks pretty ripe for an endplay.

If opener's psyching a game try, it's working against me this time. That would make it more likely that there are honors adversely placed in responder's hand.

[benlessard]

Quote

I'm not entirely sure you two (BenL and SteveM) are actually in agreement, but I am sure that a double of 3♦ should be for penalties.

Double with diamonds or a hand that is strong enough to hope for 3Hx ?

To play that X show diamond lenght doesnt make a lot of sense for me, not only we are on lead but I had the chance to overcall 2D and didnt. Flexible hands looking for 3S/4C/4D are going to be more frequent than aiming at 4D

Quote

Whereas partner will love bidding 4♣ on five small.

That why its fun to play that the double is takeout and not diamonds if he bid 4C its because hes not forced to bid, hes going to have shapely crap with shape that was afraid to bid freely.

Its the same for (1H)--P--(3m) bergen -- ??

I like to play that X is a takeout of H, its much safer than passing and doubling, it also allow to pass and double to show a stronger hand (X and X could be for a monster or penalty I guess).

W vs red I like to play that X is natural inviting a sacrifice. IMO both these methods are way better than lead directing.

Still over bergen a direct 3S is weaker than passing+3S since it stop opener from making a game try.

We also use the same weak direct and strong delayed over Bromad like

(1H)--X--(2C) (raise)--??

2S direct is pre balancing since its stop opener from making a 2D gametry while passing and bidding show foward going values.

Its not perfect but I dont regret playing those agreements.
-------------------
I remember a hand like

(1H)--1S--(2H)--2S
(3D)--??

And me and my old partner where basically on the same wavelenght

X = D values interest in 3Hx (doubling only for D is pointless) (maybe a hand that isnt sure about competing is a better way)
3H = game try
3S invite to sac
passing and 3S competing but no interest in sacrificing
passing and X = no idea what it could mean.

[rhm]

If you should not and dare not bid 3♠ now, the initial DBL looks to me like a mistake.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

benlessard, on 2012-December-14, 03:10, said:

Double with diamonds or a hand that is strong enough to hope for 3Hx ?

To play that X show diamond lenght doesnt make a lot of sense for me, not only we are on lead but I had the chance to overcall 2D and didnt. Flexible hands looking for 3S/4C/4D are going to be more frequent than aiming at 4D

That why its fun to play that the double is takeout and not diamonds if he bid 4C its because hes not forced to bid, hes going to have shapely crap with shape that was afraid to bid freely.

But you are not making a free double. If the next hand passes, partner needs to know if you can beat 3♦, otherwise he is screwed. How does he know whether we have a 4225 20 count or something else?

I'm not saying the double shows long diamonds - just that we have 3♦ beat for sure and that we have a very good hand opposite which partner can pass if broke but compete with any reasonable hand, including in diamonds! Partner should be able to play me for a good 1444 or similar and not go far wrong.

[JLOGIC]

Why is it so unlikely we make 4s here? I guess I'm a walrus but it looks like I'll win my diamond finesse, I'm likely to catch a good spade fit, and unless partner has zero points I might make a game. Getting scared because lho raised to 2h after a to double which could be light or weak or because rho seems to have a shapely red 2 suited (and I think a 5-5 11 count like akxxx kjtxx is much more likely than any other hand type given how many HCP we have...its not like he has a 5422 16 count very often) hand is just bad imo. I see my opps do stuff like double and pass with 20 points sometimes because we have bid on shape and I can't help but laugh. And before you tell me that not everyone psyches or bids aggressively on shapes and fits, I will again submit that when you hold 20 points that is very likely to be happening. it is hard to get dealt 0 points I will never play partner for that.

[lalldonn]

Typ. I mean I'm not trying to drive myself insane or anything, but we have TWENTY POINTS! It's entirely possible that I will never in my entire life make a "strong" double planning on bidding again, then fail to bid again if we aren't yet at game or something crazy hasn't happened like the opponents bidding and raising my long suit.

[benlessard]

Agree with both JL but what are your agreements about passing and bidding 3S vs bidding directly, what about the meaning of X of 3D and more importantly are you bidding 3S or double ?

Also what are you agreements over artificial raise like Bergen or bromad

Thanks

[mikeh]

lalldonn, on 2012-December-14, 11:33, said:

Typ. I mean I'm not trying to drive myself insane or anything, but we have TWENTY POINTS! It's entirely possible that I will never in my entire life make a "strong" double planning on bidding again, then fail to bid again if we aren't yet at game or something crazy hasn't happened like the opponents bidding and raising my long suit.

You don't have TWENTY POINTS unless you are the Walrus. Since when did you count the heart Q as worth anything on this sequence?

In fact, I'd far rather hold AQJxx xx AQx AJx on this auction than the hand I have. My holding 'only' 18 suggests that the opps, for their game try, probably have the heart Q, so there is now a significantly greater chance that partner has some smattering of values and that such smattering will help me.

I know it may sound weird, but sometimes cards we hold, that we assigned value to when we sorted our hand, become not merely worthless but of negative value. That's what's happened to the heart Q here, and I can't understand why anyone really insists, as if it means something positive, that we have TWENTY POINTS.

I still pass. Btw, I wouldn't pass the 18 count I gave as an example: with that I'd stick my neck out and risk 3♠

[mr1303]

Interesting. I bid 3S for better or worse.

Partner held 3 low, 2 low, 2 low, K10 to 6. Sadly he didn't realise he had a lot, and passed 3S.

RHO did have a 5422 16 count with Kx of spades in the slot. LHO had a 3442 1 count.

[lalldonn]

mikeh, on 2012-December-14, 17:23, said:

You don't have TWENTY POINTS unless you are the Walrus. Since when did you count the heart Q as worth anything on this sequence?

In fact, I'd far rather hold AQJxx xx AQx AJx on this auction than the hand I have. My holding 'only' 18 suggests that the opps, for their game try, probably have the heart Q, so there is now a significantly greater chance that partner has some smattering of values and that such smattering will help me.

I know it may sound weird, but sometimes cards we hold, that we assigned value to when we sorted our hand, become not merely worthless but of negative value. That's what's happened to the heart Q here, and I can't understand why anyone really insists, as if it means something positive, that we have TWENTY POINTS.

I still pass. Btw, I wouldn't pass the 18 count I gave as an example: with that I'd stick my neck out and risk 3♠

This theory is a bit insane. It ignores the chances the opponents are very light for their bidding, especially when you keep exaggerating like "I'd FAR rather hold" and "SIGNIFICANTLY greater chance". The queen of hearts being in our hand doesn't change anything very much, but of course it has positive value despite your discounting that completely. If partner bids 3NT over 3♠ are you happier with or without the queen of hearts? If you push the opponents to 4♥ are you happier with or without the queen of hearts? If partner has the king of hearts are you happier with or without the queen of hearts?

I mean RHO has a 16 count without much shape, which is incredibly unlikely when we hold 20, and it was still right to bid even reaching just an 8-card fit! Can we learn anything from this?

[mikeh]

lalldonn, on 2012-December-15, 12:37, said:

I mean RHO has a 16 count without much shape, which is incredibly unlikely when we hold 20, and it was still right to bid even reaching just an 8-card fit! Can we learn anything from this?

Are you serious?

You are basing your approach to bidding on one unlikely lie of the cards? That's a rhetorical question since I know that you don't

But your post suggests that you see the result as in some manner confirming that your view was correct, and that's odd, since I doubt that you'd accept being told that LHO held K10xx xxx xx Q10xx with partner being xxx xx xxxx xxxx 'proved' that your view was wrong even as you wrote up -800.

I suspect that the given layout is especially unlikely in your partnerships. You hold xxx xx xx K10xxxx and over 2♥, you have no way to bid? A lot of players, including me, use 2N here as a lebensohl bid...wouldn't you want to compete to 3♣? Obviously, if you don't have methods here then the layout becomes more likely for you. And I agree that xxxx xx xx K10xxx is even better for us and I'd pass 2♥. So I don't want to overstate this point.

One of the problems with drawing conclusions from individual layouts is that these hands generally don't get posted here if the mainstream approach would work. The very fact that this hand was posted suggests that something unusual happened. That could have been going for 500 or 800, with the 3♠ bidder arguing that his bid was correct, or missing a game, as was in fact the case when nothing bad happened, despite an auction suggesting bad things might happen.

At most we learned what we already knew: there could be layouts on which bidding worked. Had the hand gone for 800, we'd have 'learned' that there were layouts on which bidding failed...which you already knew anyway.

BTW, my use of caps was only to quote you. I didn't use caps in describing my thinking, and I'm usually quite willing to use caps or emboldening of font when I want to stress something.

[ggwhiz]

Your opponents bid like crazed people and got lucky, not a good premise to base your approach on.

2♥ instead of 3♥ pre-emptive is from another planet and a 3♦ game try with that shape, soft stuff and Kx of spades is at least ill advised.

Just put it in your memory bank and hammer this pair in the future. If you change your approach to handle whatever it is that they were up to decent pairs will hammer you.

[lalldonn]

mikeh, on 2012-December-15, 13:30, said:

But your post suggests that you see the result as in some manner confirming that your view was correct

No it doesn't but I'm done explaining the point.

[JLOGIC]

Mike I think the chances of getting doubled are small at least. Not that going minus when we could have gone plus is not bad, but we are very unlikely to get doubled when we double and bid 3s in this auction. You gave ktxx xxx xx qtxx as an example, would you really even consider cracking someone who doubled and bid 3s over a game try with that? I wouldn't. Its just very hard to double us when we bid that strongly, I'd think they would need five spades or maybe ktxx and an ace or something.

[JLOGIC]

But people do underestimate how bad a minus 200 instead of plus 100 is, the downside is real but I think going for a number is a really small chance. They don't know I'm being a clown with 5332 counting my points lol, it is much more likely I have 8 or 9 tricks

Eta: it is an interesting psychological point that most top players are extremely conservative doubling a partial at imps especially when someone bids very strongly, and those same players are also often conservative in competitive auctions and cite going for a number as a main concern. I have always thought this was wrong, you can get away with murder in imps sometimes because people are rarely going to be doubling you which lessens your risk. I don't really have a point but I think about this a lot and I think mikeh is a textbook good player at imps who might fall into this category. Just food for thought, not saying that this means its def right to bid here or anything.

[PhilKing]

Now I get that 3♠ rarely gets doubled (likely only if West is dealt KTxx), but we are usually beating 3♥ by a trick on this hand, and it seems rather unlikely we are making game and odds against that we are making 3♠. Yes, we doubled with the intention of bidding spades - so what?

We probably all agree the actual hand proves nothing. I would bid 2NT on partner's hand, which is clearly very pushy and my partners should be more inclined to bid on KTxxxx, since they know I am conservative with bad shape. But I think his hand is at best an outlier, and even then game is far from a lock, and more often than not, bidding will turn a plus into a minus.

[Fluffy]

I have never seen anyone getting a good result with a gosh by doubling and then passing out.

[FrancesHinden]

This hand isn't a "gosh". Without opposition bidding we'd have called it a strong balanced hand and opened 2NT.

I had a hand pretty similar to this a couple of years ago in the English Premier League. I bid on it, with very little conviction, partner raised, we were doubled, and game was cold by force of high cards. There was a somewhat similar layout in that responder was very weak and opener had a balanced-ish 16-count.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on 2012-December-15, 13:30, said:

I suspect that the given layout is especially unlikely in your partnerships. You hold xxx xx xx K10xxxx and over 2♥, you have no way to bid? A lot of players, including me, use 2N here as a lebensohl bid...wouldn't you want to compete to 3♣? Obviously, if you don't have methods here then the layout becomes more likely for you. And I agree that xxxx xx xx K10xxx is even better for us and I'd pass 2♥. So I don't want to overstate this point.

As advancer I'd have bid over 2♥ with either xxx xx xx K10xxxx (regardless of whether we're playing Lebensohl) or xxxx xx xx K10xxx. The danger in passing is that partner has a couple of black honours without enough shape to bid, for example Kxx xx xxx Qxxxx or 10xx xxx xxx KQxx.