[CSGibson]

---

You are playing a bracket 1 knockout, opponents are world-class, though not necessarily regular partners (Hampson/Cheek). You have not discussed delayed interference over stayman, but given your other agreements, X by you is likely to be played as a strict penalty double by partner, who is an expert. You have not shown any values with 2♣, as that is frequently garbage stayman.

What do you do now?

Edit: In case it is not clear from the diagram, the NT opening is 12-14.

[ewj]

I guess if I can't double then I'm gonna bid 4♠. Could bid 4♦ choice of games but real danger I might get into some trouble if things are breaking poorly and maybe a confident 4♠ gives me the best chance of escaping a double if the hand is a disaster.

[PhilKing]

3♥.

It slightly depends on the rest of your methods, but it feels as though this should show four hearts and five clubs.

[Codo]

Depends on your methods. If 2 ♠ denies 4 hearts, I would try 4 ♠. But I would prefer to have a choice of game bid, but I do not have one.

But I will nerver understand why you need a penalty double here. With a take out double you have a perfect description for a common hand, while with a (nearly impossible) fistful of diamonds you may bid 3 NT...

[gszes]

codo mentions a fistful of diamonds but how about just KJx and enough cards to make
3n a viable call at these colors. There seems to be little purpose to using x as penalty
here when there are so many hands where using it as tox or at worst cards with no
clear direction would work out much better. This is especially true if your hand was
slammish in nature.

Given the uncertainty i think your best guess here is 5c rather than trying to hope a
43 spade fit will work since the ruffs will come from the 3 card suit. If disaster looms
it is far less likely to occur in 5c than in 4s. But I think most would assume x was TO
rather than penalty here.

[CSGibson]

I agree that the methods are not the best, and may even be unplayable. That being said, I was not really hoping to discuss whether penalty or takeout doubles were better; I was hoping any discussion would focus on what you should do on this invitational-type hand on the methods given.

[PhilKing]

If only there was an idle bid available at the three level which could keep all our options open.

[straube]

CSGibson, on 2013-March-27, 14:26, said:

---

You are playing a bracket 1 knockout, opponents are world-class, though not necessarily regular partners (Hampson/Cheek). You have not discussed delayed interference over stayman, but given your other agreements, X by you is likely to be played as a strict penalty double by partner, who is an expert. You have not shown any values with 2♣, as that is frequently garbage stayman.

What do you do now?

Edit: In case it is not clear from the diagram, the NT opening is 12-14.

If you were planning to invite with this hand, how about 3S? Partner could anticipate you having this problem and bid 3N as a choice of games. If you prefer to force instead, wouldn't 3H by you be forcing and leave 3N in the picture?

I think it helps when holding GF values to only use 2C with both majors or a 4M/5m hand unsuitable for a splinter...so 2C usually is garbage stayman or an invitational hand. I'm pretty you use splinters (e.g. 3D). We also use 2N as puppet stayman to establish a GF which lets opener double and responder make forcing passes.

[CSGibson]

straube, on 2013-March-28, 18:00, said:

If you were planning to invite with this hand, how about 3S? Partner could anticipate you having this problem and bid 3N as a choice of games. If you prefer to force instead, wouldn't 3H by you be forcing and leave 3N in the picture?

I think it helps when holding GF values to only use 2C with both majors or a 4M/5m hand unsuitable for a splinter...so 2C usually is garbage stayman or an invitational hand. I'm pretty you use splinters (e.g. 3D). We also use 2N as puppet stayman to establish a GF which lets opener double and responder make forcing passes.

We play a walsh structure in this partnership - 2S as minor suit stayman, 2N as club bust or 4-4-4-1, and 3m as invitational & natural.

[aguahombre]

CSGibson, on 2013-March-28, 19:22, said:

We play a walsh structure in this partnership - 2S as minor suit stayman, 2N as club bust or 4-4-4-1, and 3m as invitational & natural.

We do, too (except for the 3m part). But I have never seen it played with a weak NT. Don't you need different methods? Maybe not.

[CSGibson]

aguahombre, on 2013-March-28, 20:12, said:

We do, too (except for the 3m part). But I have never seen it played with a weak NT. Don't you need different methods? Maybe not.

The methods are playable in context of a weak NT - I don't really see the need to play different methods, really, though. You still have to describe hands opposite a balanced hand and sort out invites, game forces, etc. And I have never been impressed by any of "traditional" weak nt methods like 2H/2S to play, or GF stayman.

[Codo]

CSGibson, on 2013-March-28, 16:50, said:

I agree that the methods are not the best, and may even be unplayable. That being said, I was not really hoping to discuss whether penalty or takeout doubles were better; I was hoping any discussion would focus on what you should do on this invitational-type hand on the methods given.

You rate your hand as invitational? I would make a game forcing bid. As I wrote before, if partner can still hold 4 ♥, I bid 3 ♥.
If he cannot hold hearts, I would bid 4 ♠ to make a clear statement- and at least I ruff with the short hand... Maybe 3 ♥ is better and shows this hand more or less and MAYBE partner can understand what this shows, but I am not convinced at all that he can...

[lmilne]

I would bid 3♥, expecting partner to know roughly what my hand is - agree with PhilKing.

By the way, I'm hoping partner bids 3NT which I will pass, but almost all of the time I have seen people bid this way they have turned up with a solid suit that they were going to cash against 3NT. Hopefully they have AKQTxx and partner has Jxxx.

Edit: and to all the 4♠ bidders - why? We have playability for every strain except diamonds, and instead we are choosing to bid game in a 4-3 fit that partner will think is a 4-4 fit! We could have a 10-card club fit and end up playing in our 4-3 spade fit. I just don't get it, why not describe our hand now and offer a choice by bidding 4♠ next?

[Phil]

It's either 3♥ or 4♦. One should be a strain probe and the other a spade slam try.

Agree with Philling that 3♥ is looking for strain but I don't think it's specifically 3415. 3424 is possible and maybe even 3433.

[MrAce]

I really like the idea of an idle bid, such as 3♥, if it shows this hand. But does it really ? What would we bid if we held 2434 with 3 small diamonds (assuming 2♣ did not promise inv+ values) or 3424 ?

Do we really need an idle bid here just to keep our all options available ( which is actually just to keep 3NT option in hand ) ?

But the auction tells me we are unlikely to play 3NT anyway.

Why didn't this guy show diamonds at the first place previous round ?
Why did he stick his nose into a live auctio ? He is not even in pass out seat.
Keep in mind he could have tried to make life hell for us by bidding 3♦ easily previous round. Vulnerability is perfect for him to do this, no ?

My instincts are telling me that this guy has solid or at least semi solid suit and was hoping to defend 1 or 2 or 3 NT. He thought defending and defeating NT contracts would be more profitable due to vulnerability. Now he is scared that 2♠ may be passed out and made his move for partscore competition.

At the table i would probably burn my bridges with 3NT and try to make the most descriptive bid of my hand, which may vary depending on agreements. And spare 3♥ bid for hands that we are still likely to play 3NT

[wank]

excellent chances for slam here - it sounds like we're playing with a 30 point deck.

best start by bidding my longest suit then - 4♣ - we can still get back to spades, thought it might take a majestic jump to achieve it.

edit: ignore that, i didn't notice it was a weak NT. slam hunting can take a back seat to correct game hunting then. agree with 3 hearts.

[Fluffy]

I think you are overbidding too much Alex, maybe you missed that it is 12-14 NT? with at most 26/30 and a sure diamond loser you are very underdog for slam.

[MrAce]

Fluffy, on 2013-April-01, 06:31, said:

I think you are overbidding too much Alex, maybe you missed that it is 12-14 NT? with at most 26/30 and a sure diamond loser you are very underdog for slam.

wank, on 2013-March-31, 14:57, said:

edit: ignore that, i didn't notice it was a weak NT. slam hunting can take a back seat to correct game hunting then. agree with 3 hearts.

Yes he missed the 12-14 NT and you missed that he made this correction way before you replied ?