[aguahombre]

cherdano, on 2013-August-21, 17:07, said:

Double-and-bid is forcing whenever partner has shown some values, as e.g. by making a free bid at the 3-level. This really should be in any textbook explaining double-and-bid, but sadly it probably isn't.

You are right, it probably isn't. You are right, it probably should be. But, what kind of textbook? Perhaps one on common sense inferences ---not likely to sell like hotcakes.

[RSClyde]

gnasher, on 2013-August-21, 15:57, said:

4♥ is to play, and 4NT by either hand would be to play. Getting to the right game takes priority over slam investigations. Note that Wank's partner bid 4♠ not 4♥.

Partner's 3♥ is predicated on the idea that I have either a fit or a very strong hand.

I'm not saying that partner would bid 4♥ over 4♦ on this hand, the point is that when trying to decide if I'm going to bid 4♦, I have to anticipate that partner may likely bid 4♥.

I took the liberty of using dealmaster to simulate this, I gave the opening bidder 11+ HCPs and 5+ spades and partner 6+ HCPs and 4+ hearts.
5♦ was 83% and 3nt 88%. So if getting to the right game is our priority then 3nt over 3♥ is the right call. Admittedly 6♦ was good at 50%, so perhaps that makes it worth it to explore diamonds, but 3nt is the better game.

[gnasher]

RSClyde, on 2013-August-22, 11:14, said:

I took the liberty of using dealmaster to simulate this, I gave the opening bidder 11+ HCPs and 5+ spades and partner 6+ HCPs and 4+ hearts.

Did you omit to give LHO 3-card spade support? One of the reasons that we expect 6♦ to be good is that partner is marked with a singleton spade.

Quote

5♦ was 83% and 3nt 88%. So if getting to the right game is our priority then 3nt over 3♥ is the right call. Admittedly 6♦ was good at 50%, so perhaps that makes it worth it to explore diamonds, but 3nt is the better game.

When I said that getting to the right game took priority, I didn't mean to imply that it was paramount. Furthermore, I was talking about defining the meanings of bids, not about decisions in the auction.

If we accept those figures it's certainly right to bid past 3NT. Suppose that we simply dispense with exploration and bid 6♦:
- 50% of the time we gain 10 or 11 for making slam
- Some of the time we get a flat board or lose 2, for going two down in slam when 3NT was down
- The remainder we lose 10 or 11, for going down in slam when 3NT was making.

We're already ahead. If we can improve on that by avoiding some of the slams that are going down, we show a larger profit. For example, we could adopt the strategy of bidding 4♦, then bidding slam opposite any encouraging noise and otherwise playing 5♦. Or we could bid 4♦, then 5♣ opposite a 4♠ cue, then accept partner's decision.

[mfa1010]

4♦ looks automatic on west's cards. 2 cover cards in ♥+♣ and a 3-card fit is enough for slam, and partner did show values.

[RSClyde]

gnasher, on 2013-August-22, 13:14, said:

Did you omit to give LHO 3-card spade support? One of the reasons that we expect 6♦ to be good is that partner is marked with a singleton spade.


When I said that getting to the right game took priority, I didn't mean to imply that it was paramount. Furthermore, I was talking about defining the meanings of bids, not about decisions in the auction.

If we accept those figures it's certainly right to bid past 3NT. Suppose that we simply dispense with exploration and bid 6♦:
- 50% of the time we gain 10 or 11 for making slam
- Some of the time we get a flat board or lose 2, for going two down in slam when 3NT was down
- The remainder we lose 10 or 11, for going down in slam when 3NT was making.

We're already ahead. If we can improve on that by avoiding some of the slams that are going down, we show a larger profit. For example, we could adopt the strategy of bidding 4♦, then bidding slam opposite any encouraging noise and otherwise playing 5♦. Or we could bid 4♦, then 5♣ opposite a 4♠ cue, then accept partner's decision.

Yes I gave the partnering hand 3 spades. For the record, I'll admit that I got this wrong initially. I disliked 4D because I tend to avoid bids which send the auction into the stratosphere when they miss (though it almost can't be too big of a miss). But that's just avoiding one kind of bad result, not bidding a cold slam is also a bad result: it just has a different feel.

[lamford]

I agree with wank and gnasher that 4D is right, and wank's auction seemed fine. I think it is better to play that 2NT is either weak with clubs or invitational with a red suit. West can then break LEB with 3D and it runs smoothly here. Is there any reason to play 2NT as weak with any suit, or did Leb just start that way?

[rogerclee]

lamford, on 2013-August-25, 16:33, said:

I agree with wank and gnasher that 4D is right, and wank's auction seemed fine. I think it is better to play that 2NT is either weak with clubs or invitational with a red suit. West can then break LEB with 3D and it runs smoothly here. Is there any reason to play 2NT as weak with any suit, or did Leb just start that way?

I quite like playing that 2N is two places to play or weak with hearts and 3♥ is invitational with hearts. You get to show the most important game try (hearts) but also get to play scrambling 2N.

[sathyab]

mfa1010, on 2013-August-22, 13:31, said:

4♦ looks automatic on west's cards. 2 cover cards in ♥+♣ and a 3-card fit is enough for slam, and partner did show values.

If partner has 1=5=2=5, he won't love 4♦, as RsClyde has pointed out. What's the best lie with this hand over 4♦ ? You suspect partner may be 4-5 in pointed suits, should you bid 5♣ hoping for 5-3 fit or rebid ♥ hoping to land in a 5-2 fit ?

[gnasher]

rogerclee, on 2013-August-25, 20:42, said:

I quite like playing that 2N is two places to play or weak with hearts and 3♥ is invitational with hearts. You get to show the most important game try (hearts) but also get to play scrambling 2N.

In this auction that doesn't seem particularly useful. With the scrambling hand you can make a responsive double instead.

[gnasher]

sathyab, on 2013-August-26, 19:52, said:

If partner has 1=5=2=5, he won't love 4♦, as RsClyde has pointed out. What's the best lie with this hand over 4♦ ? You suspect partner may be 4-5 in pointed suits, should you bid 5♣ hoping for 5-3 fit or rebid ♥ hoping to land in a 5-2 fit ?

5♣ sounds like a cue bid, so he'd bid 5♦ unless his hearts were self-supporting.

Opposite a hand like x A10xxx xx Qxxxx, we'll be happy enough in 5♦. It would need a trump lead to cause us any difficulties, but then we'd have a strip-squeeze against RHO.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-27, 01:38, said:

5♣ sounds like a cue bid, so he'd bid 5♦ unless his hearts were self-supporting.

Opposite a hand like x A10xxx xx Qxxxx, we'll be happy enough in 5♦. It would need a trump lead to cause us any difficulties, but then we'd have a strip-squeeze against RHO.

Only if they are playing five-card majors. If North has ♠xxxx they may be able to beat you with a trump lead.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-August-27, 05:50, said:

Only if they are playing five-card majors. If North has ♠xxxx they may be able to beat you with a trump lead.

But we know they were playing five-card majors, because the original post makes no mention of four-card majors, this is an international forum, and the original poster is a man of more than average common sense and attention to detail.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-27, 06:19, said:

But we know they were playing five-card majors, because the original post makes no mention of four-card majors, this is an international forum, and the original poster is a man of more than average common sense and attention to detail.

I agree with the last part, but the "International Forum" is separate to this one which is the "Bridge-Related Discussion". I would guess that 30% of pairs at Brighton, even in the teams, were playing 4-card majors, and among the sort of teams who missed 6D, and went for 1100 in the other room, my guess is that there were more than the average number playing four-card majors. So, I disagree with the statement "we know they were playing five-card majors". I would say that there is a "more than average" chance they were, which is why I prefaced my post with "Only if". If you had said "we expect they were playing five-card majors" I would not have taken issue.

I have also surveyed posts on here where a four-card major was clearly opened (because we were later shown the hand). I have not yet found an appendage to the bid of "four-card major". No doubt if I continue to look I will find a poster with more than average common sense and attention to detail who appended that description.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-August-27, 07:01, said:

among the sort of teams who missed 6D, and went for 1100 in the other room, my guess is that there were more than the average number playing four-card majors

Why is that relevant? What we're discussing is the methods of the pair who cunningly preempted the opponents out of a slam, and whose teammates took 1100.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-August-27, 07:45, said:

Why is that relevant? What we're discussing is the methods of the pair who cunningly preempted the opponents out of a slam, and whose teammates took 1100.

Those four-card majors must be good. Look what they achieved! And it was, I think, a Swiss Teams, so the team who went for 1100 had clearly found its level, quite possibly among a bundle of four-card major pairs. And I don't think taking 1100 was caused by using four-card or five-card majors.

And I must admit that it was a minor point that the strip-squeeze would not operate when spades were 4-4, not meriting this level of discussion! It wasn't even the actual layout.

[paulg]

I don't actually know what they were playing but thought it was pretty irrelevant given that it was a third-hand opener. They are a pair that I'd expect to play five-card majors and would expect them to bid three spades over the double with four-card support, but there are no guarantees.

We went for -1100 when an Ekrens 2♥ was doubled.. Since the opener could be up to 13 HCPs in third seat, West judged well to pass.