[jules101]

---

A double of 4S opener from partner would be penalties, so 4N is the only take out bid, and often shows two places to play.


What's your bid, and why.

[Endymion77]

5♣, and I would pull 5♦ to 5♥. If I bid 5♦, partner would pass with ♦+♥, and 5♥ is out of the question (he most likely has both minors).

[mcphee]

I hate the dble of 4S as penalty as it is often impractical. This hand is an example as is a good 1-4-4-4 where you scoop an easy slam but partner has to pass the penalty double? I appreciate the idea that poor partner has been invited to bid at the 5 level, the point is they do not have to.

I bid a confident 5C and hope he bids again.

[PhilKing]

As long as the stakes are not too high, I bid 5♥ which, if it backfires, will hopefully torpedo this agreement once and for all.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

mcphee, on 2013-October-01, 06:42, said:

I hate the dble of 4S as penalty as it is often impractical. ...

I thought the current wisdom is that DBL is T/O ( "cards" ) not penalty....
( and 4NT is 2-suited as already stated ) .

[TylerE]

PhilKing, on 2013-October-01, 07:06, said:

As long as the stakes are not too high, I bid 5♥ which, if it backfires, will hopefully torpedo this agreement once and for all.

Why? 5♣ guarantees an 8 card fit. 5♥ does not.

[helene_t]

5♣ guarantees a 3-3 fit. OK, a 4-3 fit most of the time. Or would West make a "penalty" double with a 4441 or 5431 shape?

5♥ for me.

[TylerE]

If 4N shows 2 places to play (nad it should), it should be ironclad 5-5. The 5 level is not to be trifled with. Any less shape can just pass. More importantly, a 54xx hand, where one of the two suits is not ♣, does not pass 5♣, but instead corrects to 5♦, which will get recorrected to 5♥, and the eagle has landed...

[Zelandakh]

TylerE, on 2013-October-01, 08:20, said:

Why? 5♣ guarantees an 8 card fit. 5♥ does not.

You have misread the agreement, which admittedly could be more clearly stated. 4NT does not show 2 places but is the general takeout bid. It would also be made with 1444 and even 1(54)3. This is significantly more difficult than the more traditional approach where double shows values and is usually a semi-balanced takeout while 4NT is a more extreme takeout; and obviously light years away from the modern approach of a takeout double and 4NT really showing 2 places to play. In any case, I would hope I discussed before agreeing to this method whether 4NT always showed some heart tolerance or could also be made on a hand that just wanted to play 5m. To my mind, the sacrifice you make for this agreement is having to guess a minor on that hand. That would make 5♥ obvious.

Without that in place, I think we have to content ourselves with 5♦. The argument that 5♣ is better than 5♦ is specious because to offset the case where partner passes with ♦ + ♥ is the case where partner passes with ♣ + ♥. In the meantime if partner does have 1444 I hope that diamonds will play slightly better than clubs. It is not going to be pretty in either minor in this scenario. Of course if partner turns up with 1435 it is going to be really bad but the same is true for the 5♣ bidders opposite 1453 and for the 5♥ bidders opposite 2155, 11(65), etc.

[mikeh]

As others have noted, the agreement in effect is horrible.

The fact that 4N is said to be 'often two places to play' simply makes the usage even less viable, since it seems safe to assume that it is 'often three places to play' as well!

Whatever we do is a gamble. Partner will often be passing no matter what. So we may as well aim for the home run, and that is 5♥.

5♥ is clearly best when he has a takeout double hand.

5♥ is clearly best when one of his two places to play is hearts: there are two 2-suiters involving hearts and only one that doesn't.

Admittedly, our shape tells us that the odds of a minor 2-suiter are significantly higher than the a priori 33.3% of 2-suited hands, but while I can't calculate the odds, I still think that hearts as one of his suits, if 2-suited, is going to be about 50%.

If we assume that 50% of the time he has support for all 3 suits and 50% has a 2-suiter, bidding 5♥ will find our best spot 75% of the time, which is a lot better than bidding 5m.

We can play games with probabilities and I am not claiming any degree of precision but I do think this sort of analysis is useful at the table.

if I were to bid 5m, I'd bid 5♣ because partner should pull 5♣on a red 2-suiter. Once is a while we'll have long clubs and nowhere to go when he pulls, but he will almost certainly assume that I would pull to my lowest option when in doubt. IOW, with say 2=4=3=4, I'd bid clubs.

Meanwhile, if I bid diamonds, he should and would assume that my diamonds were better than my clubs...the odds of his pulling to 5♥ seem to me a lot lower...if he has hearts and clubs he will usually have to pass and hope that my (real-ish) diamonds are really for real

[PhilKing]

mikeh, on 2013-October-01, 12:04, said:

If we assume that 50% of the time he has support for all 3 suits and 50% has a 2-suiter, bidding 5♥ will find our best spot 75% of the time, which is a lot better than bidding 5m.

I am not sure about the maths, but there is another way 5♥ gains - we sometimes get to 6♣ making when pard has the minors.

I am agreeing with the main thrust of your argument, btw .

[paulg]

This agreement is often found in clubs because players don't know how to handle a strong notrump and want to double with it. Doubling with distributional hands will take you to the dangerous five-level and how on earth can you make something so high when the opponents have tried to make four.

It is to their credit that they use 4NT as a takeout and not a long pause before the double.

[jules101]

Thank you all for your thoughts here.


The hand which bid 4N is listed here - http://bridgewinners...g-problem-2678/ - x AKxxx ATx QT98.

I was interested to hear what others would do when 4S came round to them (but constrained answer by saying X was penalties as per EW agreement at the table).

The answer is DOUBLE was favoured (and some of those passing wished to double). PASS achieved a following too.


I've listed the "consequence" at the end of the other article.