[Mkgnao]

You hold:

♠ KQT42
♥ K972
♦ 9852
♣ -

MPs, all vul:

(1♣*) - p - (1♦) - 1♠
(dbl) - 2♠ - (3♣) - ...

*: 1C could be 2 but only if 4432.

Strong partner, weak opponents.

What would you bid?

[neilkaz]

Don't I hold the same minimum overcall I bid with last round? I'll pass and leave things up to PD.

[Mkgnao]

neilkaz, on 2017-August-24, 09:06, said:

Do you play support XX?

Yes, but since we played in a pick-up partnership, we didn't have an agreement what the redouble would have been. No agreement about a Rosenkranz redouble (http://www.bridgebum...ranz_double.php).

[neilkaz]

Mkgnao, on 2017-August-24, 09:11, said:

Yes, but since we played in a pick-up partnership, we didn't have an agreement what the redouble would have been. No agreement about a Rosenkranz redouble (http://www.bridgebum...ranz_double.php).

Sry, I failed to delete that post quickly enough once I realized that the 1♠ bidder wasn't opener so sup XX wouldn't be played by many.

[kenberg]

I suppose it would be good to know what XX by partner would have meant. For that matter it might be good to know what the opponent's X meant. Probably it shows four hearts, but maybe it's a support double for diamonds. And maybe it's just a generally good hand.

Nonetheless, I pass. I can easily imagine opener being unsure of what to do over 3C, 3SX is very apt to be the wrong contract for us, there seems to be far more of a downside to bidding than to passing.

I am thinking this is one of those hands where just about everyone would pass at the table but for some reason bidding on is right. If so, I really can't see why. I can ruff clubs in my hand but that doesn't increase the trick total. If they do have an undiscovered 8 card diamond fit then I can profitably ruff a diamond or two on the board, that would help, but my guess is that the double showed hearts.

I look forward to seeing what actually is best. I am confident that I would pass and that I would have no trouble doing it in tempo so that partner, if he wishes, could bid again. I doubt he will wish to.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

[ahydra]

The club void is wonderful but we're short on values otherwise and are vulnerable, so pass is probably wisest.

ahydra

[rmnka447]

Pass.

What does the auction tell you? Opener should have a good hand to double your 1 ♠ bid because with a minimal opener a pass could be made and RHO would still have a chance to make a call and continue the auction.

Your ♣ void would seem to place your partner with some ♣.

You've made an aggressive 1 ♠ overcall, so have bid the full value of your hand and then some with that call.

Your partner made a minimum raise which shows a limited hand and support. Often partner will have only 3 card support. Then 2 ♠ may be the limit of or beyond what you can make.

Partner should have another chance to compete further with the right hand or sit for a ♣ or other contract if that's right. Bidding 3 ♠ is a unilateral decision and should be reserved for hands where it's pretty crystal clear to bid on no matter what partner has. Here what partner has is very important on what should be done, so passing is right.

Keep in mind that at MPs a vulnerable contract down 1 doubled is -200 which is the kiss of death on part score hands. And at MPs, the opponents can be freer making part score penalty doubles. Indeed, making such "ornery" MP point doubles where you've got enough to feel you have a fair chance of beating the opponents but not enough to bid on are an important part of being a good MP player.

[GrahamJson]

Pass and hope oppo don't find their slam, or if they do, hope it goes off on a ruff at trick one (although I see that you would be on lead against a diamond slam, so that isn't very likely).

Yes, you might be able to make a few spades, but even with the perfect fit; four card support and a diamond void, you have nine tricks on a cross ruff and maybe the king of hearts. And only that then if a trump isn't led. Meanwhile you have one, maybe two, defensive tricks, so oppo would outbid you to their game or slam. Whilst I suppose you could argue that therefore you should bid on, to take away oppo's bidding space and make it more difficult for them, I think that overall it is best to go quietly and hope that you have already done enough.

[RD350LC]

Pass
If p has 4 card spade support, he will bid again. Otherwise, the law of total tricks says let the opponents play it.

[fourdad]

it is quite likely that your partner has a club stack. Pass

[miamijd]

A lot depends on what opener's second round X of 1D means.

If it's a 16+ hand, I would pass now. Chances are that we're outgunned - maybe badly - so if anyone should bid 3S, it needs to be partner.

If it's hearts any strength, I think it's close (the opps rate to have 9C), but I probably still pass both vul (more later).

If it's a support X for diamonds, however, then I'm holding my breath and bidding 3S, especially against less than expert opponents. The LAW does NOT say not to bid 3 over 3 at MPs with only 8 trump; you are generally right to do so at MPs IF the opponents have a 9-fit and your short-suit losers are minimized. Probably partner doesn't have 5 clubs (though it's possible), so the trump count rates to be at 17, where 3 over 3 is often right. Moreover, our short-suit losers (read Lawrence and Wirgren's "I Fought the Law" on this one) are 2 at most (0 in clubs; at most 2 in diamonds). That means bid more.

The reason I'm cautious if the opener hasn't shown diamonds is that with both vul, there are too many ways to lose. If the opponents X for -1, that's likely a zero. Non-expert opponents probably won't X, but even then, -2 is a zero. Worse, with the opponents vulnerable, if partner has his expected 4 clubs and a good hand, +140 might lose to +200 for defending 3C. Both vul is the worst time to bid more (our side vul only is actually better in MPs).

What was the X of 1d?

Cheers,
Mike

[msjennifer]

PASS.I fully agree with the argument put up by kenberg.

[The_Badger]

miamijd, on 2017-August-25, 15:52, said:

What was the X of 1d?

That one sentence is worth its weight in gold. Although I'm definitely inclined to pass without any definition of its meaning.

Going off at a tangent, given that minor suits are poor cousins to their majors, what is the point of having a support double in this sequence btw? A double here is better used, as Mike says, to show extras (16+) in my view too.

[kenberg]

The_Badger, on 2017-August-26, 05:23, said:

That one sentence is worth its weight in gold. Although I'm definitely inclined to pass without any definition of its meaning.

Going off at a tangent, given that minor suits are poor cousins to their majors, what is the point of having a support double in this sequence btw? A double here is better used, as Mike says, to show extras (16+) in my view too.

Staying on your tangent for a bit:

I think it depends some on other agreements. Say I am not playing in the Walsh style so that after 1C -(P) - 1D -(1S) it is very possible for responder to have four hearts even if he does not hold game-forcing values. In this case I think using the X to show hearts will come up fairly often, and moreover when it does arise it will help with what otherwise could be a tough situation. If playing in the Walsh style it is less important to be able to show four hearts since, firstly, responder usually will not have four and, secondly, if he has four he will also have a big hand and (probably) have a chance to show them.

After 1C -(P) - 1D -(1H) it's different. Now opener can bid spades if he wants to, so the X is not needed to show the other major.

Is using a double as a support double useful after 1C -(P) - 1D -(1H) ? I think so. Not all hands are played in game. Often, but not always, the 1D response to 1C is on five. Responder might have skipped over 1D to bid 1M or 1NT. He didn't. That doesn't prove he has five, but it's a hint. If the opponents are going to contest the auction in hearts, it could be useful to see how far we want to go in diamonds. Do we have an 8 card fit or maybe a 9 card fit? A support double can help sort this out.

[The_Badger]

kenberg, on 2017-August-26, 11:17, said:

Staying on your tangent for a bit:

I think it depends some on other agreements. Say I am not playing in the Walsh style so that after 1C -(P) - 1D -(1S) it is very possible for responder to have four hearts even if he does not hold game-forcing values.

Totally agree, Ken. I'm getting complacent as I now assume everyone, even at I/A level plays in the Walsh-style, preferring to respond with a four card major as opposed a five card ♦ suit.

[forgo]

you have bid your hand! in fact, you have overbid your hand abit PASS

[kenberg]

The_Badger, on 2017-August-26, 11:31, said:

Totally agree, Ken. I'm getting complacent as I now assume everyone, even at I/A level plays in the Walsh-style, preferring to respond with a four card major as opposed a five card ♦ suit.

In this particular case the opponents are described as not strong. Compared to what, I suppose, but very possibly they have no agreement as to what the X of 1S meant. That's just life on BBO. Whatever the merits of support doubles would be, I would not place a bet on this being one. In a sufficiently serious game no doubt one could make an issue of this, they are supposed to be able to have agreements and to know what they are, but usually I just place a bet. Here I would bet that it was intended to show hearts, but really nobody knows.

Anyway, along with most everyone else, I am not bidding 3S.
I suppose he could have
Axx
Axxx
xx
xxxx

This could be terrific if hearts are 3-2 and I get a club lead. Maybe third hand is 2=2=5=4. Could be. Ruff the club, cash the two top hearts, cash three rounds of spade, play another spade throwing a diamond not mining at all if they ruff in. Hey this is great. And maybe I will win the Powerball Jackpot.

I'm sticking with my pass. 3H is not goinig nearly so well if third hand is 3=1=5=4, as I think is likely.


Early in I guessed that this is one of those hands where everyone would pass at the table but the lie is such that we should bid on. And I now see how that could be. But I am not placing that bet

[cherdano]

I don't agree with all the claims that we have bid our hand. We have completely normal amount of strength in terms of honours. Being 5440 is a big plus!!!!
Still, being vulnerable at MPs I just think we have to pass. If opponents were good, they'd likely double us in 3S for a terrible -200 vs partscore, or -500 vs game. But given that the opponents are weak, there is another danger: there is a good chance that responder has extras that he should have shown - in which case 3S-2 will be a much worse result than -130 or -150 for defending 3♣.

[Mkgnao]

At the table, I pressed on with 3♠. 3♠ -1 was 36%: most pairs were in 2♠ making, 3♠ -1 or -2 and 3♠ was made three times (the latter requiring a horrific defence).

The full hand:

---

As you can see, partner tried to trap the opponents with his heavy 2♠-bid.

I thought I'd diagnosed overbidding in competitive 3 over 3 situations as one of my leaks, so I told myself only to bid on with extra's: an extra trump, significant extra HCP or a powerful void (in this case in their suit). Initially I thought raising to 3♠ was automatic so I ascribed the result to bad luck but soon afterwards I began to get second thoughts. Partner is likely to have 4+♣ on the bidding and if he has his promised 6-9 HCP, then combined with my 8 HCP the opponents will have 23-27 HCP. In other words, the 3♠-bid runs the risk of giving the opponents only winning options: either doubling 3♠ or bidding a making game. (Though the club break will remain a liability for 3NT.)

About the meaning of the double, no one at the table aside from opener knew what her double meant. As a final note, I polled my real life partner and he clearly favored 3♠ over pass. Ok, he's a junior but still it was surprising to see that almost everyone chose pass with only Cherdano contemplating bidding. Groupthink or glorious insight?