[ahydra]

Matchpoints. They're vul, you're not.

---

You play Acol (weak NT 4cM). Any of 4C, 4D, 4H or X (takeout) could be plausible options at this point - which would you pick?

edit: ignore subtitle, sorry.

ahydra

[FelicityR]

Double takeout seems best, and it also gives partner an opportunity to leave it in with a ♠ stack and an ill-fitting hand. I consider 4♣, 4♦ or 4♥ as overbids with this hand, and might encourage partner too much. I'd rather try for +500 than +400/420. Finding a slam with these cards could prove tricky. The opponents are vulnerable: I'll trust their bidding. Partner's on lead, too, so I'll hope partner will lead a ♠ if it's left in to cut down on the crossruffing potential.

[mikeh]

It seems that Felicity and I are looking at different hands!

With this hand, I am very much interested in slam, and am absolutely not inviting partner to defend 3S doubled with, say, Hxx in spades.

Now, would I like a stronger hand for 4S? Yes, I would, but how can I bid only 4C with this? I have a void! I have Axxxxx AKxx in the reds!

Give him as little (admittedly a nice little) as xxx Kx xx AKxxxx and good luck to them beating slam.

Heck, xxx xx Qx AKxxxx is even weaker and I'd be happy to be in 6C, tho we may not get there.

Is he ever even trying for slam with those sorts of hands?

Now, admittedly, I have given him 6 clubs, but he will often have that many, especially if he is light in hcp. He won't usually hold 3 hearts and only 5 clubs, because most such hands should support hearts. To understand why, imagine he has invitational values in support of hearts but bids a 5 card club suit...and it goes 3S P 4S?

I don't 'count points' when deciding what to bid....points for length or shortness are far, far too simplistic to lead to good bidding. That method is taught to new or newish players, and is necessary because such players lack the skills needed to do better. Some players never advance beyond this, but I know of no expert who even talks about hands that way, in discussions with peers. So I won't say 'this hand is worth 'x' in support of clubs'.

I am far more, as I am here, inclined to consider reasonable moderate hands for partner and decide to involve him, in case he has such a hand.

Here, I have primary support....I'd like Qxxx but Qxx is fine....and I have controls...I'd be less happy if I held, for example, void KQxxxx AQJx Qxx even though that is a 'stronger' hand in hcp.

I tell partner I have a good hand with a spade void and club support. He can bid 5C with a hand that needs more than I have, and otherwise, let's get to slam. Even grand is possible: xxx Kx x AKJxxxx.

[apollo1201]

If pass is forcing, then pass, to see what info partner will give us (H fit, D suit, 3NT or X where I’ll have to decide what to do on those, probably 4H and 4C respectively).

But I guess it won’t be forcing, so 4C be it (partner won’t pass). Other actions (X risking partner passes it, 4H with a weak suit, 4D probably not too useful and space consuming) are too unilateral.

But I like Mikeh’s dynamism😉

[FelicityR]

mikeh, on 2019-November-01, 17:25, said:

It seems that Felicity and I are looking at different hands!

I respect that you are a world class player, mikeh, but there are plenty of other hands where 6♣ or 7♣ cannot be made. If the X of 3♠ is primarily for takeout, partner is hardly going to leave it in with a good 6 card ♣ suit, even with an honour in ♠s, perhaps especially with only 3 cards in ♠s. That's my view (though I might be wrong, I admit.)

My partner and I play 2♣ here as a free-bid with 8-11. Maybe I am giving too much respect to my opponents bidding up to the 3 level vulnerable here, but I trust them not to overbid at this vulnerability, and leaving 3♠X in is a last resort. It's for those minimum hands where partner has something like ♠9543 ♥J5 ♦J6 ♣AK1065 where a bid of 1NT on the first round is not in the equation. Even a final contract of 5♣ on a trump lead would be a difficult here.

[mikeh]

FelicityR, on 2019-November-02, 22:39, said:

I respect that you are a world class player, mikeh, but there are plenty of other hands where 6♣ or 7♣ cannot be made. If the X of 3♠ is primarily for takeout, partner is hardly going to leave it in with a good 6 card ♣ suit, even with an honour in ♠s, perhaps especially with only 3 cards in ♠s. That's my view (though I might be wrong, I admit.)

My partner and I play 2♣ here as a free-bid with 8-11. Maybe I am giving too much respect to my opponents bidding up to the 3 level vulnerable here, but I trust them not to overbid at this vulnerability, and leaving 3♠X in is a last resort. It's for those minimum hands where partner has something like ♠9543 ♥J5 ♦J6 ♣AK1065 where a bid of 1NT on the first round is not in the equation. Even a final contract of 5♣ on a trump lead would be a difficult here.

It is an error to answer questions about standard methods, in which 2C is unlimited on the high side, by using your pet methods, in which 2C, for you, is 8-11.

As for there being hands on which slam is poor, of course there are. 4S is not forcing to slam. I’d comfortably pass 5C, having bid 4S, since partner now knows a lot about my hand, yet made no slam try.

Bridge is a partnership game. Bid your hand and trust partner. I appreciate that I play with partners perhaps more worthy of trust than do most posters and readers, but one reason I get to do so is that I know how to bid. Start bidding better, and either your partners will improve as well, or you’ll be able to find stronger partners, because your reputation will improve. Few top players were top players immediately and most moved up in the bridge world by showing others that they knew how to play.


Frankly, in my opinion, anything but 4S here is a terrible call. I often see several plausible choices in most bidding questions, but this one is just too clear. Heck, even opposite a 2C call showing 8-11, which in my view is unplayable in good competition (since if you can’t bid clubs with a good hand, you are vulnerable to being preempted by 4th seat), I can’t imagine not at least forcing to game, and a ‘takeout’ double, concealing primary support, is the antithesis of partnership bridge.

[Trinidad]

mikeh, on 2019-November-03, 12:40, said:

It is an error to answer questions about standard methods, in which 2C is unlimited on the high side, by using your pet methods, in which 2C, for you, is 8-11.

Mike, I agree with you that playing my methods (and yours), it would be automatic to bid 4♠.

However, the OP specified Acol as the system. I am certainly not an expert in Acol*, but it might just be that negative freebids are fairly standard in Acol. And then 2♣ would actually show 8-11 (if you want to count points)...

But perhaps the Acol experts can say something more about this?

Rik

*The first system I learnt was "Dutch Acol" - which is not Acol, but inspired by it - and there negative freebids were an integral part of the system (back then).

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2019-November-04, 09:38, said:

Mike, I agree with you that playing my methods (and yours), it would be automatic to bid 4♠.

However, the OP specified Acol as the system. I am certainly not an expert in Acol*, but it might just be that negative freebids are fairly standard in Acol. And then 2♣ would actually show 8-11 (if you want to count points)...

But perhaps the Acol experts can say something more about this?

Rik

*The first system I learnt was "Dutch Acol" - which is not Acol, but inspired by it - and there negative freebids were an integral part of the system (back then).

Negative free bids are not part of Acol as most people play it in EBUland.

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-November-04, 11:20, said:

Negative free bids are not part of Acol as most people play it in EBUland.

I agree with this. I had never heard of negative free bids until I came on this site. (I had assumed that they were a North American invention?).

I have come late to this thread. I agree with Mike that this hand has grown. But I am mindful that it is MPs and I would probably try to keep 4H in the picture with 4D. But, given that I don't know what to do next, I have to admit that I see the sense in Mike's 4S answer.

[helene_t]

Negative Freebids were taught by Henderson's book, and Dutch Acol, which is derived from a variable-NT stone age Acol but uses strong NT throughout, also had it in the initial version, and I think it was only around 10 years ago that most teachers stopped teaching it.

Both in Henderson's and the Dutch version, NFB apply only when the freebid is above the 2-level of the opening suit. For example
1♣-(1♠)-2♦

In a weak NT context, the rationale is that opener's 2NT rebid can now still show 15-16(+?) rather than the awkward 3415 hand, which would just pass.

Of course, NFB has merits in a strong NT system as you can define it as "to play opposite 12-14 bal", but in that case you probably want to play it as nonforcing regardless of whether it bypasses the 2-level of the opening suit or not.