[kenrexford]

♠KJxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Jxxx

1♦-X-1♥-?

This problem was given to me this weekend. I had an opinion that this seemed like a perfect hand to _____. The person giving me the problem also though that this was the perfect hand for my thought, as well.

However, when given partner's hand (the Doubler's hand), other people decided to _____, a call, bid, or pass that was completely inconsistent with the action some felt appropriate for this hand. The end result of the two analyses was +/-2 tricks away from the actual trick-taking strength of the combined hands, because the views were so radically different. However, the radically different views were held by people who occasionally play pro bridge.

So, this seems to be a situation with wildly differing opinions.

Thoughts on this?

BTW -- a strange follow-up question. What would your call be with a mediocre 11-count with precisely four spades? That secondary problem, also discussed, added fuel to the fire and was, perhaps, the more interesting issue, in the sense of the comparison of styles in distinguishing these two hands.

[Free]

1♠

[pbleighton]

1S. Obviously there is a p, so I won't say wtp

Peter

[jdonn]

1♠, though I usually hate this answer this seems like a case of 'wtp'.

[jtfanclub]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2007, 04:31 PM, said:

♠KJxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣Jxxx

1♦-X-1♥-?

NV vs. Vul, playing Imps, I'd bid 4♠, and look confident in the process.
Vul. vs. NV, playing Imps, I'd bid 1♠.

I am, as always, no expert, but it seems to me that this hand screams pre-emption, and pre-emption is always based on vulnerability.

[Mcauley]

1S

[pbleighton]

Quote

NV vs. Vul, playing Imps, I'd bid 4♠, and look confident in the process.
Vul. vs. NV, playing Imps, I'd bid 1♠.

I am, as always, no expert, but it seems to me that this hand screams pre-emption, and pre-emption is always based on vulnerability.

How good are your partner's takeout doubles? I assume pd will probably have 4 hearts and 13(12), or if only 3 probably have 15(14). If this is the case, I don't think 4S is probably making.

If your partners tend to make minimum offshape doubles (not wrong, but not my style), then there's a case for 4S, but only IMO at imps, favorable.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

pbleighton, on Jun 11 2007, 05:01 PM, said:

How good are your partner's takeout doubles? I assume pd will probably have 4 hearts and 13(12), or if only 3 probably have 15(14). If this is the case, I don't think 4S is probably making.

If your partner tend to make minimum offshape doubles (not wrong, but not my style), then there's a case for 4S, but only IMO at imps, favorable.

Well, I specifically mentioned IMPs, favorable.

I have no idea if I can make 4♠. I also have no methods where partner would bid game if he had, say Axxx Axxx x AQTx across my 1♠ call, which looks like it has strong possibilities for 6.

What I *do* think is that, with us having a good fit and them having a double fit but having been unable to show it, it'll be very difficult for them to double us. If this is an 18 total trick hand, as I suspect it is, it doesn't matter how much we make or go down, 4♠ undoubled is always a good board.

It looks to me like there's a lot of things to go right, here...
1. Push them into the 5 level, when they can only make 4♥.
2. Make them guess to play in hearts when they should be playing in diamonds.
3. We make an an otherwise unbiddable game.
4. We go down 1 or 2 and they could make 2 or 3.
5. We go down 3 or more, and they had game.

The only thing it looks like that could go wrong is they find the X AND partner made a badly offshape X, like 3433 shape. It's true that if we can each make exactly 3, we could have bid 3♠ and taken it from them for +140 instead of -100, but it's still better than wimpering off with 1♠ and letting them play a part score in hearts for -140.

I'll take my chances. If I had better methods, maybe I'd reconsider.

[pbleighton]

Quote

If this is an 18 total trick hand, as I suspect it is,

This was the key part of my question about your partner's takeout double requirements, which I don't think you answered. Is he likely to have either 4 hearts and 13(12) hcp or 15/good 14 hcp and 3 hearts. If so, they will probably struggle to make 3 hearts.

Also, if you're confident it's an 18 trick hand, you can always bid 3S over 3H later in the auction.

Bidding 4S on a nine card fit with at least close to half the deck, when the opps are unlikely to make 4, just doesn't make sense to me.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

Quote

This was the key part of my question about your partner's takeout double requirements, which I don't think you answered. Is he likely to have either 4 hearts and 13(12) hcp or 15/good 14 hcp and 3 hearts. If so, they will probably struggle to make 3 hearts.

I don't think that's important. It's not the number of hearts he has, it's the number of diamonds. I have 3, he supposedly has 1. That's the 9 card fit. Likewise, I'm hoping that if partner has only 3 spades, that he's 3-4-1-5, so we still have a 9 card fit. This is looking very double-fittish to me, or rather double-double fittish, since we rate for 17 in the black and them 17 in the red.

I don't like squishy 3s. I might push them into a squishy 4 (vulnerable, in IMPs), and then partner has an impossible choice. And if I'm going to squish to 3 and then slosh to 4, I might as well dive straight into the deep end, where they haven't gotten a chance to exchange information and they can't be certain that we're going down.

But, I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. I'm the only person here so far who mentioned vulnerability in any of this.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I don't think that's important. It's not the number of hearts he has, it's the number of diamonds.

So it's immaterial to you whether you play in a 5-4 fit with a 3-1 split, or a 4-4 fit with a 4-1 split? The two scenarios typically produce the same number of trump tricks for you?

That's not true for me, but then I'm no expert

Peter

[cherdano]

1S wtp, except that if you phrase such a simple question in such a long complicated post there must be a deeper problem somewhere else...

[pclayton]

1S is pretty clear to me. 4S is just an overbid. If I had a 6th spade or 5th club, i might consider it.

[inquiry]

1♠, but this is close to a 2♠ bid. Give me ♠KQxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣xxxx and I would bid 2♠, the two jacks are just not the same.

[mikeh]

I suspect that we are about to be invited down the rabbit hole of imaginative bidding, since I cannot imagine seriously considering anything other than 1♠. I mean, just what do we think 1♠ shows? Surely the family of hands shown by this bid includes this type of hand?

As for the flat 11 with 4 trump: depending on just how flat it was, and how soft, I'd either bid 2♠ (generally an underbid with 11, but we are discussing a bad 11) or I'd cue opener's suit.

I believe the mainstream approaches to double of 1♥ or cue of 2♥ is that they both show ♥s. This is neccessary to prevent a baby psyche and/or to find the 5-3/5-4 or 4-4 fit that plays well despite the bad break evidenced by a non-psychic 1♥ bid. While psyching 1♥ may no longer be a wide-spread style, that is precisely because most players can expose it. Make the double takeout, and the psyche will return with a vengance.

As for the difference, to me a bid of 2♥ shows a moderate hand with a decent 5 card suit...eminently passable, while a double shows a good hand with 4+♥s, and sets up a force if I make a non-jump, non-game bid next time.

As for jumping to 2♠, I can't see lowering the strength requirement for that compared to an auction in which RHO passed the double. After all, the minimum shown by 1♠ is actually higher than the minimum (0) shown had RHO passed, so there is no need to stretch to bid 2♠.

As for 4♠... count me out. I defy you to construct a hand on which 4♠ is a good contract and partner can't raise to 2♠ (I don't really mean it.. please don't post weird hands that play well.... we'd just get into arguments about how realistic the various auctions are). Why mastermind?

All of this seems obvious, and I would have thought that most experienced players (at least in NA) would follow this approach... but the OP suggests otherwise. So I await the revelation(s)

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2007, 07:23 PM, said:

(I don't really mean it.. please don't post weird hands that play well.... we'd just get into arguments about how realistic the various auctions are).

Aw...c'mon. Take Axxx xxxx x ATxx. That's not weird, that's expected shape, it's 8 hcp, and it's still odds on for game. Throw in a half dozen random points, and it's still not good enough to raise.


I'm not defending 4♠ any more. I was so intruiged about what else besides 1♠ could possibly be the right answer, that I probably overthought the hand. I put it out there, it got shot down, that's good enough for me.

[kenrexford]

Wow! I have to admit being a bit shocked by all of this, and by the 100% vote for 1♠, considering (a.) the debate that actually occurred, (b.) my different belief (shared, not just my own), and (c.) the logic of the "why" being so strong, IMO.

The idea taught to me apparently seems rather simple.

First, this has become a free bid auction and a competitive auction. I have the luxury of passing, but I also have the need to be descriptive. Longer fits might require more rapid action; flat hands with power might be less susceptible to preemption and more capable of penalty doubling.

Second, the doubler is expected to have a rough-guess of three tricks, plus a ruffing value, with at least three spades.

With this in mind, the way I learned it (in competition like this), a 2♠ call by Advancer should be a five-card suit, bid to expectancy. As this hand is a nine-loser hand (three clubs, three diamonds, one heart, two spades), and as partner is expected to have three honor covers and one ruffing value cover (minimum), our expectancy is roughly 8 tricks. So, I bid 2♠. I expect to take 7-9 tricks, depending upon splits and fortune.

Had I bid 3♠, as I learned it, this would ask partner to bid 4♠ unless he has a good reason to not bid 4♠, essentially. But, 2♠ is a pure expectancy bid, somewhat "preemptive" in effect but "descriptive" in purpose.

In contrast, with a routine 11-count and four spades, now 1♠ is right by the techniques. If partner has a fourth spade, he will always raise a freely bid 1♠ unless his hand is completely terrible (even without competition). If Opener furthers the auction before that and beyond 2♠, such as by bidding 3♦, recourse still exists (like partner bidding anyway, values doubles, and the like).

So, it appears that the style I learned (my friend called it the "new style" and called the reverse the "old style") would be for 2♠ here to be a "weak descriptive" and 1♠ to be potentially meaty, with the addition that doubler automatically raises, all enabled by 1♠ and 2♠ being bid in a free/competitive context.

Does the forum field not do this because this style described as new school has been studied and rejected? Or, is this just weird Rexford's World stuff? Is there anyone else out there that agrees with or uses this style???

(I thought that this was "obvious," of course. LOLOL)

[pbleighton]

Quote

Does the forum field not do this because this style described as new school has been studied and rejected? Or, is this just weird Rexford's World stuff? Is there anyone else out there that agrees with or uses this style???

I've never heard of it, not that that means much.

How many well-known players have adopted this style?

Peter

[cherdano]

Ken, I agree that the style that double is REQUIRED to raise a free 1♠ bid with 4 trumps makes a lot of sense; if I understood bigtrain correctly e.g. Meckwell play that, but I don't think it is standard. (I think BWS still requires an ace more than a minimum double for a non-competitive raise of a free one-level advance.)

However, that doesn't mean 2♠ becomes preemptive, it is still useful as a value bid; in your style it would then promise 5 spades.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jun 11 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

Ken, I agree that the style that double is REQUIRED to raise a free 1♠ bid with 4 trumps makes a lot of sense; if I understood bigtrain correctly e.g. Meckwell play that, but I don't think it is standard. (I think BWS still requires an ace more than a minimum double for a non-competitive raise of a free one-level advance.)

However, that doesn't mean 2♠ becomes preemptive, it is still useful as a value bid; in your style it would then promise 5 spades.

Interesting reference. Bigtrain, Ken Eichenbaum, and I were the three major providers of the opinions that 2♠ was the call and 1♠ right with the mediocre 11-count.