[paulg]

Scoring: IMP

1♦ - (1♠) - 2♣ - (2♥)
?

---

This hand came up in my BIL session yesterday. What call would you advise at this point, given that you are playing a simple system (say, SAYC) with a pick-up intermediate partner?

I gave some advice at the time but now, upon reflection, thought it might not be as clear as it seemed.

What do you say to those who wish to:

• Pass
  
• Double
  
• Bid 3♣
  
• Bid 3♦
  
• Bid 3♥/3♠

Paul

[hrothgar]

I recommend passing

No one has found a fit yet, so venturing to the 3 level doesn't appeal to me.
I have a lot of very soft values.

If I were to bid, I'd bid 3♦

[awm]

I'd pass. Let partner make the next decision. Often when several bids seem reasonable, the cheapest of them is the most flexible and therefore often the best choice. Second choice is 2♠, which shows a spade stopper (when opponents have bid two suits, bidding one of their suits shows a stopper).

Double is surely penalty with four suits bid, and this is far from the right hand for it. You have too many slow cards (queens etc) and shortness in RHO's suit.

There is no need to bid 3♣, partner didn't promise six so why rush to get to your 5-2 or even 4-2 fit? Partner is not going to sell to 2♥ if you pass, but he might bid a club game if you raise...

3♦ is okay, but I would expect a better suit than this for the bid. It also takes a lot of space away from partner, who can no longer double for penalty, or rebid a six-plus card club suit, or show a real fit by raising diamonds.

3♥ should show a heart stopper, which you don't have. When opponents have bid two suits, bidding one of their suits shows a stopper there.

[bid_em_up]

cardsharp, on Sep 11 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

What do you say to those who wish to:

• Pass
  
  
• Double
  
  
• Bid 3♣
  
  
• Bid 3♦
  
  
• Bid 3♥/3♠

Paul

* Pass. Not unreasonable. Also does not help partner know anything else about our hand.

* Double. Out of the question. Double would be penalty oriented here and this hand has little defensive prospects. It also doesnt have any trump tricks.

* 2♠ Not listed as an option but should be (instead of 3♠). Not a good choice, imo, though, as you do not know if you have enough quick tricks to play 3N or not. You may well have to lose the lead too many times in order to establish your suit(s). I would take 3♠ as a splinter agreeing clubs in this sequence.

* 2N not listed as an option. Rightfully so.

* 3♣. Should require another trump.

* 3♦ The most descriptive bid, imo. The hand does have 6 "decent" (not great though) diamonds. It does have a semi-club fit. Partners failure to make a negative double of 1S makes it likely he does not have at least four hearts. He could, its just less likely. As such, the opponents are now on a probable eight or nine card heart fit. Given that partner is likely short(ish) in the majors now, it also increases the chances he also has at least some tolerance for diamonds. Even as little as 9x in partners hand helps. If we do not tell partner that we have 6 diamonds now (when we could only have 3 or 4 from the opening bid), he is never going to figure it out on his own and be able to sacrifice in 5D when it is correct.

* 3♥ Same as 2S. You have no plausible assurance of tricks in 3N.

Unlike Richard, I am fairly certain the opponents have just found a heart fit. Partners failure to make a negative double makes this all the more likely. It is in our best interest to tell partner at this point that we REALLY have a diamond suit and not just 3 or 4 of them. Otherwise, we are not going to get the chance.

This makes 3♦ the choice for me.

[Cascade]

Comments:

1. This isn't a great hand

2. Its still better than some balanced minimum that I will open 1♦

3. Partner made a forcing bid of 2♣ that showed invitational or better values - around 10/11+

4. On this sort of auction I think it is all but mandatory to show your six-card suit. I only wouldn't with a minimum and a bad suit. This suit is not bad enough.

I bid 3♦ and don't really think there is much of a problem.

[mikeh]

I'd tell any player, B/I or otherwise, that pass is the most logical call.

1. We have opened so partner knows we have values. He also knows that we did not raise his club suit, so we lack a big fit there. We did not rebid diamonds, so we don't have a long strong suit there. We did not double (which for B/I would be penalty even if it meant something else for more advanced partnerships, which is not at all clear). We did not bid 2N. So pass, while passive, is not uninformative. This would be a good situation to explain the power of inferential hand visualization: the use to which negative information can be put.

2. Double... give most a hand like Ax AJ10x KQxxx x and this auction: wouldn't we all like to double? While you may argue that this type of holding (and auction) will rarely arise, with a B/I player, I sure would be keeping this kind of double as penalty. I'd say that as you learn more about the game, you will encounter other uses for double, especially in low-level situations, that the best way to deal with this kind of low frequency situation for now is penalty.. and I'd argue that it is the best way period. RHO has stuck hi neck out for a lead-directing, *****-disturbing 2♥ on KQ9xxx.

3. 3♣. AQ tight is as good, in the suit itself, as Axx and we'd raise with Axx. However, when we are going to have to ruff hearts, as seems likely, we may end up not liking to use an honour for that purpose. Add to that the fact that the rest of our hand is crap... not an Ace or King to be seen, and I would make 3♣ a poor choice.

4. 3♦: this is actually a close second choice, but partner will take it as an invitation to 3N with a single heart stopper and a diamond card. That may work out well, when the stiff ♥ wins the opening lead and partner's stopper is not vulnerable when/if LHO wins a diamond trick... and maybe partner has lots of club winners. And our hand is too soft to go out of our way to invite a high-level diamond adventure unless partner likes diamonds.... and the way to judge the degree to which partner likes diamonds is to see if he will bid them uninvited.

5. Cue-bids. Silly. A cue bid is game force. Our hand is way too soft to force to game in a SAYC auction where partner may be bidding 2♣ on Kx xxx Kx KJ109xx.


Finally, I'd tell them that this is a good example of why the pass card is the most under-utilized bidding card in bridge... too many people feel they have to keep bidding when they don't...when they can convey useful and accurate information by passing.

[pclayton]

I'll pass. My second choice is 2♠ since its possible we have 3N on power, if they can't run their suits, however, if thats the case pard is ready to pounce on 2♥.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Sep 11 2007, 04:00 PM, said:

the way to judge the degree to which partner likes diamonds is to see if he will bid them uninvited.

Ew.

I don't know about you, but when I'm playing SAYC, the most common hand I have when I open 1 diamond is 12-14 balanced with no more than 4 diamonds. The pass of 2 hearts makes it even more likely that I have that hand.

Given that, partner bidding 3♦ with even four diamonds would be tantamount to suicide. He doesn't know I have a singleton heart, and therefore they have a fit. For all he knows, they could have 7 hearts and we could have 7-8 diamonds, and bidding turned a good board into a bad one. He's obviously missing the AQ of clubs, so he doesn't know if his clubs will be worth anything in a diamond contract.

Short of an 11 card fit, I can't imagine partner bidding diamonds here.

I bid 3♦ because I know more than partner does. I know they have a heart fit- he doesn't. I know his clubs will be worth tricks- he doesn't. And I know about my six card suit, of course. Partner will not thank me for passing and forcing him to make the decision.

[sathyab]

If you told them it was OK to bid 3d I hope one of them would ask you what you'd bid with QJxx Ax AKQxxx x.

[han]

jtfanclub, on Sep 11 2007, 04:39 PM, said:

Given that, partner bidding 3♦ with even four diamonds would be tantamount to suicide.

Partner with 5+ clubs and 4 diamonds won't be afraid to support diamonds at the 3-level.

[han]

sathyab, on Sep 11 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

If you told them it was OK to bid 3d I hope one of them would ask you what you'd bid with QJxx Ax AKQxxx x.

Perhaps he told them that that hand is good enough to force to game opposite a 2C response?

[jtfanclub]

Hannie, on Sep 11 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

Partner with 5+ clubs and 4 diamonds won't be afraid to support diamonds at the 3-level.

5
AT6
A432
K5432

Hmmmm...I'd be afraid. The clubs may not be worth a single trick, partner could have three small diamonds, it looks like my partner has 4 spades....

I'd chicken out. Would you?

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Sep 11 2007, 04:56 PM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 11 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

Partner with 5+ clubs and 4 diamonds won't be afraid to support diamonds at the 3-level.

5
AT6
A432
K5432

Hmmmm...I'd be afraid. The clubs may not be worth a single trick, partner could have three small diamonds, it looks like my partner has 4 spades....

I'd chicken out. Would you?

no: and this is another situation in which a little instruction can take place: this time re the forcing pass.

2♣, in SAYC, promises another bid. If I am mistaken in this, then what follows is nonsense but I was certainly taught, many years before SAYC, that 'standard american' bidding of 2/1 showed 10+ points and promised another bid.

Since this means that responder has forced to 2N (any bid of 2major by responder after opener makes the hypothetical minimum rebid of 2♦ is either a cue or a reverse, and hence forcing), responder is NOT allowed to pass below 2N.

If it weren't for this basic (?) bridge theory, pass would be far less attractive an option for opener, and I'd vote for 3♦.

with the alleged problem hand of x A10x Axxx Kxxxx, I truly don't see the problem with 3 non-forcing ♦, especially if (as is standard in SAYC) opener opens 1♣ on 3=3 minors. The only time 3♦ is 'wrong' is if opener is specifically 4=4=3=2, and that is low-frequency on this auction, where the 2♥ bid will almost always show 6... after all, the opps have no more than 17 hcp between them and we are assuming that the 2♥ bidder doesn't fit spades... so how the heck can he bid a 5 card suit?

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Sep 11 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

Quote

I'd chicken out.  Would you?

no: and this is another situation in which a little instruction can take place: this time re the forcing pass.

Ahhhh...I am enlightened.

Often here, when something doesn't make sense to me, it's because I do not understand it properly, this certainly being the case here. Unfortunately, for some reason, I learn much better when I challenge and am wrong, than listening to a thread like this one silently- I never would have 'gotten it'.

Anyhow, I apologize if I offended or wasted time, but hopefully somebody learned something on this discussion besides myself.

[cherdano]

I agree about the forcing pass but I don't think this is so helpful on this hand where LHO is likely to raise to 3♥. My instinct was to pass but on reflection I like 3♦ better, not because partner will be afraid to bid 3D over 2H with 4-card support, but because he may be afraid to bid 4D over 3H.

[sathyab]

Hannie, on Sep 11 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 11 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

If you told them it was OK to bid 3d I hope one of them would ask you what you'd bid with QJxx Ax AKQxxx x.

Perhaps he told them that that hand is good enough to force to game opposite a 2C response?

That brings up an interesting question. What is the "standard" treatment in bidding after a "free bid" especially when the free bid is at the 3-level. If it went 1s-(2h), do people still play 3c/d as only one round force, prepared to pass partner's minimum rebid or is it different because of the higher level of the free bid ?

[Elianna]

mikeh, on Sep 11 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

2♣, in SAYC, promises another bid. If I am mistaken in this, then what follows is nonsense but I was certainly taught, many years before SAYC, that 'standard american' bidding of 2/1 showed 10+ points and promised another bid.

2♣ promises another bid when the opponents haven't overcalled before you bid it. Otherwise, after an overcall, I'm not sure that it promises a rebid in SAYC, though it might be easier to teach that it does, so that you can keep things consistent. Note, I'm not saying it's as weak as a negative freebid.

[Echognome]

sathyab, on Sep 11 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 11 2007, 04:44 PM, said:

sathyab, on Sep 11 2007, 04:42 PM, said:

If you told them it was OK to bid 3d I hope one of them would ask you what you'd bid with QJxx Ax AKQxxx x.

Perhaps he told them that that hand is good enough to force to game opposite a 2C response?

That brings up an interesting question. What is the "standard" treatment in bidding after a "free bid" especially when the free bid is at the 3-level. If it went 1s-(2h), do people still play 3c/d as only one round force, prepared to pass partner's minimum rebid or is it different because of the higher level of the free bid ?

I'm not speaking on any authority, but I've always played a new suit at the 3-level is game forcing.

[han]

A free bid at the 3-level is often forcing but it depends on the auction. Here opener rebids his suit, I don't think that is forcing. 1S-(2H)-3C is completely different, I'd play that as gameforcing.