[paulg]

My billie bid 3♦.

I said that (imo) bidding 3♦ was very tempting but thought that pass was a better call. I'm more aligned with awm and mikeh in thinking.

Subsequently I thought I was probably overly critical of 3♦, hence this thread. I'll get this thread advertised in the BIL Gazette so they can see the arguments, so many thanks for all your contributions.

Paul

[han]

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

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?

I actually think the forcing pass is irrelevant. Passing out 2H when partner has opened 1D and we haven't shown support with this hand seems really wrong. (since Paul is going to show this thread to Billies I will refrain from using stronger words)

[jtfanclub]

Hannie, on Sep 12 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

Quote

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?

I actually think the forcing pass is irrelevant. Passing out 2H when partner has opened 1D and we haven't shown support with this hand seems really wrong. (since Paul is going to show this thread to Billies I will refrain from using stronger words)

I can't imagine it being passed out either...but I can imagine a 2NT bid. Watching the hand get passed out at 2NT when it makes 3NT and 5♦ (and over 50% for 6) seems bad to me.

If the pass is forcing, it could be argued that the pass and 2NT show the same strength by opener, just different shapes.

[bid_em_up]

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.

Ummm, 2N? 3N? 3H? Not 3D.

[FrancesHinden]

cardsharp, on Sep 11 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

This hand came up in my BIL session yesterday.

That's funny, because this hand came up at Brighton a few weeks ago as well...

As the table, I passed over 2H. We gained imps on the board as a direct result of this pass.

[bid_em_up]

I won't disagree that it is close between pass and 3♦. There are valid arguments for both sides.

On the minus side of 3D, the hand doesn't have very much in the way of controls.

The minus side of pass is that you are expecting partner is going to get an opportunity to bid 3D (when he has 4 diamonds even). If partner has 5+ clubs, and 4+ diamonds, he has no more than 4 major suit cards, therefore the opponents are on a likely 9+ card heart fit.

If this is the case (as is likely), it is about to go 3H on your left and now partner will not have the opportunity to show 3 or 4 card diamond support. Even worse is if it goes 4H on your left.

The plus side of 3D is it confirms you have extra length in the suit while you still have the chance to do so making it easier to judge whether or not to compete over 3H/4H. I do not believe the 3D call should confirm any extra values, only additional length in your minor suit. It is not forcing.

The plus side of pass is that it allows partner to rebid clubs, or raise diamonds, and confirms you have no extra values. Unfortunately, partner will likely be unable to do either of these options by the time it is his turn to bid.

For me, the deciding factor is I am looking at 1 heart, and partner did not make a negative double of any sort. He also did not bid hearts himself. So unless he is 5-6+ in the rounded suits, the opponents assuredly have a minimum of 8 hearts and likely more. 3D will allow partner to judge his hand more accurately in terms of fit (imo) if it goes 3H/4H on our left and makes me choose 3D in the end.

But I certainly would not argue with pass either.

[ralph23]

Elianna, on Sep 11 2007, 09:22 PM, said:

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.

In reviewing the SAYC booklet (which isn't exactly .... er ... exhaustive), my conclusion is that it doesn't really speak to the question of whether in SAYC, after the 1♠overcall, the 2♣ bid by responder promises another bid.

There is some general statement in the booklet (online) to the effect that in general "bids mean the same thing, whether or not there's interference" but this isn't at all directed to the question at hand, and I wouldn't make much reliance on it.

In Commonsense Bidding and in his classes, Bill Root taught that in standard, after the overcall, 2♣ would be forcing but does not promise another bid, as it does in an uncontested auction.

He said basically "you have to loosen up and lower your standards a bit" in the contested auction. And you as responder may have to bid 2/1 with a decent 9 points or even (gasp!) with a real good 8 and a good suit.

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 12 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Sep 11 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

This hand came up in my BIL session yesterday.

That's funny, because this hand came up at Brighton a few weeks ago as well...

As the table, I passed over 2H. We gained imps on the board as a direct result of this pass.

Yes, I often use hands we've played to give the billies a laugh!

We never had the decision at our table as Robson had bid 4♥. At the other table Bakhshi passed over 2♥, but subsequently had a misunderstanding with Forrester and found that ♥Q opposite ♥xx was insufficient to make 3NT. Just the sort of thing that encourages everyone below world-class!

Paul

Edit: You can see the full hand in my blog.