[nige1]

dkharty, on May 25 2010, 02:30 PM, said:

Bidding is presumed to be 2/1 with standard (but minimal) gadgetry.
1.  IMPs, both vul.  South deals.  ♠KJ973 ♥A73 ♦-- ♣AKT82
1S - (2D) - dbl- (3D)
?

2.  MTPTs, unfav.  North deals.  ♠4 ♥875 ♦QT5 ♣AK6543
1S - (2D) - p - (p)
dbl - (p) - ?
also asked:  Do you agree with South's first call, and if not, what would your call have been?

3.  MTPTs, none vul.  West deals.  ♠A3 ♥5 ♦AKQ54 ♣Q7643
(3H) - p - (p) - ?

4.  IMPs, both vul.  North deals.  ♠6 ♥T985 ♦764 ♣AQJ63
p - (p) - 1C - (1H)
dbl - (p) - ?

5.  IMPs, none vul.  South deals.  ♠AQ762 ♥K9 ♦KT962 ♣6
1S - (p) - 2C - (3H)
?

My guesses

• 4♣ An underbid but 4♦ goes past ♣.
  
• 2N (Yes) - Another underbid but this does show values.
  
• _X - Hoping that partner passes for penalties.
  
• 2♣ - Pass (-710 say) could be cheaper.
  
• 3N - And prefer double to pass.

[awm]

1. Double. No obvious reason we have to have a great fit anywhere, and partner could have some cards in diamonds. I have good defensive prospects despite the void. I agree the there are some hands where 4♣ could work out better (like if partner has 2434 shape and decides to leave the double in without a diamond card) but partner could also easily have a diamond honor or two for the bidding.

2. 3♣ at matchpoints. It is true that this could miss a game, but more aggressive actions (or bidding directly over 2♦) seem likely to get us too high. At IMPs I could see a case for pushing to get to 3NT here.

3. 3NT. Goofy bid, but partner seems marked with some hearts for the non-raise. If partner has a typical hand with scattered values I could easily make 3NT or go down one with 3♥ making. If RHO doubles I can always run.

4. 2♣ seems obvious, although I admit I would not have opened this hand.

5. Double. I'd like to have more hearts, but the club misift is really dangerous. I think partner is entitled to expect some club tolerance (like at least doubleton) if I pass here.

[MFA]

1. Double. I think 4♣ would be underbidding by a full ace. 4♣ doesn't show the world when we have a good shape.

2. 3NT. If that should make any sense I must have a stopper + a suit I have some realistic hope to run, which can only be clubs. So it's "perfect" here. Would have bid 2NT in the first round being so lucky not to play this as a spade raise.

3. 4NT. What the heck, we are all nv so -100 or even -150 might be ok if they can make something in hearts. But I'm far from convinced that this action is right. Excellent problem.

4. 2♣ but would have passed initially.

5. Pass, wtp? I have nothing to bid, so I let it run to partner.

[xcurt]

1. 4C. Really hate dble here. Regardless of agreements or logic partner isn't going to pass this so I'll get another chance. Ideally I can bid 4H next if sufficient.

2. 3C. First priority at matchpoints is to protect the plus. Even if partner has 5422 and enough stuff that 3N has a play clubs might go 4-1 (and he could easily be AJxxx AQxx xx xx -- you don't win matchpoint events defending 2 of a red suit nv). The lack of any club intermediates is a big negative. Really dislike 3N here. Not sure the point of the follow up question. I certainly don't have an invite in NT before partner implied some club tolerance with the balancing dble so I pass unless I have a way to compete in clubs nonforcing, and really who does? Negative x is out since if LHO raised and partner bid 3H, kiss the board goodbye.

3. 4D. I have a lot of admiration for passing but I will keep the ball in play. Partner has played matchpoints too and wont raise just because he has Dxxx and a card or two. Like problem two our hand really isnt that great because our other suit is so weak. Again dislike 3N. Even if we fade the H suit we need partner to have most of the rest, and if we try 3N and are wrong we get a zero.

4. Abstain. Posing this in a bidding panel is rediculous.

5. Dble. Close between pass and double but I think the losses for double are 3-4 IMPs when we get only 300 while the gains when we have no game or cannot dind the making one are much larger. My hand suggests defending since 5D is a long way off and with many black cards and a secondary spade raise partner can always bid 3S anyway. Partner and RHO both know this is a gf auction so RHO should be expected to hold good hearts. Therefore partner should not be expecting a huge stack for this call, and Kx isnt too far from expectation.

[dkharty]

Current stats, with 19 sets of answers submitted:

1. 4♣ (9 votes), double (8), 5♣ (1), 4♦ (1)

2. 3NT (7), 3♣ (6), 3♦ (4), 2NT (2)

3. 4♦ (10), double (4), 4NT (3), 3NT (1), pass (1)

4. 2♣ (16), 3♣ (1), 2♦ (1), 1 abstention

5. Pass (13), double (4), 3NT (2)

Looks like #1 and #2 (possibly #3) might need a runoff election.

Also, I'll keep track of everyone's individual votes, so I can let anyone know if their choices would have scored better than the consensus picks.

[MarkDean]

Here is what I had before reading anybody else's answers:

1. 4♣ - I am a simple guy, I bid my suits.
2. 4♣ - I would have bid 3♣ last round, feel pretty stuck this round.
3. Pass - nasty problem.
4. 2♣ - seems clear to me.
5. Pass - seems clear to me.

After reading others answers:
1. To be honest, I did not think of double, certainly think it is reasonable, but I will stick with bidding my good five card suit.
2. OK, yeah, 4♣ is not great, I will join the 3NT bidders: hopefully pd can work out I have this hand type.
3. I see it is unpopular, but I will stick with pass.
4 and 5, I still think are clear.

[xcurt]

Further thoughts

3. Im big on just letting them drift off when they preempt at matchpoints and we have no clear direction but I figured they are making too too often to try that here. At none vul -140 might be a disaster since our downside for bidding rates to be 50 or 100 most of the time. RHO most likely has some heart length so probably not totally loaded -- that plus our good trumps and side ace means not so likely to get hit in our contract. Problem with dble is that partner is a big favorite to bid spades, after 4S we just hope and after 3S (our good scenario) we want3N to be thishand but I dont think it is - spunds like too much for direct 3N. Cannot just invent agreements.

Oddly I thought the first two were the clearest and those are the ones with a split vote.

4. If you are tallying answers I might as well provide mine -- I pass 1Hx and hope the scoring table protects me if we can't beat it.

5. Doubling now does not preclude 3NT (our most likely game). Partner with eg Kx xx xx 6solid would pull. If we pass partner, likely with no stopper, likely to be endplayed in auction, since he cannot convey "good clubs" below 3N. Also at this point in the auction 2C not likely to a balanced gf unless 3244 exactly or holding 3 hearts. Latter case probably wants to defend anyway.

[Jlall]

xcurt, on May 29 2010, 09:10 AM, said:

since our downside for bidding rates to be 50 or 100 most of the time.

I really don't agree with this at all. We could very easily be doubled, our hand is not that good, and if RHO also knew they were making he won't hesitate to double us. If it was true we weren't getting doubled when wrong very often I'd be on board with bidding something NV.

[bluecalm]

Why are people happy to bid 3NT on 2nd one but not 2NT. Isn't 2NT invitational there which is what we have ? (at least strengthwise)

[dkharty]

Okay, final results are as follows, with 20 sets of answers received:

1. 4♣: 10 votes
double: 8
other: 2
This is so close between two popular choices that I am thinking that I will submit it as a split vote, and ask the editor to give us a score equal to the average of the scores given for 4♣ and double. So unless anyone wants to change their vote so that we have an outright majority, that's what I'll do, unless I hear a better suggestion.

2. 3NT: 8
3♣: 6
3♦: 4
other: 2
Similar situation as #1, except there are more than two contenders here, so there is more room for movement. The "other" votes were both for 2NT, which I am tempted to lump in with 3NT as the most similar option, but if anyone who voted for one of the less-popular options wants to support one of the others as a second choice, that could work too. If that leads to a two-horse race like #1, I will do the same thing and submit a split vote.

3. 4♦: 10
double: 4
4NT: 3
others: 3
Even though this isn't quite a majority vote, 4♦ was still more than twice as popular as its nearest competitor, so I will submit that as the consensus pick.

4. 2♣: 17
others: 3
I will submit 2♣ as the consensus pick.

5. Pass: 14
double: 4
others: 2
I will submit "pass" as the consensus pick.

Thanks to everyone who submitted answers and comments, I thought it was really interesting. Also, as I said before, I'll keep track of everyone's individual votes and report individual scores to everyone privately when the next issue comes out, so if the "consensus picks" don't match your own, you can have bragging rights.

[hanp]

You wanted a consensus, so let's discuss some more to see if we can get a consensus on the boards where it is very close.

Quote

1.  4♣:  10 votes
    double:  8
    other:  2
This is so close between two popular choices that I am thinking that I will submit it as a split vote, and ask the editor to give us a score equal to the average of the scores given for 4♣ and double.  So unless anyone wants to change their vote so that we have an outright majority, that's what I'll do, unless I hear a better suggestion.

I hope that the 4C bidders will come to the rescue here and admit that double is much better. We are not too suited enough for 4C and also a bit too heavy in highcards.

Quote

2.  3NT:  8
    3♣:  6
    3♦:  4
    other:  2
Similar situation as #1, except there are more than two contenders here, so there is more room for movement.  The "other" votes were both for 2NT, which I am tempted to lump in with 3NT as the most similar option, but if anyone who voted for one of the less-popular options wants to support one of the others as a second choice, that could work too.  If that leads to a two-horse race like #1, I will do the same thing and submit a split vote.

I don't like my own vote here, the hand is too big for 3C even at matchpoints. Also, the 3D bid is somewhat similar to 3NT, so I think we should go with 3NT here.

[cherdanno]

If you can still count it, I vote for double on the first (and hope to carry some people along) and for 3♦ (3NT second choice) on 2.

[gwnn]

X on first, 3NT on second, 4C is very feeble on the first

[mikeh]

I must be getting way out of date, but the idea of a card showing double on 1 leaves me cold, and the idea that doubles of all bid-and-raised overcalls are 100% takeout also leaves me cold. I'd hate to see partner leave it in with some 2=4=3=4 7 count, which is a textbook minimum negative double.

[dkharty]

hanp, on May 30 2010, 07:37 AM, said:

You wanted a consensus, so let's discuss some more to see if we can get a consensus on the boards where it is very close.

Quote

1.  4♣:  10 votes
     double:  8
     other:  2
This is so close between two popular choices that I am thinking that I will submit it as a split vote, and ask the editor to give us a score equal to the average of the scores given for 4♣ and double.  So unless anyone wants to change their vote so that we have an outright majority, that's what I'll do, unless I hear a better suggestion.

I hope that the 4C bidders will come to the rescue here and admit that double is much better. We are not too suited enough for 4C and also a bit too heavy in highcards.

hanp and cherdanno's (admittedly tepid) support of 3NT on #2 has swung the vote fairly convincingly in its favor, so I'm going to go ahead and close the book on that one and submit 3NT as the consensus vote.

Regarding #1: Han, could you elaborate a bit on your reasons for preferring double to 4C? Double was a close second choice for me, but I haven't heard anything yet that convinces me it's superior. The fact that a lot of good bridge players choose it is a pretty powerful argument, but I'm also somewhat in agreement with mikeh that partner will sometimes (often?) leave in the double with a typical negative double hand (he won't be playing us for a diamond void unless he is looking at 4+ of them), when we could have game or slam in clubs. If we belong in clubs, somebody has to bid them, and it seems that this wouldn't preclude landing in a heart contract if that's right. A freely-bid 4C shows a good hand in my book; you seem to disagree, from your comment about it being too heavy in high cards. I'm open to being swayed on this one, and right now it's a dead heat...

[cherdanno]

I think Justin already made the case for double. For me it's a takeout double; partner will imagine 5314 shape as the typical shape, so we are not so far removed from that. We do have aces to make up for the trump in case partner passes. We might miss by bidding 4♣, e.g. if partner is 2533 slightly too weak to bid 2♥, then he will guess which black suit to bid (or pass 4♣, ouch!). Even if partner passes with 2434 and a trump trick, then that's not necessarily bad (looks like the will take 5-6 diamond tricks plus one or two outside), 200 or 500 is pretty good compared to playing 4♣. And in any case, if partner does take the double out we are ideally placed - we can raise 3♥ or 4♣, and pretty much show our shape with 4♣ over 3♠.

[hanp]

Yesterday at dinner we had a discussion about this hand. Our guest (who will remain nameless) was in doubt whether he was worth 4C or 5C. He didn't want to double, he doesn't trust doubles, or rather, he doesn't trust his partners with doubles. In the end he went with 5C as he thought he was too strong for 4C.

After 4C we will never get to 3NT, 4H or 3DX, and I think we are more likely to miss a club slam.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I must be getting way out of date, but the idea of a card showing double on 1 leaves me cold, and the idea that doubles of all bid-and-raised overcalls are 100% takeout also leaves me cold. I'd hate to see partner leave it in with some 2=4=3=4 7 count, which is a textbook minimum negative double.

For me it would be unimaginable for partner to pass 2nd double without at least ♦KQT8 at imps. Some lighter passes probably are possible at MP's but I would consider it very undisciplined.

[hanp]

Just gave xx AJxx Qxxx xxx to a Dutch player, he said he'd bid 3S and wouldn't consider pass. I guess I shouldn't have given him the heart ace.

[MFA]

For me the most important thing is that 4♣ is a big underbid. If it were approximately right on values I could easily live with not being so flexible since the upside of introducing such a strong suit is great.

When we have this 'monster', and yes it is a monster with all those controls and the good shape, it's very convenient to state that 4♣ shows strong values. But it doesn't. Or at the very least it shouldn't do. Without the ♥A we would have had a routine 4♣ call. We must be able to compete with shortness in their suit and reasonable playing strength.

4♣ is clearly NF and will quite often get passed. If partner bumps us to 5♣ we would have a choice of just reraising to 6♣ or making a mild try for 7♣. If partner makes any slam try over 4♣, the hand would be good enough for a direct leap to 7. I don't want to bid like that.