[MickyB]

Apologies for the presentation of this, haven't got the hang of the new forums yet.

ATxx xxxx x KJxx, favourable at teams.

Partner opens 1C, which can be two. [You open 1C with 3-3, 1D with 4-4]

You bid 1H.

Partner bids 1NT, 12-14. 1S would have shown an unbalanced hand.

You pass [2C would have been a puppet to 2D], LHO doubles, partner passes, RHO bids 2D.

You double, which by default agreements is for takeout.

Partner bids 2H, RHO bids 3D, and this is passed out.

IMO, you have made a clear error in this auction. Can you find it?

[Phil]

---

My error is not bidding 3♣ over 2♦? I don't happen to agree.

[Fluffy]

 Phil, on 2010-October-21, 19:49, said:

---

My error is not bidding 3♣ over 2♦? I don't happen to agree.

the error is not bidding 2♠ over 2♦ I guess, partner will need some imagination if he is 2245 or 3334 but it probably works best.

[Free]

Maybe it's better to respond 1♠ over 1♣, dunno.

[Fluffy]

bidding 1♠ won't work very well when you bid 2♥ later and partner is 2335

EDIT: Nonsense, you obviously double next .

[nige1]

---

IMO 2♣ = 10, 1♠ = 9, 1♥ = 6.
Playing inverted minor raises that do not deny a four card major, a response of 2♣ seems OK because partner has 4+♣ or 4♥/♠.

[han]

Definitely agree with 1H. If 2C is avaiable instead fo pass of 1NT, I prefer that.

Over 2D you have a nice 2S bid, which is more descriptive than double.

IMO suggesting not to bid 1H = 0.

[MickyB]

Yup, Han and Da Flufster have got it. At the table, this hand doubled 2D, which I think most would do without thinking. The hand opposite was Qxx Q QJxx AQxxx, which for better or worser decided to pass [not unreasonable if you think partner should be 4423 or 4522 for this]. Declarer made 180, which is 400 points fewer than Deep Finesse would have made. Besides preventing partner from making the mistake of passing the double, 2S also prepares us better for a 3D call from oppo.

[han]

I don't agree that partner "must be" 4423 or 4522.

[MickyB]

 han, on 2010-October-22, 08:38, said:

I don't agree that partner "must be" 4423 or 4522.

Yes, sorry, bad phrasing. Other shapes are possible, eg 3424, and possibly 4513 - my intended point was that passing the double looks much more attractive if partner cannot have 1=4 in the minors.

[rhm]

Deleted

[rhm]

 MickyB, on 2010-October-22, 08:33, said:

Yup, Han and Da Flufster have got it. At the table, this hand doubled 2D, which I think most would do without thinking. The hand opposite was Qxx Q QJxx AQxxx, which for better or worser decided to pass [not unreasonable if you think partner should be 4423 or 4522 for this]. Declarer made 180, which is 400 points fewer than Deep Finesse would have made. Besides preventing partner from making the mistake of passing the double, 2S also prepares us better for a 3D call from oppo.

I beg to differ and I do not buy that responder must only be 4-4 in the majors. A 2♠ bid here should mean that you are prepared for a ♥ preference if opener holds 3 cards in ♥.

You seem to assume that opener will never give preference to ♥ e.g. 2=3=3=5 versus 4=5=3=1 where responders is too weak to bid 2♣ followed by another rebid.
If you claim partner should bid 2♥ with such a hand then opener will hold 4=2=3=4.

The true answer is simple. Bypassing ♠ over a 1♥ response just because you are balanced sucks.

Rainer Herrmann

[MickyB]

 rhm, on 2010-October-22, 11:19, said:

I beg to differ and I do not buy that responder must only be 4-4 in the majors. A 2♠ bid here should mean that you are prepared for a ♥ preference if opener holds 3 cards in ♥.

You seem to assume that opener will never give preference to ♥ e.g. 2=3=3=5 versus 4=5=3=1 where responders is too weak to bid 2♣ followed by another rebid.
If you claim partner should bid 2♥ with such a hand then opener will hold 4=2=3=4.

The true answer is simple. Bypassing ♠ over a 1♥ response just because you are balanced sucks.

Rainer Herrmann

Would you really bypass 2H here with 4S5H and a weak hand? IMO, even assuming they didn't rebid 2H initially, 4522 and 4513 would double, 4531 would pass - partner will act if she has a doubleton diamond.

Not having a way to find a 4-4 spade fit and to play in 2H if one does not exist sucks, I'll give you that, but to say that the bypass itself sucks is, at best, a huge exaggeration.

[Fluffy]

Is responder had 5♥ he owuldn't had passed 1NT that is pretty obvious.

[rhm]

 MickyB, on 2010-October-22, 11:41, said:

Would you really bypass 2H here with 4S5H and a weak hand? IMO, even assuming they didn't rebid 2H initially, 4522 and 4513 would double, 4531 would pass - partner will act if she has a doubleton diamond.

Not having a way to find a 4-4 spade fit and to play in 2H if one does not exist sucks, I'll give you that, but to say that the bypass itself sucks is, at best, a huge exaggeration.

Fair enough.

However I believe bypassing a 4 card ♠ suit over a 1♥ response, just because you have a balanced hand is inferior. (The Walsh idea bypassing a major over a 1♦ response is different)
It is a sound principle of bidding theory that the more bidding room a bid consumes the more specific (and infrequent) a hand it should show.

In standard over 1♣ -- 1♥

A cheap 1♠ response is frequent and unspecific. It just shows 4 cards in ♠, still guarantee no more than 3 cards in ♣. However responder has more room.
A more expensive 1NT response is also frequent, because balanced hands are frequent, but less than yours. It shows 4 or 5 cards in ♣ and tends to deny a 4 card major.


What are you doing?
You make a 1NT response (takes up more bidding room) very frequent and less specific (could have a 4 card ♠ suit, still guarantees only 3 cards in ♣)
You make the cheap 1♠ response rare and very specific (must be unbalanced) at least 5 cards in ♣ and at least 4 cards in ♠.

This is inferior but does not matter much if responder is strong and opponents do not interfere.

Of course it is nice in the infrequent case you have the conditions for a 1♠ response, but you will receive far more often the unspecific 1NT response. This not only risks missing a 4-4 ♠ fit but also leaves you unsure about the degree of your ♣ fit, which leaves you badly placed with frequent part-score hands, where opponents can compete.
This is exactly what happened here. Even on the third round of bidding opener (and to some degree you) was simply not able to judge your degree of fit.

Rainer Herrmann

[pooltuna]

 rhm, on 2010-October-22, 11:19, said:

I beg to differ and I do not buy that responder must only be 4-4 in the majors. A 2♠ bid here should mean that you are prepared for a ♥ preference if opener holds 3 cards in ♥.

You seem to assume that opener will never give preference to ♥ e.g. 2=3=3=5 versus 4=5=3=1 where responders is too weak to bid 2♣ followed by another rebid.
If you claim partner should bid 2♥ with such a hand then opener will hold 4=2=3=4.

The true answer is simple. Bypassing ♠ over a 1♥ response just because you are balanced sucks.

Rainer Herrmann

The bidding error was even simpler and happened even sooner in the auction....I agreed to play this system was the bidding error.

[gnasher]

It's not hard to devise a way for responder to show a weak 4-5 after 1m-1♥;1NT. For example, if you currently pay 2-way checkback, you could instead play

2♣ = as in 2-way Checkback
2♦ = puppet to 2♥, either a signoff or any game-force
2♥ = 4-5 signoff

[dcrc2]

 rhm, on 2010-October-23, 05:02, said:

However I believe bypassing a 4 card ♠ suit over a 1♥ response, just because you have a balanced hand is inferior. (The Walsh idea bypassing a major over a 1♦ response is different)
It is a sound principle of bidding theory that the more bidding room a bid consumes the more specific (and infrequent) a hand it should show.

In standard over 1♣ -- 1♥

A cheap 1♠ response is frequent and unspecific. It just shows 4 cards in ♠, still guarantee no more than 3 cards in ♣. However responder has more room.
A more expensive 1NT response is also frequent, because balanced hands are frequent, but less than yours. It shows 4 or 5 cards in ♣ and tends to deny a 4 card major.


What are you doing?
You make a 1NT response (takes up more bidding room) very frequent and less specific (could have a 4 card ♠ suit, still guarantees only 3 cards in ♣)
You make the cheap 1♠ response rare and very specific (must be unbalanced) at least 5 cards in ♣ and at least 4 cards in ♠.

I don't think this is a valid analysis: 1♠ and 1NT are almost equivalent in terms of the amount of room they take up, because of the high probability that you want to stop in 1NT. While you do have an extra step available over 1♠, responder can only use it for hands which want to play in 1NT, which is something he could achieve by passing if the rebid had been 1NT. So the extra step is no use to responder at all. (It may be of use to opener, as it means he'll likely get a third bid, but that would show a completely different hand type to the one under discussion.)

Surely if bidding 1♠ on balanced hands is superior, it is simply because you have more information (you've shown whether opener has spades), not more space.

I prefer bypassing spades because I feel it simplifies the auction. If you're destined for 1NT or 3NT then a 1NT rebid will get you there quicker; whereas if responder has something more complex to say then it's generally easier to proceed after a limited, balanced rebid than after a wide-ranging 1♠. Also my methods after a 1NT rebid are better than those after a 1♠ rebid; and my methods after 1♠ are better than they would be if it could be balanced.

[gnasher]

 rhm, on 2010-October-23, 05:02, said:

What are you doing?
You make a 1NT response (takes up more bidding room) very frequent and less specific (could have a 4 card ♠ suit, still guarantees only 3 cards in ♣)
You make the cheap 1♠ response rare and very specific (must be unbalanced) at least 5 cards in ♣ and at least 4 cards in ♠.

This is inferior but does not matter much if responder is strong and opponents do not interfere.

Are you saying that MickyB's methods are inferior even when responder is strong? I don't see why. Here are some of the benefits:
- Sequences starting 1♣-1♥;1♠-2♦ are cumbersome in standard methods, but not when opener is known to be unbalanced
- When opener is balanced, you don't reveal opener's spade length unless responder wants to know it
- When responder has invitational values with three clubs and opener has a minimum 4-5, you play in 3♣ rather than 2NT.

What are the disadvantages that make this method inferior when responder is strong?

Quote

Of course it is nice in the infrequent case you have the conditions for a 1♠ response, but you will receive far more often the unspecific 1NT response. This not only risks missing a 4-4 ♠ fit but also leaves you unsure about the degree of your ♣ fit, which leaves you badly placed with frequent part-score hands, where opponents can compete.

You get a bit back on the partscore hands, because:
- After 1♣-1♥;1NT-pass, the defence have less information
- After 1♣-1♥;1♠, responder can bid 2♣ when it's right
- After 1♣-1♥;1NT, responder can choose to play in 2♥ with a 5-card suit, whereas after 1♣-1♥;1♠ he can't.
But I agree that losing a spade fit when responder is 4-4 in the majors is quite a big problem.

[Fluffy]

I'd like to bypass, in fact I sometimes bypass it with 4 spades and 3 hearts to be able to play in hearts, but there is a big problem here becuase nobody plays that way, and you are playing a different contract than the field in a part score, wich is normally a bad idea.