[rbforster]

So having looked at partners hand, I think he needs to act directly over whatever heart raise West makes. He's got a semi positive hand to begin with, and having seen hearts bid and strongly raised, he's got to bid now with the void so he doesn't look like he's balancing with nothing. In the common auction

1♣-p-1♦-1♥
2♣-3♣-?

I think North has a clear responsive double for the unbid suits.

[straube]

rbforster, on 2013-January-31, 19:13, said:

So having looked at partners hand, I think he needs to act directly over whatever heart raise West makes. He's got a semi positive hand to begin with, and having seen hearts bid and strongly raised, he's got to bid now with the void so he doesn't look like he's balancing with nothing. In the common auction

1♣-p-1♦-1♥
2♣-3♣-?

I think North has a clear responsive double for the unbid suits.

I like that. I might have suggested it, but it wasn't clear to me that double wouldn't suggest a club raise. I think responsive is right. Can the other 0-7 folks go along with that? I see this problem as a sharp division between the 0-7 and Moscito with SCREAM and IMprecision falling somewhere in the middle. Richard is going to know about responder's five+ spades and 4+ diamonds immediately...Adam is going to know about responder's 4+ spades...and SCREAM is going to only know responder has values. I think SCREAM might bid the same (through the responsive double and the only shade of meaning might be to suggest extra distribution...values having been shown already.

[relknes]

For partner to make the takeout double there, he should have 5-1-5-2 shape with 5-8 HCP or 5-2-5-1 shape with 7-8 HCP. They have to be at least 5-5 in the unbid suits, they can't have 3 hearts, or the opponents are just crazy, and they can't have a heart void or they would have doubled 3♣ (which for us means a hand that would have competed to 3♣ over an opponent's 2♥ bid).
If partner has 5-1-5-2 shape, then I should only be able to make 5♦ if partner has the two of the ♣K and the other 3 aces, which is a real long shot, and 4♦ is probably the limit. If partner has 5-2-5-1 shape, I should make 5♦ most of the time if partner has one of the missing aces, and 5♦ is a good bet. All in all, I figure 5♦ is about 40-45% to make.
How about 3N? Even if partner has the ♦A, I count 5 diamond tricks, a heart trick, a club trick, and whatever partner can produce in spades. After the obvious heart lead I don't think I will have the oportunity to establish 2 more tricks in clubs before the opponents can cash their hearts. If partner dosn't have the ♦A, things are even more dismal. All in all, I figure 3N is about 25-30% to make.
All things considered, I sign off at 4♦.

Edit: After looking at the hands, I see that North should have doubled the 3♣ cuebid. 3 card support, an outside ace, and a void in the opponent's suit should be plenty for partner to compete to 3♣. So our auction should go:

1♣ - P - 1♦ - (1♥)
2♣ - (3♣) - X - (3♥)

And now I think that 5♣ looks good. Partner should be able to cover 2 losers easily.

[straube]

relknes, on 2013-January-31, 20:47, said:

For partner to make the takeout double there, he should have 5-1-5-2 shape with 5-8 HCP or 5-2-5-1 shape with 7-8 HCP. They have to be at least 5-5 in the unbid suits, they can't have 3 hearts, or the opponents are just crazy, and they can't have a heart void or they would have doubled 3♣ (which for us means a hand that would have competed to 3♣ over an opponent's 2♥ bid).
If partner has 5-1-5-2 shape, then I should only be able to make 5♦ if partner has the two of the ♣K and the other 3 aces, which is a real long shot, and 4♦ is probably the limit. If partner has 5-2-5-1 shape, I should make 5♦ most of the time if partner has one of the missing aces, and 5♦ is a good bet. All in all, I figure 5♦ is about 40-45% to make.
How about 3N? Even if partner has the ♦A, I count 5 diamond tricks, a heart trick, a club trick, and whatever partner can produce in spades. After the obvious heart lead I don't think I will have the oportunity to establish 2 more tricks in clubs before the opponents can cash their hearts. If partner dosn't have the ♦A, things are even more dismal. All in all, I figure 3N is about 25-30% to make.
All things considered, I sign off at 4♦.

Edit: After looking at the hands, I see that North should have doubled the 3♣ cuebid. 3 card support, an outside ace, and a void in the opponent's suit should be plenty for partner to compete to 3♣. So our auction should go:

1♣ - P - 1♦ - (1♥)
2♣ - (3♣) - X - (3♥)

And now I think that 5♣ looks good. Partner should be able to cover 2 losers easily.

Well this is interesting. Some will double 3C to support clubs and others will double 3C as responsive. That's fine if the 0-7s do different things here. Atul, how do we play double here? I would assume responsive.

[Mbodell]

straube, on 2013-January-31, 19:20, said:

I like that. I might have suggested it, but it wasn't clear to me that double wouldn't suggest a club raise. I think responsive is right. Can the other 0-7 folks go along with that? I see this problem as a sharp division between the 0-7 and Moscito with SCREAM and IMprecision falling somewhere in the middle. Richard is going to know about responder's five+ spades and 4+ diamonds immediately...Adam is going to know about responder's 4+ spades...and SCREAM is going to only know responder has values. I think SCREAM might bid the same (through the responsive double and the only shade of meaning might be to suggest extra distribution...values having been shown already.

Yeah, I would pass the 3♥X, but if partner X 3♣ I'll bid 3♦ and I think partner might take that to game. If instead partner bids 3♥ over 3♣ (takeout, or nt leading), I bid 3nt, but I think partner would pull that to 4♣ which I would probably raise to 5. But not sure. I much prefer to bid the hands giving one to partner and one to me so we can see what we'd do at the table for real instead of guessing on these judgement calls.

[Zelandakh]

I have not seen a spoiler for the 1♦ openers, so have just looked at the "full deal" spoiler instead. I think it is clear that East should bid 2♥ over 1♣ - 1♦ or 1♣ - 1♥. Then West will raise to 4. Some (many?) Wests will even try butting in on the first round, either with a 3-suited call or to show the majors at the 1 level. Then they get to 4♥ even faster.

As I mentioned before, my auction begins 1♦ - (P) - 1♠ (nat, weak). Is East bidding here? This shows one of the difficulties for the opponents when facing non-forcing responses. I suspect that most players would not overcall 2♥ here in an auction where 1♠ was forcing; but non-forcing puts a great deal more pressure on them with some values and shape. Assuming East does not bid, South now shows clubs and North supports diamonds. East may well come in now with 2♥. Whether East bids or not, South continues with 2NT. West may well add a raise here if East bid 2♥.

Now North has to make a decision. If West passed then options are: 3♦ to show a minimum (looks much too Walrusy to me); 3♥ to ask how good South's heart stopper is, then over 3NT either Pass (if the opps are too bad to find the (obvious) spade switch or 4♦ (which is non-forcing and, effectively, shows wasted heart values); 4♦ invitational; or 5♦ to play. I think it is tough to judge this knowing the hands. My first instinct was a direct jump to 5♦ but 3♥ is also highly appealing, since 5m with 21-22 hcp and significant wastage is somewhat optimistic. If West raised then it seems clear to raise diamonds, probably to game. The only other possibility I can see is 4♣ but I would prefer 4 clubs or Hxx for this really (yes a ten is an honour but bleurgh).

The end result will be either 4♦(S) or 5♦(S). 3NT is not really on the radar after 2NT because North knows for sure that the spades are wide open and the defenders will know this too once they see the Dummy.

Can you decide on an E-W bidding sequence for me please straube, so I can try and finalise an auction. Also, I think you should ask the strong clubbers to provide an auction based on the E-W interference of 2♥ from East (if sufficient), then raised to 4♥ by West (if sufficient). I think this is a far more realistic test and makes for a couple of tough decisions. It would be a great hand with N-S vulnerable imho, since 4♥X becomes less appealing that way.

The play also looks like it might be interesting and the hand could easily be posed as a defensive problem for E-W. Any of N-S's 3 possible games might easily make in practise, despite what (I assume) the DD solvers say. Even 4♥(E) could make on a really bad day. I certainly see worse contracts than all of these making in the local club and on BBO regularly.

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-01, 03:32, said:

I have not seen a spoiler for the 1♦ openers, so have just looked at the "full deal" spoiler instead. I think it is clear that East should bid 2♥ over 1♣ - 1♦ or 1♣ - 1♥. Then West will raise to 4. Some (many?) Wests will even try butting in on the first round, either with a 3-suited call or to show the majors at the 1 level. Then they get to 4♥ even faster.

As I mentioned before, my auction begins 1♦ - (P) - 1♠ (nat, weak). Is East bidding here? This shows one of the difficulties for the opponents when facing non-forcing responses. I suspect that most players would not overcall 2♥ here in an auction where 1♠ was forcing; but non-forcing puts a great deal more pressure on them with some values and shape. Assuming East does not bid, South now shows clubs and North supports diamonds. East may well come in now with 2♥. Whether East bids or not, South continues with 2NT. West may well add a raise here if East bid 2♥.

Now North has to make a decision. If West passed then options are: 3♦ to show a minimum (looks much too Walrusy to me); 3♥ to ask how good South's heart stopper is, then over 3NT either Pass (if the opps are too bad to find the (obvious) spade switch or 4♦ (which is non-forcing and, effectively, shows wasted heart values); 4♦ invitational; or 5♦ to play. I think it is tough to judge this knowing the hands. My first instinct was a direct jump to 5♦ but 3♥ is also highly appealing, since 5m with 21-22 hcp and significant wastage is somewhat optimistic. If West raised then it seems clear to raise diamonds, probably to game. The only other possibility I can see is 4♣ but I would prefer 4 clubs or Hxx for this really (yes a ten is an honour but bleurgh).

The end result will be either 4♦(S) or 5♦(S). 3NT is not really on the radar after 2NT because North knows for sure that the spades are wide open and the defenders will know this too once they see the Dummy.

Can you decide on an E-W bidding sequence for me please straube, so I can try and finalise an auction. Also, I think you should ask the strong clubbers to provide an auction based on the E-W interference of 2♥ from East (if sufficient), then raised to 4♥ by West (if sufficient). I think this is a far more realistic test and makes for a couple of tough decisions. It would be a great hand with N-S vulnerable imho, since 4♥X becomes less appealing that way.

The play also looks like it might be interesting and the hand could easily be posed as a defensive problem for E-W. Any of N-S's 3 possible games might easily make in practise, despite what (I assume) the DD solvers say. Even 4♥(E) could make on a really bad day. I certainly see worse contracts than all of these making in the local club and on BBO regularly.

How do others feel about a 2H preempt by East? I suggested 1H over a 1D response because 1) it's not clear that it's the clubbers hand and 2) the hand has some defense and 3) the suit is bad. OTOH 2H certainly puts it to the opps.

Zelandakh, if you get support for 2H then we'll amend the problem. If it's divided then I think we should go with 1H since some of these are just judgment calls and I set up the problem this way.

Regarding your 1D P 1S auction, I'm tempted to bid with the East hand...in which case West raises to 4H. The knr for East is 11.45 which isn't great actually but the spade honors might be positioned well plus it has a preemptive effect of the opponents belong in a minor. What do others think?

[hrothgar]

Now that I have the chance to see the fully hand, I expect that the auction would go something like


1♣ - (P) - 2♦) - (2♥)
3♦ - (3♥) - 4♦ - P

If the opponents compete to 4♥, they MIGHT push us to 5♦, however, I suspect that its more likely that we'll defend 4♥ doubled. For example


1♣ - (P) - 2♦) - (2♥)
3♦ - (4♥) - X - All Pass

This hand may make 5♦, but I don't think that we can bid it.

[rbforster]

I thought 1♥ was about right, given the Vul and flaws as a preempt. I disagreed much more with the "limit raise" by West, with his soft 9 count and a stiff. I don't go looking for games opposite a strong club very often, and I think a raise to 2♥ or 3♥ is probably sufficient. East doesn't have to have a good hand.

[straube]

hrothgar, on 2013-February-01, 07:56, said:

Now that I have the chance to see the fully hand, I expect that the auction would go something like


1♣ - (P) - 2♦) - (2♥)
3♦ - (3♥) - 4♦ - P

If the opponents compete to 4♥, they MIGHT push us to 5♦, however, I suspect that its more likely that we'll defend 4♥ doubled. For example


1♣ - (P) - 2♦) - (2♥)
3♦ - (4♥) - X - All Pass

This hand may make 5♦, but I don't think that we can bid it.

Richard, would you help with the 0-7 problem? Would you preempt 2H as East over 1C P 1D ?

[the_clown]

Precision

1♣-1♦-1♥-pass-2♣
2♠-2N
3♦-pass

[Zelandakh]

the_clown, on 2013-February-01, 09:26, said:

Precision

1♣-1♦-1♥-pass-2♣

West bids 3♥ here, not 2♣.

[Hilver]

OK, now the full deal.
[spoiler]

.............T9874
.............void
.............AJ652
.............T84
KQ52.......................AJ3
J985........................AT7432
T..............................984
K632........................9
.............6
.............KQ6
.............KQ73
.............AQJ75

spoiler]
[/quote]

Hilversumse Klaveren (HK)

1♣ - (p) - 1♦ - (1♥)
2♣ - (2♥/3♣) - double

Over South's 2♣ West will definitely bid 2♥ or 3♣. North knows there is a fit in clubs, but South may also hold a four card spades. Moreover North has some values. So North will undoubtly make a double over Wests bid, not a penalty double but negative.

Jan

[relknes]

I know that some Easts would preempt 2♥ here, but to me the hand is 1 loser too many to do so when red (I use the rule of 2 and 3, not 2-3-4), so I vote 1♥.
I also think that West's hand is worth the 3♣ cuebid. With 4 cards in the enemy suit, partner is likey to be short in clubs, and the shortness in diamonds is likely to be working. The ♣K is well placed over the strong hand, so doesn't lose quite as mich of its value oposite partner's presumed shortness, though it still isn't full value. All in all, I would say that the hand is worth about 11 and 1/2 support points (9 HCP, 3 points for the singleton with 4 card support, but discounting half a point for the ♣K). Others will value it differently, I am sure.
Anyways, long way of saying that I agree with the auction that was posted for the opponents.

[straube]

relknes, on 2013-February-01, 12:46, said:

I know that some Easts would preempt 2♥ here, but to me the hand is 1 loser too many to do so when red (I use the rule of 2 and 3, not 2-3-4), so I vote 1♥.
I also think that West's hand is worth the 3♣ cuebid. With 4 cards in the enemy suit, partner is likey to be short in clubs, and the shortness in diamonds is likely to be working. The ♣K is well placed over the strong hand, so doesn't lose quite as mich of its value oposite partner's presumed shortness, though it still isn't full value. All in all, I would say that the hand is worth about 11 and 1/2 support points (9 HCP, 3 points for the singleton with 4 card support, but discounting half a point for the ♣K). Others will value it differently, I am sure.
Anyways, long way of saying that I agree with the auction that was posted for the opponents.

I'd like to make an executive decision so we face the same circumstances. I've asked help in another forum and mostly got 2H action for each auction, but I've also got a lot of support for mere 1H overcalls over 1D.

So I'm asking folks to submit auctions for 1H overcalls after a 1D response...and West cues in support at the 3-level whereas over 1H responses or Zelandah's 1S response or over Moscito's response, we get a 2H bid and a 4H advance by West.

Can folks live with that? Please let me know. I'm not sure it's right but we could have a lot of discussion over something that winds up being a judgment call.

[antonylee]

Interestingly I think it is more likely that I get this one right after the extra preemption of 1♦ (P) 1♠ (2♥) P (4♥): this time responder did not have the time to show diamonds at low level so taking insurance in 5♦ looks right (especially with at least 19 total tricks, except opposite a 1=4=4=4 exactly).

Edit: "right" modulo the fact that even my double dummy play is ridiculously bad
Here are the possible auctions I see, depending on the opponents' choices:

1♦ 1♠ (2♥) P (4♥) 5♦
1♦ 1♠ (2♥) P (3♣) 3♦ (3♥) P (P) X

Anyone to save me and tell me it's only poor judgement that makes me miss 4♥X in the first auction and 4♦ in the second one?

[nige1]

straube, on 2013-January-30, 17:29, said:

#24. OK, now the full deal.

Jasmine ♣
West_ ♠ KQ52 ♥ J985 ♦ T ♣ K632: __ _P 3♥
North ♠ T9874 ♥- ♦ AJ652 ♣ T84: __ 2♥ 4♦
East_ ♠ AJ3 ♥ AT7432 ♦ 984 ♣ 9: __ _X AP
South ♠ 6 ♥ KQ6 ♦ KQ73 ♣ AQJ75: 1♣ 3♣

• 1♣ = Art, 16+
• 2♥ = Art, Weak 2-suiter, not ♥.
• 3♣ = Pass/correct.
• 4♦ = Nat (Improved by opener's lack of interest in ♠).

Marks, IMO 5♦ = 10. 6♦ = 9. 4♦/(4♥X) = 8. 3♣ = 7. 4♣ = 6. (3♥) = 5, (3♥X) = 3.

[sieong]

IMprecision:

1♣ (P) 1♥ (2♥) (strong; 2-6RP, 5+hcp, 4+♠)
P (4♥) X (P) (typically min with no fit. We rarely trap-pass here, but responder usually reopens on any excuse; takeout)
P

This type of auctions is primarily judgment. I think the double by responder is fairly clear. Whether opener should convert the double to penalty is more debatable. I think it rates to be right with singleton ♠ and KQx ♥, but a few years ago, I would have considered converting 3♥X with the same hand, yet experience suggests it is usually wrong. If opener decides to take it out, he will bid 4N pick a minor. I think it is difficult to separate the evaluation of system merits and judgment in 1♣ competitive auctions.

FWIW, I think there is more to gain for West to preempt over an artificial bid that describes strength but not shape. I would likely bid 2♥ over an artificial 1♦ response, but may choose to pass over the Moscito semi-positive 2♦ response. I would probably bid 2♥ over IMprecision's 1♥ response since the shape is still vague.

[straube]

sieong, on 2013-February-01, 20:50, said:

FWIW, I think there is more to gain for West to preempt over an artificial bid that describes strength but not shape. I would likely bid 2♥ over an artificial 1♦ response, but may choose to pass over the Moscito semi-positive 2♦ response. I would probably bid 2♥ over IMprecision's 1♥ response since the shape is still vague.

That makes sense. Would you like to be a resource for future deals that require defensive decisions? You could let Adam bid those hands so he could have the whole measure of the problem. Maybe others would like to volunteer as well?

[sieong]

straube, on 2013-February-01, 21:02, said:

That makes sense. Would you like to be a resource for future deals that require defensive decisions? You could let Adam bid those hands so he could have the whole measure of the problem. Maybe others would like to volunteer as well?

I will be happy to help, but generally I reply quite slowly. But feel free to include me in the discussion if it helps.