[Tramticket]

---

Multi-teams competition
(system is Acol if it matters)

Two spades went two-off, but three diamonds can make.

A couple of questions:
- What does double show in this auction? Does it promise a four-card spade suit?
- Would you bid with the East cards, even if you assume a four-card spade suit?

[eagles123]

double just takeout, a normal bid, likely to have 4 spades but not guaranteed. East coming in voluntarily on what is essentially a yarborough is nuts imo.

[Cyberyeti]

What did your diamond show and what exact system were you playing (ie with 4/4 ♠/♦ what suit do you open) ?

I think playing old style Acol there is every chance you have 5♦ here and partner if he bids at all should bid 3♦.

IMO he should not bid 2♠, but the auction should go P-P-X-P-3♦

The danger is you're 4144 (if you open 1♦ with this) but 3154 and 4153 are more likely IMO

[Tramticket]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-January-09, 05:16, said:

What did your diamond show and what exact system were you playing (ie with 4/4 ♠/♦ what suit do you open) ?

I think playing old style Acol there is every chance you have 5♦ here and partner if he bids at all should bid 3♦.

IMO he should not bid 2♠, but the auction should go P-P-X-P-3♦

With 4-4 we open the major before the minor. Yes, it is likely to be a five-card diamond suit, but a 1♦ opening is also consistent with 4144.

[gszes]

There are 2 main things to take into consideration when making the x. Is it possible that partner has a penalty pass of the overcall (here the answer is clearly NO). Is it reasonable to assume the opening bidder might wish to penalize the overcall? Once again we have to assume the answer is NO. Even if opener wanted to penalize 1h why do it there are probably many other safer places for the opps to play. Say opener has AX AQT8 KQxx KJx. Defending 1h might indeed be pleasant if we could just shut the opps up. But they might all too easily go to safer havens in 1n 2c or 1s. The point is that playing the x as penalty is too small a target and should be treated as TOX. ONCE the concept of catering to a penalty pass has been taken into consideration and discarded, we next must try and find the best way to proceed. With a 4(+?) card spade suit it is vastly easier to merely bid 1/2s. IMHO the x will DENY the presence of a 4 card spade suit. That makes this hand perfect for x with extra values and the 3 card spade support keeping a possible 8 card major suit fit in the picture.

Once responder thinks it through and realizes it is improbable at best for opener to have 4+ spades they have a much easier time deciding what to do as they will no longer feel compelled to compete in the master suit. Once lho bids 2h responder still has no reason to bid. They are completely broke (let me see a show of hands how many think the heart Q has any value) and the hand has little or no redeeming values aside from the telling p of the existence of a dia fit. The dia fit is surely trivial information if opener peep again over the 2h bid so pass should be easy for responder over 2h. W/O the 2h bid responder should easily bid 2d and that 2d would be right over either pass OR xx by lho. What would it take to bid 3d over the 2h bid??
Something similar to JTxx xxx Kxxx xx.

[steve2005]

 Tramticket, on 2018-January-09, 04:31, said:

Multi-teams competition
(system is Acol if it matters)

Two spades went two-off, but three diamonds can make.

How does 2♥ do?

[Tramticket]

 steve2005, on 2018-January-09, 13:28, said:

How does 2♥ do?

Results were 7, 8 or 9 tricks (field was a mixed standard). Double dummy suggests 8 tricks.

[msjennifer]

My answers to the 2 questions are as under.
1)The TOD does not show Four cards in spades.May be 3 only
2)The 2S bid with the given hand is nothing but overexhuberance .

[DukeofShef]

If this is Acol wouldn't a more likely auction be,

assuming opps bid similarly

P

1D P P 1H

2C 2H P P

X P 3D

The bidding gives P some idea of shape.

[msjennifer]

 DukeofShef, on 2018-January-10, 05:47, said:

If this is Acol wouldn't a more likely auction be,

assuming opps bid similarly

P

1D P P 1H

2C 2H P P

X P 3D

The bidding gives P some idea of shape.

Yes.Quite So.Though a bit aggressive in light of the bidding so far.

[Joe_Old]

Given responder's initial pass I'm not worried about missing game, I'm just competing for a part score. If opener doubles he risks finding partner with 3-3-3-4, 3-4-2-4, or some similar shape, and playing in a 3-3 spade fit is not optimal. Therefore, I feel that a 2♣ bid is a better choice than a takeout X because it guarantees that you have 8+ minor suit cards, and suggests 3-1-5-4.

Note that this auction is very different than

P - 1♦ - 1♥ - P
P

or

P - 1♦ - 1♥ - P
2♥

because responder could have cards but no immediate bid and game is not out of the question.

[Tramticket]

 DukeofShef, on 2018-January-10, 05:47, said:

If this is Acol wouldn't a more likely auction be,

assuming opps bid similarly

P

1D P P 1H

2C 2H P P

X P 3D

The bidding gives P some idea of shape.

I guess that this gets to the heart of the question I was trying to ask. If you believe that double promises four spades, then I agree with the auction that you give. If you believe that it shows 3+ spades then double must be reasonable and Cyberyeti's auction is probably a sensible one (well maybe the second double is a little aggressive at these colours in teams?).

I was West and doubled. Partner competed, expecting me to hold four spades. (Yes I agree that her bid was overly aggressive).

[As an aside, I'm not sure that playing Acol makes much difference to west's decision. I think that you have pretty much the same dilemma playing strong and 5-card majors. The system might affect East's choice, as discussed by Cyberyeti].

[Tramticket]

 Joe_Old, on 2018-January-10, 08:23, said:

Given responder's initial pass I'm not worried about missing game, I'm just competing for a part score. If opener doubles he risks finding partner with 3-3-3-4, 3-4-2-4, or some similar shape, and playing in a 3-3 spade fit is not optimal.

But if South opened 1♥ instead of passing and I make a standard take-out double I might have only thee spades and partner may have the same dilemma with 3-3-3-4, 3-4-2-4, or some similar shape.

 Joe_Old, on 2018-January-10, 08:23, said:

I feel that a 2♣ bid is a better choice than a takeout X because it guarantees that you have 8+ minor suit cards, and suggests 3-1-5-4.

Why does it suggest a three-card spade suit?

[aawk]

A re openings double has 2 meanings.

1) short in opponents overcall can play in 3 places
2) extra value (at least revers strength)

So after 2♠ from partner bid 3♣ showing variation 2 and let partner decide.

[CodeByJim]

I play opening ♣ is forcing for one round.
Bid 1♣. Second bid is jump shift to 3♦.
If North passes East must bid 1♦
Ignore what South bids and Jump Shift to 2nt, forcing 1 round.
East must keep the bidding open with a 3♣ and I follow with
3♦.

[miamijd]

 aawk, on 2018-January-10, 13:28, said:

A re openings double has 2 meanings.

1) short in opponents overcall can play in 3 places
2) extra value (at least revers strength)

So after 2♠ from partner bid 3♣ showing variation 2 and let partner decide.

If you bid 3C over 2S, you are apt to find partner with:

Kxxx
Qxxx
xx
Jxx

Now partner is going to bid 3S (what else can he do), and you may well be too high.

Cheers,
mike

[Joe_Old]

 Tramticket, on 2018-January-10, 09:44, said:

But if South opened 1♥ instead of passing and I make a standard take-out double I might have only thee spades and partner may have the same dilemma with 3-3-3-4, 3-4-2-4, or some similar shape.



Why does it suggest a three-card spade suit?

1) Yes, but you are only at the one level, and if North bids, partner can pass. (Added- yes, you might be at the one level here, too, but a 2 club bid avoids that potential pitfall).

2) If you had a 4 card ♠ suit, you would certainly double (or bid some number of ♠), so 4-1-4-4, 4-4-3-2, 4-0-5-4 and 4-1-5-3 are ruled out by a 2♣ rebid.

[miamijd]

 Joe_Old, on 2018-January-10, 08:23, said:

Given responder's initial pass I'm not worried about missing game, I'm just competing for a part score. If opener doubles he risks finding partner with 3-3-3-4, 3-4-2-4, or some similar shape, and playing in a 3-3 spade fit is not optimal. Therefore, I feel that a 2♣ bid is a better choice than a takeout X because it guarantees that you have 8+ minor suit cards, and suggests 3-1-5-4.

Note that this auction is very different than

P - 1♦ - 1♥ - P
P

or

P - 1♦ - 1♥ - P
2♥

because responder could have cards but no immediate bid and game is not out of the question.

2C planning to double 2H on the way back around is certainly possible. The upside is that you won't get into a bad spade contract if partner has only four. The downside is that might well miss a really good spade contract (including potentially even a game) if partner has 5+ spades.

Cheers,
Mike

[Joe_Old]

 miamijd, on 2018-January-10, 20:33, said:

2C planning to double 2H on the way back around is certainly possible. The upside is that you won't get into a bad spade contract if partner has only four. The downside is that might well miss a really good spade contract (including potentially even a game) if partner has 5+ spades.

Cheers,
Mike

Realistically, since responder passed initially, how likely is it that you are missing a spade game? Isn't going plus the major goal? And isn't a minor suit partial the overwhelming favorite to go plus?

I too can picture hands for responder where a spade game makes, but isn't it better to make the percentage call here? There certainly isn't a LOTT argument.

[helene_t]

Playing standard English Acol (I mean, balanced with 4♠ 4♦ would open 1♠), maybe East should bid 3♦ instead. If W has four spades he will usually have 5+ diamonds so 3♦ is unlikely to be worse than 2♠. It's not obvious, though.

I think both partners bid reasonably. If anything, East could consider passing given the vulnerability and given that his only honour (♥Q) is more likely to be useful when defending. However, even if E passes, W might double again and then E will have to chose between spades and diamonds anyway.