[BunnyGo]

Board 3 from the BBFPairs2.

You hold:

A84, A, J973, A9873

White vs Red

Your partner deals and opens 2♠. RHO doubles. Now what?

I bid 3♠ planning to double any 4 level contract. I didn't think 4♠ was a likely make, so at MP I went for 140 or 200.

Two tables (one of them GIB) bid 4♠.

Thoughts?

Edited for correctness of RHO vs. LHO

[ArtK78]

I bid 4♠. It could easily be a claim. All it takes is for partner to have KQxxxx of spades, 3 hearts and sufficient communication to ruff 2 hearts in dummy.

Of course, partner could have more than that, or partner could have less and the opps are cold for something.

Or the opps could bid over 4♠ in which case I am going to double and (hopefully) go plus.

And another possibility is that 4♠ can be beaten but the opps fail to do so.

All in all, aiming for a partial in spades is aiming at a very small target.

By the way, if your preempting style at favorable is very aggressive, then 3♠ may be right (or even passing could be right). But I would at least make a move towards game just in case partner has a "real" 2♠ opening.

[HighLow21]

4♠ all day, everyday, expecting it to make far more often than not.

[mgoetze]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-March-25, 10:23, said:

Your partner deals and opens 2♠. LHO doubles.

Hold on... I don't remember any director calls for bids out of rotation...

[mike777]

3s I dont expect pard to have anything close to a real 2s bid at this vul.

[BunnyGo]

 mgoetze, on 2012-March-25, 12:40, said:

Hold on... I don't remember any director calls for bids out of rotation...

sigh....thanks. I fixed it.

[HighLow21]

 mike777, on 2012-March-25, 13:48, said:

3s I dont expect pard to have anything close to a real 2s bid at this vul.

What likelihood do you assign to 4♠ making, how bad is your partnership's worst 2♠ W/R 1st seat opener, and what is its best? Because I cannot imagine that 4♠ here is likely to cost more than it gains most of the time, unless you and your partner agree to open normal weak 2's in 1st seat at these colors at the 3 level. To put it differently: even KJxxxx♠, xxx♥ and out has good play for game.

[BunnyGo]

 HighLow21, on 2012-March-25, 15:31, said:

What likelihood do you assign to 4♠ making, how bad is your partnership's worst 2♠ W/R 1st seat opener, and what is its best? Because I cannot imagine that 4♠ here is likely to cost more than it gains most of the time, unless you and your partner agree to open normal weak 2's in 1st seat at these colors at the 3 level. To put it differently: even KJxxxx♠, xxx♥ and out has good play for game.

But here's the other question: How likely is it you think the opps will pass 3♠? How much are you setting a 4 level contract? How much are you setting it if you're making 4♠? How much are you setting it if you only make 3♠?

[wyman]

Here's a goofy idea that I probably wouldn't choose at the table. What about pass? Instead of guessing whether partner has 3 hearts, what if we pass? Then, if LHO bids 3H, you can balance 3S. If LHO bids something other than hearts, you can bid 4S. If opps bid to the 4-level before you get to act, you can saw them off.

[HighLow21]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-March-25, 15:47, said:

But here's the other question: How likely is it you think the opps will pass 3♠?

Quite, because LHO doesn't have anything. If I'm going to spare him a bid he doesn't want to make at the 3 level, I don't see the point in stopping in a partscore with a great offensive fit.

 BunnyGo, on 2012-March-25, 15:47, said:

How much are you setting a 4 level contract?

Since I think game my way is likely and they might make a 4-level contract, this scenario doesn't interest me that much. In fact per someone else's suggestion I would rather pass 2 spades doubled and watch LHO's disgusted facial expression.

 BunnyGo, on 2012-March-25, 15:47, said:

How much are you setting it if you're making 4♠?

Anywhere from 0 to 3.

 BunnyGo, on 2012-March-25, 15:47, said:

How much are you setting it if you only make 3♠?

You aren't, and I'd rather go -300 in 4 spades doubled -2 than let them make a heart game

The fact of the matter is, this hand makes about 6-7 tricks more on offense than defense. If it is 6, then the only time I want to defend is when I'm making exactly 9 or 10 on offense and 3 or 4 on defense against 5 of a minor, which seems way out there probability-wise. If it is 7, then I'm not defending.

[aguahombre]

 wyman, on 2012-March-25, 15:50, said:

Here's a goofy idea that I probably wouldn't choose at the table. What about pass? Instead of guessing whether partner has 3 hearts, what if we pass? Then, if LHO bids 3H, you can balance 3S. If LHO bids something other than hearts, you can bid 4S. If opps bid to the 4-level before you get to act, you can saw them off.

Probably not "goofy", just not my cup of tea. Walking dog in hopes of learning something about them usually allows them to learn more than they should about them.

[wyman]

 aguahombre, on 2012-March-25, 15:56, said:

Probably not "goofy", just not my cup of tea. Walking dog in hopes of learning something about them usually allows them to learn more than they should about them.

Agree, and I think I am a simple 4S bidder. But if your goals are as OP stated (axe them at the 4+ level), I kind of like this approach.

[HighLow21]

 wyman, on 2012-March-25, 16:03, said:

Agree, and I think I am a simple 4S bidder. But if your goals are as OP stated (axe them at the 4+ level), I kind of like this approach.

How is that really better than declaring? Defending if game is on only makes sense if they are -2, which requires partner to have 2 defensive tricks (or for them to end up in 5 of a minor, which isn't likely at all --> and even then, partner may have no defense).

[BunnyGo]

 ArtK78, on 2012-March-25, 10:59, said:

I bid 4♠. It could easily be a claim. All it takes is for partner to have KQxxxx of spades, 3 hearts and sufficient communication to ruff 2 hearts in dummy.

This seems like a lot to me. He has KQxxxx, and sufficient side entries? I don't see it as likely. That's nearly a 1♠ opener.

I agree 4♠ could make. It turns out that on this hand it did. Here's the whole hand.


4♥X should be a top, but sadly 4♠ was doubled at two tables that bid it and they both found the spade Queen.

[mike777]

I expect pard to have close to have an 8- 9 loser hand at best.
If both white I would expect an 8 loser hand so here I expect much worse.

On the other hand if 2s at fav vul shows random hand meaning pard can have alot or not.......I can understsnd 4s.
What you guys post as a bad hand is top of range hand for me.

I suppose if they dont lead a trump we may have some play if pard is at the top of her range.

I dont mind 4s and think art made a good argument for it.


given MP perhaps I tried for a plus in 3s.

[BunnyGo]

 HighLow21, on 2012-March-25, 16:07, said:

How is that really better than declaring? Defending if game is on only makes sense if they are -2, which requires partner to have 2 defensive tricks (or for them to end up in 5 of a minor, which isn't likely at all --> and even then, partner may have no defense).

I refer you again to this effect, and kindly ask you to modify your tone--at least when responding to my questions. I feel less urge to click on "read it anyways" when your posts are not in a thread I started.

Consider as well, how is the play going in 4♠ so that it makes? As Art pointed it, partner's most likely hand has 3 hearts and two quick (non spade) entries so that hearts can be ruffed in my hand before spades are drawn. Sounds like 2 defensive tricks to me. If that isn't the case, partner better have some tricks somewhere...sounds like defensive tricks to me. Quite frankly, I think the biggest issue here is whether the opps will take the bait; my thought was they're likely to with a 9+ heart fit (most likely). The most likely way I see this strategy failing is 3♠ being passed out when 4 makes.

Clearly everyone who's responded (and GIB who did it at the table) bids 4♠, and clearly that's the "automatic" bid. But I thought it was an interesting feint since 4[notspades] is almost surely a safer plus, and since partner surely needs tricks outside of spades (probably ruffs somewhere...which I'll make sure she gets in 4♥) to make 4♠.

If partner has 0 tricks on defense, then 4♠ is (almost surely) not making.

[HighLow21]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-March-25, 16:45, said:

This seems like a lot to me. He has KQxxxx, and sufficient side entries? I don't see it as likely. That's nearly a 1♠ opener.

I agree 4♠ could make. It turns out that on this hand it did. Here's the whole hand.


4♥X should be a top, but sadly 4♠ was doubled at two tables that bid it and they both found the spade Queen.

I don't like defending 4♥ when 4♠ is odds-on makeable and nothing in my hand suggests that we can necessarily beat 4♥X by 2.

I think your analysis of this hand is invalid: it is "resulting", and even in a better-than-ever-could-be-expected outcome, you still didn't get a top.

(1) Partner can easily make 4♠ in spite of being ultra-minimum for his bid;
(2) 4♥ makes if partner has no minor suit shortness and they have the Jack of hearts;
(3) and even if 4 hearts is off 1 and 4 spades is making, both 140/170 and 200 are terrible results.

[HighLow21]

 mike777, on 2012-March-25, 17:16, said:

I expect pard to have close to have an 8- 9 loser hand at best.
If both white I would expect an 8 loser hand so here I expect much worse.

On the other hand if 2s at fav vul shows random hand meaning pard can have alot or not.......I can understsnd 4s.
What you guys post as a bad hand is top of range hand for me.

I suppose if they dont lead a trump we may have some play if pard is at the top of her range.

I dont mind 4s and think art made a good argument for it.


given MP perhaps I tried for a plus in 3s.

If the given hand is top of range for 1st seat W/R weak 2's for your partnership, then (1) I agree with you that 3S is enough, and (2) I think doubling 4 of anything by them, particularly in a minor suit, is foolhardy at IMPs and questionable at MP.

[HighLow21]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-March-25, 17:28, said:

I refer you again to this effect, and kindly ask you to modify your tone--at least when responding to my questions.

Look in the mirror, buddy. I didn't TAKE a tone with you; I simply said that I disagreed with your strategy and analysis, and your response is a passive-aggressive link to an article about the effect by which people of "lesser skill" think they are better than they actually are, asking ME to modify my tone.

Look in the mirror.

[ArtK78]

Just wanted to point out that I did not say it was necessary for the opening 2♠ bidder to have 2 "quick entries" in order to make 4♠. I stated that there has to be sufficient communications so that two hearts could be ruffed in dummy.

I also stated that partner could have a better hand than just KQxxxx of spades and 4♠ could be trivially easy. Alternatively, the opps could be cold for something and -50 or -100 in 4♠ could be a fine score.