[ArtK78]

I ran into this hand in a pair event at a Sectional on Saturday. Given the thread started by arnoldson, I thought that I would throw this one out there.

Matchpoints, both vul. Partner is dealer. You hold:


Q972
AQ86
A9864
------

The bidding:

1NT* - (P) - 2♣ - (x)
xx - (P) - ?

* 15-17

Are you tempted?

[billw55]

Not this time. Taking 8 tricks in ops 9 card fit seems too much to ask. Although the look on partner's face might be worth it.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-April-16, 14:08, said:

Not this time. Taking 8 tricks in ops 9 card fit seems too much to ask. Although the look on partner's face might be worth it.

You are assuming that partner might redouble on a 4 card club holding. Is that really possible?

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-16, 14:19, said:

You are assuming that partner might redouble on a 4 card club holding. Is that really possible?

I thought so, if it is meaty enough, maybe ♣QJT8 or so. If I was opener, I probably would, offering partner to leave it with three clubs. Maybe this is not right though.

[Phil]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-16, 14:19, said:

You are assuming that partner might redouble on a 4 card club holding. Is that really possible?

Possible? I think its likely!

I would expect partner to xx on any four card club holding like HHTx or better. I would expect partner to xx on any five card club holding like HHxxx.

Against aggressive opponents that like to xx just for the lead (read: pro/client pair) I will lower my range to about HTxx and H98xx.

[PhilKing]

I can never resist passing in this spot.

[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-16, 13:53, said:

I ran into this hand in a pair event at a Sectional on Saturday. Given the thread started by arnoldson, I thought that I would throw this one out there. Matchpoints, both vul. Partner is dealer. You hold:
♠ Q 9 7 2 ♥ A Q 8 6 ♦ A 9 8 6 4 ♣ -
1N (P) 2♣ (X)
XX (P) ??
1N = 15-17

IMO after 1N (P) 2♣ (X), a sensible agreement is:

• _P = 5 ♣ or 4 good ♣.
• XX = Art 44 in the majors (Partner can transfer to his major -- or pass with good ♣).
• 2♦/2♥/2♠ = Nat 4 cards.

The point is that responder may have a fairly weak hand, on which he might risk sitting for 2♣X but would be uncomfortable in 2♣XX. If responder has a fair hand, he can redouble himself. On responder's actual hand it seems sensible to remove 2♣XX, whatever your agreements.

[Zelandakh]

nige1, on 2013-April-16, 19:56, said:

IMO after 1N (P) 2♣ (X), A sensible agreement is:

More common seems to be differentiating by club stop. So

P = club stop (now XX is re-Stayman)
XX = good clubs
2♦♥♠ = normal response but denies a club stop

but there are a few reasonable schemes around. Your method seems to suffer from a lack of options holding 3334 and poor clubs.

[Trinidad]

Even more common seems to exchange the meanings of 2♦♥♠ and Pass. That way you can make sure that responder will be declaring in a major when opener doesn't have a club stop.

P = no club stop
        XX = Stayman (classic: invitational or better and asking for a four card major)
                2♦ 4 hearts
                2♥ 4 spades
                2♠ no 4M
        Other bids = as if opener had rebid 2♦ (e.g. Garbage Stayman)

2♦♥♠ = normal response but shows a club stop

Rik

[the hog]

As I would bid 2C on a 4441 0 count, I think that it would be ludicrous of pd to xx on anything less than KQJxx, Even then I think it is silly to pass 2C xx on a void. Give me xx and I am there like a shot.

[han]

Hog, I don't understand your post, could you spell it out for me?

[PhilKing]

This is matchpoints, so it's just a matter of percentages. It doesn't matter if partner has only four clubs, since they will be good ones. Give partner:

♠??x
♥??x
♦??x
♣KJTx

I would reckon on making 2♣ about 60% of the time.
Make it:

♠???
♥???
♦???
♣AKT8

And you can put the chances at about 80%, and frequently with an overtrick.

At teams it would be different, since we can underwrite 3NT, so it would only be rational dally in 2♣ if we were almost certain to make and were expecting an overtrick.

[ArtK78]

OK. Time for the whole hand (West dealer, all vul):

---

On any lead but a diamond, clubs is cold for 11 tricks. 10 tricks is not that difficult, and 9 is automatic. So 2♣xx is an awesome result.

I can understand the reluctance to pass 2♣xx on a void, but with Q AQ A in the other suits, partner should be able to make at least 8 tricks in clubs if he has any sort of reasonable club holding. And if his club holding is sound, as his redouble implies, then 8 tricks should be a mortal lock.

I did say that this was a pair game at a local sectional. I didn't mention that my opponents had no clue as to what they were doing. But that is not the issue. Sometimes your opponents do silly things (like the double of 2♣ on this hand). It is good if you can take advantage of their foolishness.

By the way, in 3NT, I got a club lead to the Ace and subsequently guessed the heart suit for 4 winners. Making 12 tricks was worth 19.5 out of 24, so we didn't lose much by not playing in 2♣xx. But it is such a better story if we played in 2♣xx.

[nige1]

Zelanakh spotted a flaw in my suggested method. After 1N (P) 2♣ (X) ??, I now think I slightly prefer:

• _P = Good ♣.
• XX = No major, not good ♣, usually 33(43)
• 2♦ = Good ♦
• 2M = 4 cards.

IMO an easy-to-remember principle can be applied in this and many other contexts after opponents double partner's artificial bid, immediately, when you might sometimes want to play in that contract:

• Bids retain their normal meaning; except that
• Redouble refines one of the meanings; and
• Pass = content.

For example, playing transfers, after 1N (P) 2♦ (X) ??

• _P = Good ♦.
• XX = Doubleton ♥ without good ♦.
• 2♥ = 3+ ♥.
• Other bids = Normal.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-17, 08:44, said:

I did say that this was a pair game at a local sectional. I didn't mention that my opponents had no clue as to what they were doing. But that is not the issue. Sometimes your opponents do silly things (like the double of 2♣ on this hand). It is good if you can take advantage of their foolishness.

By the way, in 3NT, I got a club lead to the Ace and subsequently guessed the heart suit for 4 winners. Making 12 tricks was worth 19.5 out of 24, so we didn't lose much by not playing in 2♣xx. But it is such a better story if we played in 2♣xx.

I am not sure that I want to cater our bidding treatments to actions like south's double of 2♣. I would rather be prepared for the cases where south actually has his bid.

Taking advantage of foolishness can be fun, but consider: you got a good result anyway, partly thanks to the favorable lead that the doubled induced. And you are often getting good scores against such ops in general.

[PhilKing]

billw55, on 2013-April-17, 09:31, said:

I am not sure that I want to cater our bidding treatments to actions like south's double of 2♣. I would rather be prepared for the cases where south actually has his bid.

Taking advantage of foolishness can be fun, but consider: you got a good result anyway, partly thanks to the favorable lead that the doubled induced. And you are often getting good scores against such ops in general.

♠K854
♥T974
♦JT2
♣64

♠AJ3 ........ ♠Q972
♥K32 ........ ♥AQ86
♦K75 ........ ♦A9864
♣AJ97 ....... ♣-

♠T5
♥J5
♦Q3
♣KQT8532

Whether South has his bid or not is not really the issue. As long as partner has his bid, we will be fine significantly more often than not. Give South KQJxxx (he has his bid, tight?) and partner AT9xx and we are also almost always OK. As mentioned above, there are those who redouble on AT9x, in which case we have to pull. My minimum is AJ9x, and then only with aces and kings on the side, so it's a super-easy pass.

Besides, at matchpoints, the name of the game is taking advantage of the opponent's indiscretions, and we sometimes have to risk a bottom to do so.

[ArtK78]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-17, 09:49, said:

♠K854
♥T974
♦JT2
♣64

♠AJ3 ........ ♠Q972
♥K32 ........ ♥AQ86
♦Q75 ........ ♦A9864
♣AQ97 ....... ♣-

♠T5
♥J5
♦Q3
♣KJT8532

Three things.

1) It is a lot easier to see a hand diagram if you use the Hand Editor tool.

2) Please convert one of the ♦Qs into the ♦K.

3) What is your point? In my opinion, the opening 1NT hand is not worth a redouble of 2♣. It is a pass, which responder will obviously pull. I know that others stated that AQ97 is worth a redouble, but if you have this understanding, responder is less likely to sit for the redouble.

Having said that, it would be unlucky to go down in 2♣xx on the given hand. And it might be cold (possibly depending on who has the ♦K and the opening lead). But I do not have the time to work out the details.

[PhilKing]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-17, 09:52, said:

Three things.

1) It is a lot easier to see a hand diagram if you use the Hand Editor tool.

2) Please convert one of the ♦Qs into the ♦K.

I hit "post" too quickly. Having said that, the hand is a lot more representative than the actual one - five great clubs and a hand comfortably worth 1♣ followed by 2NT.

[billw55]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-17, 09:49, said:

Whether South has his bid or not is not really the issue. As long as partner has his bid, we will be fine significantly more often than not. Give South KQJxxx (he has his bid, tight?) and partner AT9xx and we are also almost always OK. As mentioned above, there are those who redouble on AT9x, in which case we have to pull. My minimum is AJ9x, and then only with aces and kings on the side, so it's a super-easy pass.

Besides, at matchpoints, the name of the game is taking advantage of the opponent's indiscretions, and we sometimes have to risk a bottom to do so.

Your construction seems reasonable. South need not have seven clubs, but then again he need not be balanced in the side suits. How good is 2♣? Looks like declarer can routinely collect one spade, two hearts, two diamonds, and so needs three tricks from trumps? Doesn't look trivial to me, although may work with endplays. Meanwhile, at 3NT the club lead and possible continuation when in with the ♠K will be helpful.

As for risking bottoms, I will not do so to change 19/24 into 24/24.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-April-17, 10:22, said:

Your construction seems reasonable. South need not have seven clubs, but then again he need not be balanced in the side suits. How good is 2♣? Looks like declarer can routinely collect one spade, two hearts, two diamonds, and so needs three tricks from trumps? Doesn't look trivial to me, although may work with endplays. Meanwhile, at 3NT the club lead and possible continuation when in with the ♠K will be helpful.

As for risking bottoms, I will not do so to change 19/24 into 24/24.

However, if you only make 11 tricks in 3NT (you could lose a heart trick or how about if South inserts the ♣9 at trick one - you don't know the 10 of clubs is coming down) you only get an average score. As 2♣xx on my hand is a trivial make with an overtrick (and more tricks are available), is it not worth the risk of an occasional bottom to convert an average score into a top?