[paulg]

Love All, IMPs, 48-board knockout match

---

In the first part, there was a very small majority for opening 1♣ instead of 1NT. I also selected 1♣ at the table and then faced this problem. I suspect the 1NT openers are feeling, at least a little, vindicated at this point although they're not aware of the problem that they may have faced!

What is your choice now?

[Cyberyeti]

What's your agreement on double (for us would show diamonds so is ideal, showing 1345/2245/1246 or similar as we open 1♦ with 44), and also I presume you'd pass a misfitting weak no trump, so does 2N show this range ?

I think I'd double if I can sensibly in your system.

[helene_t]

The same auction and a very similar hand came up in one of the bidding polls that were made to define the Dutch standar system "Biedemeijer Rood". Then, the concencus was that 2NT shows this hand (15-17 with diamonds). I don't know if that was adjective bridge. Anyway, I don't think that agreement applies in any of my partnerships. 2NT would be some kind of Lebensohl (or just undiscussed ). Which means that 3♣ is an option but that would need to be an extrememly good five card suit.

I am ok with passing. If partner reopens with dbl I bid 3NT. If partner reopens with 2♠ I will need to know what an immediate 2♠ would have shown.

[wank]

now you've no option but to pass, but that's not a catastrophe because your hand's not very good despite its 16 high.

nice little convention for the occasion: if partner doubles i think 3s should be a transfer to 3nt and show something roughly like this.

[Zelandakh]

You really need to tell us your system agreements for this one Paul.

[paulg]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-August-26, 03:14, said:

You really need to tell us your system agreements for this one Paul.

I was trying hard not to impose my agreements on the situation so as not to overly bias the poll, but for me double would be support (like many, I expect) and 2NT would be natural but tend to imply a slightly better hand.

[paulg]

 wank, on 2014-August-26, 03:14, said:

nice little convention for the occasion: if partner doubles i think 3s should be a transfer to 3nt and show something roughly like this.

Thanks. My real purpose for posting problems is to hear little gems like this rather than seeking to assign blame.

[the_clown]

Very easy pass for me as well. We will rarely miss game if partner cant reopen and defending could be just about right in a misfit hand.

[Zelandakh]

With those agreements I think you have to pass. In an Acol context you would have had a strong NT double available if you wanted to use it, and many will play an artificial 2NT here. Without either of those to play with I cannot see an alternative.

[paulg]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-August-26, 07:11, said:

With those agreements I think you have to pass. In an Acol context you would have had a strong NT double available if you wanted to use it, and many will play an artificial 2NT here. Without either of those to play with I cannot see an alternative.

In an Acol context but playing a strong no-trump I wonder if the double would have a significantly different meaning?

I also know a number of pairs who would play good/bad 2NT here. Particularly useful to distinguish between strong and competitive hands with long club suits, but I'm not sure it would help much here.

[helene_t]

Well "Acol-context" presumably means weak NT here since that is what makes all the difference. I don't think that whether the 1♣ opening promised 3 or 4 cards has any influence on this problem.

Playing strong nt, a double here could be played as 18-19 but it doesn't seem to be a very useful agreement. If it shows diamonds it is great, if it is support you have to pass, or maybe you can stretch to 2NT if that is natural. If double is some generic t/o, maybe you can double and correct 2♠ to 2NT or 3♣?

[mikeh]

I don't understand the urge to force the partnership to the 3-level with what may well be a misfit and minimum values.

The meaning of double would depend on partnership agreement.

When I learned the game it was penalty, but that would be an unusual agreement these days, However, if we play some form of artificial 2N (g/b or b/g) then double would be a balanced 18 count or so....a traditional 2N call.

If we play support doubles (which to me means we don't have g/b or b/g available) then double shows 3 spades

As for 2N being this hand.....it sure sounds like adjective bridge...but even if it were an agreement...let's see...we have no fit. We have a terrible diamond suit. Our club suit is short and lacks texture. Ok, let's unilaterally commit to a 3-level minor suit contract.

Pass...the most underused call in bridge. We do have a partner, and our pass isn't terminal. Why not play a partnership game? Once in a while we will miss a decent 3m, but so what? We can't and shouldn't aim to always find every making contract, since in our lemming-like quest to do so, we will end up in a lot of bad ones.

[kenrexford]

Pass. My pass shows:...

7. A hand with 1-3-4-5 shape and 16 HCP

...

[Cyberyeti]

 kenrexford, on 2014-August-26, 10:02, said:

Pass. My pass shows:...

7. A hand with 1-3-4-5 shape and 16 HCP

...

Do the passers not feel this puts a lot of pressure on partner to bid with his 9 or 10 count. He might like to pass if you have a weak notrump but feels constrained to bid if you might have 16.

[cherdano]

Easy pass. 2245 would be more problematic. I like wank's convention quite a bit.

[paulg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-August-26, 11:07, said:

Do the passers not feel this puts a lot of pressure on partner to bid with his 9 or 10 count. He might like to pass if you have a weak notrump but feels constrained to bid if you might have 16.

It think it does but perhaps a reflection that we are unclear that we can make game unless partner is stronger or has heart shortage.

[cherdano]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-August-26, 11:07, said:

Do the passers not feel this puts a lot of pressure on partner to bid with his 9 or 10 count. He might like to pass if you have a weak notrump but feels constrained to bid if you might have 16.

This is only an issue if partner has three hearts - with a doubleton heart and 9 points he will find a bid.

So let's give partner three hearts. He is more likely to have 8 points or fewer, than 9 or 10. In that case, we want to defend 2♥ undoubled. (He will almost always find a bid with 11 points.)

I've got a feeling that the only path towards reaching 2♥ undoubled is to pass 2♥ for now.

[kenrexford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-August-26, 11:07, said:

Do the passers not feel this puts a lot of pressure on partner to bid with his 9 or 10 count. He might like to pass if you have a weak notrump but feels constrained to bid if you might have 16.

The passers already thought of that problem when they opened 1NT. Now, they are forced into a difficult auction with a difficult choice. As we were forced to open 1♣, the 1-3-4-5 16-count was included within the definition of the opening and then within the pass.

[Cyberyeti]

 paulg, on 2014-August-26, 11:49, said:

It think it does but perhaps a reflection that we are unclear that we can make game unless partner is stronger or has heart shortage.

It also has the problem that partner might not realise what good cards are, Jxxxx, QJ KJxx, Qx is a horrible quacky 10 (do you really want to X and hear partner bid 3♣, on a trump lead your hand might be truly terrible), but may well make 3N in practice on a heart lead and also 5♦.

[paulg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-August-26, 12:55, said:

It also has the problem that partner might not realise what good cards are, Jxxxx, QJ KJxx, Qx is a horrible quacky 10 (do you really want to X and hear partner bid 3♣, on a trump lead your hand might be truly terrible), but may well make 3N in practice on a heart lead and also 5♦.

I agree that it is quite possible that passing will not work out well. Although I think your example is an easy double, many have shown possible hands that are even more worrisome on this auction and there are a number of 9-10 counts that will fit that description.