[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

same match, this time you hold partners hand.

You are in 2nd seat, green vs. red, holding

♠ KT972
♥ 8
♦ 8754
♣ 985

The opponents play 5 card major system, variable NT, not sure
which strength in 1st being red.

1♥ - Pass - 2♦ (1) - 3♦ (2)
4♥ - ... (3)

(1) Either 9-11 with 2 or 3 hearts or a minor single suiter
(2) OBAR Bids are in place, in case it may be relevant for you
(3) ... Your bid and as always, your thoughts?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

Green v Red I'd have bid 2♠ first time, presume 3♦ is natural and can be weaker than standard from the OBAR reference but not sure how much weaker. There could easily be 6 losers in diamonds with opps not making a slam here. Would xx, xx, AQJ10xx, xxx be a 3♦ bid for you ?

[P_Marlowe]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-October-18, 06:08, said:

Green v Red I'd have bid 2♠ first time, presume 3♦ is natural and can be weaker than standard from the OBAR reference but not sure how much weaker. There could easily be 6 losers in diamonds with opps not making a slam here. Would xx, xx, AQJ10xx, xxx be a 3♦ bid for you ?

Partner could have opened 2S, standard w2, due to the colors, but could not due to position.
And yes, this would be a possible 3D bid.

[DavidKok]

This one is too difficult for me. I default to pass as we gave partner a 'licence to bid' by staying mum the first time and the opps entering some artificial auction - a lot of points can be won by being more aggressive over their nebulous bids. In general I prefer to bet on the opponents guessing wrong in a pressure situation. So I hope that 4♥ fails, or they miss a slam, or they belong in 3NT or 5♣, or 5♦ goes for too much.

[P_Marlowe]

A question to be discussed has to be: Is it sensible, to assume, that OBAR bids are in play after 2♦.
The alert (2) is my thinking at the time as I made the bid, but it is something I am reflecting on.

[akwoo]

Hmm - at MPs I'm passing as I think there is a very good likelihood that a diamond sac is too costly, but IMPs gives me something like 2-1 odds on that - it's -4 for -800 vs -650 (or -300 vs -140) and +8 for -300 vs -620, so maybe it's worth a 4♦ bid.

[P_Marlowe]

akwoo, on 2023-October-18, 10:07, said:

Hmm - at MPs I'm passing as I think there is a very good likelihood that a diamond sac is too costly, but IMPs gives me something like 2-1 odds on that - it's -4 for -800 vs -650 (or -300 vs -140) and +8 for -300 vs -620, so maybe it's worth a 4♦ bid.

I take it, this is a typo? 4♦ is not possible.

[AL78]

What are OBAR bids?

[DavidKok]

Opponents Bid And Raise - Balance In Direct Seat. Usually it refers to the auction (1M)-P-(2M)-?, where some partnerships agree that fourth hand may treat the auction as if it were a balancing situation and bid aggressively with shortage in their suit, to prevent partner having an awkward decision if it goes P; (P)-?. They are most effective at matchpoints where getting 3-over-2 decisions right is very valuable.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2023-October-18, 12:26, said:

Opponents Bid And Raise - Balance In Direct Seat. Usually it refers to the auction (1M)-P-(2M)-?, where some partnerships agree that fourth hand may treat the auction as if it were a balancing situation and bid aggressively with shortage in their suit, to prevent partner having an awkward decision if it goes P; (P)-?. They are most effective at matchpoints where getting 3-over-2 decisions right is very valuable.

They are also effective at IMPs, getting 2 part scores right is the same as getting one game swing.
But they are not for the faint of heart. We fight even at IMPs for the part score as hard as we can.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Gilithin]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-October-18, 09:11, said:

A question to be discussed has to be: Is it sensible, to assume, that OBAR bids are in play after 2♦.

I would say no, although I note you do not provide us with the range of the minor one-suiters so I will think through any implications after you let us know. What I do think is relevant here is what your defence to artificial calls is. Here many would play X as a 2♦ overcall, meaning that 3♦ was preemptive, but it is just as valid to play a X as takeout of ♥, meaning that 3♦ might be constructive (depending on what those one-suiters are). These unknowns obviously make taking any sensible action here impossible.

[P_Marlowe]

Gilithin, on 2023-October-18, 15:32, said:

I would say no, although I note you do not provide us with the range of the minor one-suiters so I will think through any implications after you let us know. What I do think is relevant here is what your defence to artificial calls is. Here many would play X as a 2♦ overcall, meaning that 3♦ was preemptive, but it is just as valid to play a X as takeout of ♥, meaning that 3♦ might be constructive (depending on what those one-suiters are). These unknowns obviously make taking any sensible action here impossible.

I dont know more about the strength for the single suiter, ..., my guess is, at least inv., there was a case, when they did have AKQT to 6th or 7th for the bid.
They need to be prepared to play on the 3 level.
I faced this for the first time. If it is only (exactly) inv. strength, going in with flimsy values may be overdoing it too much, because opener
can simply judge to go for blood instead of chasing borderline games.

[mikeh]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-October-18, 16:32, said:

I dont know more about the strength for the single suiter, ..., my guess is, at least inv., there was a case, when they did have AKQT to 6th or 7th for the bid.
They need to be prepared to play on the 3 level.
I faced this for the first time. If it is only (exactly) inv. strength, going in with flimsy values may be overdoing it too much, because opener
can simply judge to go for blood instead of chasing borderline games.

I would be surprised were any strong pair to use x of 2D as diamonds. Takeout of hearts is surely not only more common but also far more useful. Plus many hands that want to show diamonds can bid 3D. Of course, one could argue that 2H should be a takeout double of hearts but I think it relatively dangerous. If x of 2D is takeout, firstly the opps may be unable or unwise to pass…especially if opener has 6+ hearts, and secondly 2Dx making isn’t an imp disaster if we have nowhere to go.

Anyway, if I’m playing a 20 board team game against ‘strong’ opponents, I’d definitely know much more about their methods than the OP has told us, and I’d absolutely know what partner’s options were over 2D. As it is, we’ve been asked to make a decision without information that I’d certainly have at the table, reducing this to a guessing game.that’s why I didn’t post earlier…I’d never be in this position and I don’t understand how anyone, playing seriously, could let themselves end up in it.

Fwiw, the opps (assuming they are ‘strong’) use this 2D response within the context of a complex method….if 2D shows either 2-3 hearts, 9-11 hcp, or a ‘minor one suiter’ of unknown strength…how the heck can anyone sit there and let them make these bids without asking what they actually mean?

Personally, I think this 2D call is borderline unplayable….leading to many 2H contracts on 5-2 fits when a good minor suit fit is available and could be reached after, say, 1H 1N, and where interference by fourth seat leaves opener not knowing whether partner has 2 or 3 card support….which in my experience is often critical to competitive bidding. But I’m probably missing something😀

[P_Marlowe]

In a sense this was not a serious match, more like a training session, 2 sets of 10 boards, after that, opponents switch.
The match was part of the BBO GERMANY League season, the pair was Kasimir - Jokisch, a pair, that has represented
Germany in international events. They play some unusual stuff, how good this is, ..., I am not in a position to judge,
all I can say, they are an established pair.


One take away for me: In future I should ask about the strength for of the single suiter, ..., the BBO Alert window is small,
and I was not too concerned, that the bid may be exactly invitational.
Getting exposure to this kind of bids is one reason, we are taking part in the league.

One idea behind getting in was also to get some sand in their clockwork.

My hand was
♠ QJ85
♥ A2
♦ AKT63
♣ T6

My decision was to treat this as similar to the seq. 1M - 2M, which was the start at the other table.
To check how fooolish my bid was, was one goal of the thread. Feel free to comment on the quality of the bid, but have mercy.
On the other table they made a T/O, I think they play Equal Level Conversion, and they discovered their spade fit,
our team mate sacrified with 5H, against 4S, which got doubled.
On our table my partner decided to bid 5D, which got also doubled.

This meant that on both tables our team sacrificed against their making 4 level contracts.

The hand making the 2♦ bid was
♠ 653
♥ 975
♦ Q2
♣ AQJ42

My guess is, that the 3 card raise is the more likely variant of the 3 options, but I have been wrong before.
Assuming this is the case, treating this seq. as OBAR, with a higher floor for the 2M bid, may not be the worst idea,
especially if they regular open light (or rephrasing it: the way the modern style dictates), which would lower the
floor for the 1M bid.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[DavidKok]

To be honest this is a pretty classic story, sorry.

• The opponents wheeled out a fancy gadget, and you failed to ask what it showed.
  
• You assumed you were in a pressure bid situation, while partner played you for full values(/playing strength).
  
• You had no agreements to handle their gadget, or a good idea of what hand type to treat it as.

For what it's worth I think this was a pressure bid situation and your partner was out of line for raising. Robson & Segal have a similar story, and point out that it's frequently the pressure bidder (in this case, you) who ends up apologising while really partner blew it. Subject to partnership understanding, of course. I agree that double should be takeout of hearts or, barring that, 'values and no good bid' (which is practically the same thing, since with heart length you are better off passing and defending). I would treat 2♦ as what it shows - a kludge of different hand types, each with reasonable frequency. The standard way to fight this is to make sure your bids are natural and you have a partnership agreement about their strength. Those multi-meaning bids tend to crumble in competition. This one in particular seems to claim the balance of strength, so you can use wider ranging bids to increase frequency while sacrificing some degree of game exploration.

It might be interesting to interrogate the opponents on how frequently 2♦ is bid on a 2-card suit. Most hands with a doubleton in support also have other natural bids, so possibly they just meant "3-card limit raise, intermediate jump shift in an undisclosed minor suit, or some problem hands with a doubleton that we can't quite square away (e.g. 3=2=4=4 10-11)" or the likes.

[P_Marlowe]

For Al78

https://www.bridgeha...O/OBAR_BIDS.htm

[Gilithin]

mikeh, on 2023-October-18, 22:39, said:

I would be surprised were any strong pair to use x of 2D as diamonds. Takeout of hearts is surely not only more common but also far more useful.

I believe this is something of a regional thing. Consider for a moment the much more common transfer defence situation. I have learnt that most US masters play X of a transfer as takeout of their suit and a cue as a 2-suiter. However, in large areas of Europe, the more popular defence is for X to show the bid suit and for a cue to be a good takeout of their suit. I feel that a similar logic applies here and I am absolutely certain that at club level, in almost any North European club, X of this artificial 2♦ response would be played as diamonds. What World Class players from various nationalities would do though, I have no idea and if you tell me that all non-Americans at the top level all play it that way, I will believe you.

[DavidKok]

Against transfer preempts, and low level transfers in general, I prefer X = values, no good bid while completing their transfer = a pure takeout double. The point is that if they are kind enough to open 2♣ showing weak diamonds (or one of seven strong options that come up once a year), you should be in the auction with the awkward 13-15 (semi)balanced hands. Similarly over 1NT-(2♦) showing hearts or the likes, get in there with your 6-count. It's free, and we might coordinate a penalty double or good partscore decision.

On this auction the opponents seemed to have claimed the balance of strength, so telling them about the split of the remaining honours is not a great idea. So X = takeout of their long suit is better.

[sfi]

Gilithin, on 2023-October-19, 13:17, said:

I believe this is something of a regional thing. [...] What World Class players from various nationalities would do though, I have no idea and if you tell me that all non-Americans at the top level all play it that way, I will believe you.

Both are common agreements around here, but my experience is that the better pairs almost always play that double of an artificial bid that could be a raise is for takeout. Sometimes pairs make a distinction if the opponents have forced to game, so a double of a sequence like 1♥-2♠ will be takeout if responder is showing a 3-card invitational raise, but is lead-directing if responder is showing a game-going hand with 4+ hearts (a la Jacoby 2NT).

[Gilithin]

DavidKok, on 2023-October-19, 14:05, said:

Against transfer preempts, and low level transfers in general, I prefer X = values, no good bid while completing their transfer = a pure takeout double.

That is another very common agreement, particularly in areas where the Weak NT in prevalent but I decided to leave it out of my post for simplicity as it was meaningless to the point I was making and to this thread in general.