[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2012-April-03, 20:14, said:

what do you think a double by him would show?

It isn't a penalty double, in the sense of announcing 'we've got them'. It is a general statement of values and shape....it primarily denies short spades......he virtually has to double with all 3 card holdings and many, if not most 2 card holdings, given that he has already denied a stopper. Those are precisely the hands on which we want to defend...if we have two spade losers off the top, and no other losers, we rate to be 500 or more on defence, and (in addition) there will be some hands where we are 200-800 and game fails: I previously gave him xxx KQx x AKJxxx and you still haven't explained why he can't have that, or whty he wouldn't gladly double with that, or why we'd prefer to be in 5♣. Let me make it xxx KQx x AKxxxx...I think most would still bid 2♣ over 1♠ (I know I would and I don't understand a pass) and now.....5♣ is against the odds and we still rate to go at least 500 against 3♠.

I defy you to give me a hand on which it is wrong to defend, single-dummy, when partner has spade length.

If you don't trust your partner to understand this auction....maybe it is you who don't understand it (at least, not as I do) or maybe you need a better partner. I wouldn't have thought this would be a difficult decision, and am surprised, given how I usually agree with your arguments, or see considerable merit even when I don't, that your views appear so dramatically different.

My views are not dramatically different. Unless of course you are talking about the methods rather than goal. I just dont believe we will get 800 most of the time, and i am giving away our chance of 500 while we have 400. Big deal. In return i am eliminating some risks that you guys see as crystal clear on forums while in reality it is not sometimes. This hand was played by a regular pdship and not a bad one. One of them sold out to 3♠, it doesnt matter who wins the argument later. I just dont think i would take this risk at the table.

What surprises me is, why do you think there is a huge difference ? In methods yes but if you think objectively the difference between both approach will get close results most of the time. It is not like i am defending this pass is not forcing while you say that it is Mike. All i am saying is i am feeling extremely uncomfortable to let my pd do something like DBL or bid something at 4 level while i still did not introduce my fit yet when he bid a suit 3 times. Regardless of you and other agree or not, is this such an awful logic ?

I also agree with you a lot, as i wrote in forums so many times. You agree with Justin or Andy or vice versa. Justin agrees with Fred or G Hampson, but there comes a hand all these people can disagree with one an other. This doesnt make one of them a better or worse player than other. Isn't this one of the many reasons we love bridge ?

[quiddity]

MrAce, on 2012-April-03, 23:15, said:

I just dont believe we will get 800 most of the time, and i am giving away our chance of 500 while we have 400. Big deal.

Who says we have 400 on this hypothetical hand where partner has several small spades? Perhaps we'll have reasonable luck and make 5♣ but wouldn't you prefer to take the money?

[gszes]

A simple raise of 3c is invitational not a "courtesy". It takes
a lot more to make 5 of a minor than 3n so a 3c bid here is
similar to a 2n bid w/o a spade stopper. Do not keep the bidding open
w/o a purpose===this means 2s is game forcing. There are some limits
on the hand types:

no 4 card heart suit too easy to bid 2h
could not bid 3n
could not bid 3s (splinter)

The 3c bid by p should deny dia support (too easy to bid 3d) and
also denies even a partial spade stopper (bid 3s).

Having said this we are going to take advantage of the opponents
3s bid in the situation given.

1. Kx AQx KQxxx xxx
2. xx AJx AKQxx xxx

with hand one over 3c we would have been stuck bidding 3n which would
have shown 1 spade stop and asking p to decide if 3n is right or not
ie if they have running clubs 3n is probably right if not pull.

with hand 2 over 3c we have options 3d forcing or my favorite 3h.

When rho bid 3s we take advantage of their bidding and we use x and pass
to differentiate btn these two hand types. I would much rather x with hand
1 and be able to use a forcing pass with hand 2. In fact 3n is so completely
useless at this vulnerability for minimum hands I would use 3n to show
a slam invitational hand with 1 spade stop. Kx Axx AKxxx Axx or some such.

Note how well this works with the hand given.

after our pass p can

x with no spade control
bid 3n to show extra values and a spade control 16+
bid 4c to show spade shortness with good clubs and average power (given problem)
bid 4s to show spade shortness and a minimum x Kxxx x AQJxxxx

after our pass p has no problem bidding 4s and an easy route to 6c.

[helene_t]

The 3♠ bid looks like a mistake but of course he could just be pretending. I think I would pass but I am closer to double than to 4♣.

[Phil]

3♠ goes for 500 if anyone is interested.

[benlessard]

Quote

A simple raise of 3c is invitational not a "courtesy". It takes
a lot more to make 5 of a minor than 3n so a 3c bid here is
similar to a 2n bid w/o a spade stopper. Do not keep the bidding open
w/o a purpose===this means 2s is game forcing.

Well my purpose is not missing game when im 8-9 pts and partner got 16-17.

xx
ATx
JTxxx
Kxx

At imps you cannot pass 2C with because its too dangerous too miss game if partner got 16-17 pts. Also you need to make the difference


from

xx
AKx
Jxxxx
Kxx

Wich will make game vs good minimum.
The more I think about it the more I think playing 2S as GF is a poor method (unless you have a 2H bid that is artificial non GF)

[gnasher]

benlessard, on 2012-April-04, 11:00, said:

The more I think about it the more I think playing 2S as GF is a poor method (unless you have a 2H bid that is artificial non GF)

Is there any possibility that playing 2♣ as up to 17 is a poor method?

[xxhong]

It is possible that partner holds short D, here 5C is in jeopardy and 3S x is easy money. However, sometimes, partner can hold a weaker hand: Qx xxx Jx AKQxxx, you may only take 1C, 2D, 1H and opps can happily make 3Sx (or they misguess H, only down 1). Here, you may wonder why you didn't want to show your club support and land at an easy 5C. With at least 9 card fit in our side, after opps bid 3S by their own when red, I think partner is more likely to hold this hand than the short D hand.

mikeh, on 2012-April-03, 20:14, said:

what do you think a double by him would show?

It isn't a penalty double, in the sense of announcing 'we've got them'. It is a general statement of values and shape....it primarily denies short spades......he virtually has to double with all 3 card holdings and many, if not most 2 card holdings, given that he has already denied a stopper. Those are precisely the hands on which we want to defend...if we have two spade losers off the top, and no other losers, we rate to be 500 or more on defence, and (in addition) there will be some hands where we are 200-800 and game fails: I previously gave him xxx KQx x AKJxxx and you still haven't explained why he can't have that, or whty he wouldn't gladly double with that, or why we'd prefer to be in 5♣. Let me make it xxx KQx x AKxxxx...I think most would still bid 2♣ over 1♠ (I know I would and I don't understand a pass) and now.....5♣ is against the odds and we still rate to go at least 500 against 3♠.

I defy you to give me a hand on which it is wrong to defend, single-dummy, when partner has spade length.

If you don't trust your partner to understand this auction....maybe it is you who don't understand it (at least, not as I do) or maybe you need a better partner. I wouldn't have thought this would be a difficult decision, and am surprised, given how I usually agree with your arguments, or see considerable merit even when I don't, that your views appear so dramatically different.

[MrAce]

quiddity, on 2012-April-04, 01:11, said:

Who says we have 400 on this hypothetical hand where partner has several small spades? Perhaps we'll have reasonable luck and make 5♣ but wouldn't you prefer to take the money?

I say it, can you come up with a hand that doesnt make 5♣ when pd said he doesnt have ♠ stopper ? Letme construct for you a hand where he has wasted ♠ hcp

Qx
xxx
Jx
AKJxxx

this will be one of the worst hands your pd can have and you may indeed go down if you cant tackle clubs. And good luck in defending 3♠ with this if 5♣ is down. Because pd will not rebid this suit the 4th time, he doesnt know you have a fit.

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2012-April-04, 16:55, said:

I say it, can you come up with a hand that doesnt make 5♣ when pd said he doesnt have ♠ stopper ?

xx KQx xx AQxxxx.

Quote

Letme construct for you a hand where he has wasted ♠ hcp

Qx
xxx
Jx
AKJxxx

this will be one of the worst hands your pd can have and you may indeed go down if you cant tackle clubs. And good luck in defending 3♠ with this if 5♣ is down. Because pd will not rebid this suit the 4th time, he doesnt know you have a fit.

I'm sure partnber would double with this, but I don't see that as a problem. Even if we can only take one club, two diamonds and one heart, we can probably still promote ♠Q. And it's at least as likely that we take four minor suit tricks, promote ♠Q, and then leave declarer guessing how to hold his heart losers to one.

Regarding the club fit, partner is already expecting at least a partial fit. He knows that we didn't bid 2♥ or 3♦ over 2♣, and he knows we didn't double 3♠. I guess we could be 2362 and unsuitable for 3♦, but most of the time we'll have three clubs.

[benlessard]

Axx
AQx
Q
AJxxxx

I dont see myself making a reverse with this, 3C is out, X show 3D, IMO 2C is way better than 2NT. Its certainly standard that 1C-1D-2C can be a bad 17, I dont see why 1C-(P)-1D-(1S)-2C is different if you are using the X to show 3D.

PS If you play Walsh then over 1D you can expect some clubs tolerance and be more agressive and bid 3C (but you might still be too high for no reason when partner is 3361).