[PhilKing]

This is a hand from 2008 that has stuck in my mind. It is time for it to have an airing!

---

[lamford]

I presume my pass showed a sound opener. I am not passing now, as they have 9 spades between them. 1NT looks normal, takeout of spades, I presume. I would like to redouble for takeout but that is not allowed.

[Siegmund]

For me, passing 1S meant I was willing to sit for a penalty double of spades. I'm not, so I had to act over 1S immediately.

1NT for takeout is... an interesting idea. Makes some sense that a natural notrump isn't too useful if we arent willing to try to penalize, at least at some vulnerabilities in some sequences.

[WesleyC]

Siegmund, on 2015-September-19, 22:06, said:

For me, passing 1S meant I was willing to sit for a penalty double of spades. I'm not, so I had to act over 1S immediately.

1NT for takeout is... an interesting idea. Makes some sense that a natural notrump isn't too useful if we arent willing to try to penalize, at least at some vulnerabilities in some sequences.

I'm not suggesting your idea is wrong, but don't think its the mainstream view.

My experience is that, pulling 1S directly shows a weak distributional hand that doesn't want to defend 1Sx, while passing and then pulling a double of 1S would show a stronger but similarly distributional hand that also doesn't want to defend 1Sx. Depending on how aggressively you open shapely hands, this hand may or may not qualify. The principle is the same as using pass and then pull to show a slam try in a forcing pass situation at the 5-level.

I'm not sure I like the idea of using 1NT as 'take-out' in this sequence either, if only because 3NT is still a likely final contract given partner has a stack of spades and it could easily be play better from his side.

[Phil]

I can't imagine a hand that wants to bid 1N that can't sit for 1!s x'd. Ok maybe 2353 with great diamonds and partial stops in the rounds?

But Sigmunds idea that it's a takeout does sound good at least on paper.

[Fluffy]

I would bid 2♣ now. I better get my coat since 1♠ is probably cold. I am shocked that majority is picking to wrongside our most likely game. Only thing that scares me is to miss a heart fit.

[rmnka447]

I'm bidding 2 ♥ for several reasons.

Partner has shown a good hand with the redouble, but didn't have any clear cut bid to reopen. So I reason:

-- If I rebid 2 ♣, opponents continued competitive bidding of ♠ either forces introduction of ♥ at the 3 level or potentially loses finding a ♥ fit,

-- That it shows a stopper that partner is unlikely to have, so keeps the road open to 3 NT if partner has ♠ and ♣ stopped,

-- That it potentially avoids partner bidding NT without a ♣ stopper (maybe ♠ KQxx ♥ Q10xx ♦ Axx ♣ xx),

-- That it potentially avoids confusion about my ♥ holding if partner raises ♣(after 3 ♣, does 3 ♥ show 4 or is it a stopper looking for 3 NT), and,

-- That it won't let partner misconstrue where my values are if we defend.

[PhilKing]

---

This was one of the first hands I ever saw played by Piekarek and Smirnov. I was captaining the English team in Beijing and was watching vugraph. I had been told of "concerns" in the team regarding them and the doctors and so was watching them since we would play them later on in the Round Robin (indeed we played them again in the semi finals where we got the doctors to play "system off" and duly obliterated them in the latter stages of the match).

Anyway, what impressed me about the auction was not that Smirnov passed the double of 1♠. I disagree with his choice, but it is plausible, and unless you play a removal of 1NT to show this kind of hand, you do not have an attractive alternative. It was the speed of the auction that stood out - East did well by bidding 1♠ smoothly, yet when the tray came back after North's prompt double, Smirnov passed in under a second as if he had no problem at all. Alarm bells went off but sadly no one came up to tap him on the shoulder and say "son, get your coat, we've a few questions for you down at the nick." And yes, before you ask this hand was given to officials on site, but I did not realise I had to make a formal complaint in order for them not to just fob me off with assurances that they were being watched.

Perhaps justice prevailed, since a contract that could have gone three down on perfect defence ended up making after a joke sequence of plays.

[lycier]

I wil pass.
In this case,any double from South or North are penalty.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2015-September-21, 04:55, said:

unless you play a removal of 1NT to show this kind of hand, you do not have an attractive alternative.

How else would you play 1NT; as a pass of 1SX?

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2015-September-21, 06:33, said:

How else would you play 1NT; as a pass of 1SX?

Well I play 1NT the way you do, but it's possible to play it semi-natural (something like 6 decent diamonds and a stiff spade).

For me the decision was whether to bid 1NT directly, showing the same hand (0454) but minimum values.

[WesleyC]

lamford, on 2015-September-21, 06:33, said:

How else would you play 1NT; as a pass of 1SX?

Obviously the alternative meaning would be natural, constructive towards 3NT (in context).

A hand like [Qx Jxx AKQxxx xx] with a positional stopper, no trump orientation and a trick source could easily make 3NT, but might only get 200/500 out of 1Sx.

Certainly at unfavourable vul or playing MPs this would be the most logical agreement.

[nige1]

Philking wrote "This is a hand from 2008 that has stuck in my mind. It is time for it to have an airing!"

After 1♠, I rank
1. Pass. Forcing. Intending to pull 1♠ when partner doubles. (Agreeing with WesleyC).
2. 2♣. An underbid. Immediate action should show a weaker hand.
After 1♠X, I rank
1. 1N. Showing this shape and strength.
2. Pass. Partner knows opponents are likely to hold 7 trumps.
3. 2♣. Exaggerates ♣s. Might lose ♥s..
4. 2♥. An overbid
5. 2♠. A gross overbid

---

[jallerton]

Nigel: please can you explain the reasoning behind your second choice "2. Pass. Partner knows opponents are likely to hold 7 trumps."?

The point about "the opponents are likely to hold 7 trumps" (so presumably partner is likely to hold 6) is the one Phil hadn't appreciated when he heard the alarm bells.

[gszes]

I wish this was as easy as it looks. With most partners I would have bid 2c over 1s to try and describe my distributional (not overly strong) hand with no willingness to sit for 1sx. With 2 partners I have a meta agreement that after xx no matter the hand type (almost) we try and leave it in for partner to x which they will only do with a spade stack 5+ or 4 really really good spades and maybe a touch extra values. With those 2 partners I would pass this hand since it is not distributional enough to arbitrarily bid 2c (which has some downside anyway). I am not crazy about using this system since its utility is almost negligible but what can I say:)

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2015-September-21, 15:26, said:

Nigel: please can you explain the reasoning behind your second choice "2. Pass. Partner knows opponents are likely to hold 7 trumps."?
The point about "the opponents are likely to hold 7 trumps" (so presumably partner is likely to hold 6) is the one Phil hadn't appreciated when he heard the alarm bells.

A whiff of sarcasm? IMO, doubler usually has at least 3♠s and (in principle) advancer's 1♠ bid advertises 4 ♠s or more. Hence, when partner doubles 1♠ for penalties, he knows that opponents are likely to hold at least 7 ♠s and that you are quite likely to have a singleton or void. In these circumstances, on such assumptions, you might judge that pass of 1♠X is less risky than it seems, because you expect partner's ♠s to be chunky -- perhaps ♠ K Q J T x. or similar. Of course, this depends on agreement and style. It's not my style but, so far, 5 pollees have chosen to pass.

[Charlie Yu]

Why is N XX instead of 1S?

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2015-September-21, 04:55, said:

---

This was one of the first hands I ever saw played by Piekarek and Smirnov. I was captaining the English team in Beijing and was watching vugraph. I had been told of "concerns" in the team regarding them and the doctors and so was watching them since we would play them later on in the Round Robin (indeed we played them again in the semi finals where we got the doctors to play "system off" and duly obliterated them in the latter stages of the match).

Anyway, what impressed me about the auction was not that Smirnov passed the double of 1♠. I disagree with his choice, but it is plausible, and unless you play a removal of 1NT to show this kind of hand, you do not have an attractive alternative. It was the speed of the auction that stood out - East did well by bidding 1♠ smoothly, yet when the tray came back after North's prompt double, Smirnov passed in under a second as if he had no problem at all. Alarm bells went off but sadly no one came up to tap him on the shoulder and say "son, get your coat, we've a few questions for you down at the nick." And yes, before you ask this hand was given to officials on site, but I did not realise I had to make a formal complaint in order for them not to just fob me off with assurances that they were being watched.

You hold the South hand.
The bidding starts as described 1♥-(DBL)-RDBL-1♠ to you.

Question:
As a top player would you not plan your auction at this stage?

It is not too difficult to foresee what will happen next should you pass over 1♠.
Frankly I am not surprised by the speed of the second pass without knowing what happened to the timing of the first one.
It is the hallmark of a weak player that he does not plan ahead.
Smirnov's decision could have been influenced by whether their 1♦ opening showed an unbalanced hand already or not.
After all they did play something close to Polish club.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

rhm, on 2015-October-08, 07:18, said:

You hold the South hand.
The bidding starts as described 1♥-(DBL)-RDBL-1♠ to you.

Question:
As a top player would you not plan your auction at this stage?

It is not too difficult to foresee what will happen next should you pass over 1♠.
Frankly I am not surprised by the speed of the second pass without knowing what happened to the timing of the first one.
It is the hallmark of a weak player that he does not plan ahead.
Smirnov's decision could have been influenced by whether their 1♦ opening showed an unbalanced hand already or not.
After all they did play something close to Polish club.

Rainer Herrmann

I do not remember if South's first pass was in tempo, just that the subsequent actions were very quick. Perhaps South felt he had fuly described his hand once he passed the tray through.

[the_clown]

PhilKing, on 2015-October-08, 08:12, said:

I do not remember if South's first pass was in tempo, just that the subsequent actions were very quick. Perhaps South felt he had fuly described his hand once he passed the tray through.

I think Rainer makes a fair point here. It is quite likely that Smirnov had made his mind what to do over 1♠X in the previous round, so he had nothing to think about when 1♠ doubled came back to him.