[awm]

You hold the following hand, all vulnerable at teams:

♠Q742 ♥K98 ♦QJ8764 ♣-

Your partner opens 1♣ (standard*) and RHO overcalls 1♠ (natural). Bid now or pass?

If you pass, LHO bids 2♣ (limit raise or better), partner passes, and RHO rebids 2NT. Bid or pass?

If you pass again, LHO will bid 3♠ and this passes to you. Last chance?

*If style matters, openings are pretty down-the-middle by modern standards. We open almost all 12 counts and basically use "rule of 21" for unbalanced hands with less than 12 (downgrading if points not in suits though). With equal length in the minors we normally open the better suit. We will always open 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors. Our notrump range is 15-17, and partner tends not to upgrade or downgrade balanced hands very often.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Oct 21 2007, 06:19 PM, said:

You hold the following hand, all vulnerable at teams:

♠Q742 ♥K98 ♦QJ8764 ♣-

Your partner opens 1♣ (standard*) and RHO overcalls 1♠ (natural). Bid now or pass?

If you pass, LHO bids 2♣ (limit raise or better), partner passes, and RHO rebids 2NT. Bid or pass?

If you pass again, LHO will bid 3♠ and this passes to you. Last chance?

*If style matters, openings are pretty down-the-middle by modern standards. We open almost all 12 counts and basically use "rule of 21" for unbalanced hands with less than 12 (downgrading if points not in suits though). With equal length in the minors we normally open the better suit. We will always open 1♣ with 4-5 in the minors. Our notrump range is 15-17, and partner tends not to upgrade or downgrade balanced hands very often.

I would have doubled over 1♠. Its imperfect, but I prefer it to passing.

Assuming that I started with a pass, I'd pass again over 2NT.

At Matchpoints, I'd hit 3♠. At teams, I fear that I would pass. (The risk is too great)

[Halo]

I'll pass throughout and have some optimism about the defence.

[cjames]

Halo, on Oct 21 2007, 10:55 AM, said:

I'll pass throughout and have some optimism about the defence.

Me too.

[gwnn]

I think the only question is whether or not I want to bid 2♦ round 1. I think it's not a nice action. But I'd do it at the table, mainly due to disciplinary shortcomings.

[whereagles]

Just dbl 1♠ and transfer further action to pard

[andy_h]

yuck. I think I would pass the first round but then X 2NT whatever t.f that means. Probably shows some diamonds with <4Hs.
I'd want a better suit to be bidding 2D over 1S as the SQ looks pretty dubious..

[awm]

Partner held:

♠x ♥AJTx ♦Axxx ♣ATxx

Making 5♦ is pretty straightforward. The opponents at the other table reached game easily after a 1♦ opening.

Bidding 2♦ over 1♠ is the big winner this time. I passed until 3♠ came around to me, then balanced with 4♦. Unfortunately, opponents were not cooperating (no double) nor was partner (no raise), and -150 was enough (combined with an expensive mistake at the other table) to lose the match.

For those wanting to double, 3♠X goes for 500, still a small loss of course.

[skjaeran]

With my favourite partner I'd bid 2♣ transfer over 1♠.

[awm]

Yes, this hand is easy if you are playing negative free bids or transfers in competition.

Obviously that was not the case here.

The question was really "is this nice shapely hand worth a forcing free bid, even though you have void in partner's first bid suit?" And secondly, "if you judge that an immediate 2♦ would be an overbid on this hand, when, if ever, would you back into the auction once the opposing spade fit becomes apparent?"

My initial evaluation was that I have an awful lot of spades and awfully few clubs. It seems way too likely that if I bid 2♦ partner's next call is 3♣, which does not make me very happy... so I passed at first chance. Maybe Justin is right and one should bid with this hand regardless; certainly it would've worked this time.

[jdeegan]

Jlall, on Oct 23 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

Adam,

I really feel strongly that you need to bid 2D with this hand (yes I thought that before I saw the results). I used to be a passer with this hand type but it just doesn't work for me. I know Woolsey and others have long advocated getting your suit in and hoping for the best in this type of situation and I am definitely a believer in that philosophy now. This hand just has way too much playing potential to not bid, and doubling when you cannot control the auction with only 3 hearts is really unappealing since the best part of bidding is getting your long suit in.

Thanks for another nice bidding problem and the excellent thread that followed it. The case for bidding 2♦ not only sounds logical, but it produced an ah hah moment for me. It must jibe with my now lost long term memories of similar situations over the years.

It also jibes with old-fashioned hand evaluation methods. We have 8 HCP and a void worth 2 or 3 additional dummy points. The ♠Q is well protected but of questionable offensive value. All in all, a hand worth 10+ points unless clubs are trumps. This is considered enough for a 2 level free bid. It follows, I think, that if partner rebids 3♣, you need to bid 3♦ and prepare to take your lumps there if need be.

[ArtK78]

Can someone tell me why partner opens 1♣ with 1444 distribution? If I knew that this was a possibility, I would be more likely to act on these cards. But, without special agreements, it is standard to open 1♦ with 44 in the minors, not 1♣.

I assumed that partner's clubs were longer than his diamonds, which makes any action on my hand (opener's partner) very dangerous.

[Apollo81]

awm, on Oct 21 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

You hold the following hand, all vulnerable at teams:

♠Q742 ♥K98 ♦QJ8764 ♣-

Look how similar this hand is to the one in jdeegan's post.

jdeegan, on Oct 21 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ Q754 ♥ K98 ♦ J98542 ♣

1♣-1♠-????

IMPs early in a 9 board Swiss match against decent opponents. Playing ordinary 2/1.

Coincidence? or....

[awm]

ArtK78, on Oct 25 2007, 08:57 AM, said:

Can someone tell me why partner opens 1♣ with 1444 distribution? If I knew that this was a possibility, I would be more likely to act on these cards. But, without special agreements, it is standard to open 1♦ with 44 in the minors, not 1♣.

I assumed that partner's clubs were longer than his diamonds, which makes any action on my hand (opener's partner) very dangerous.

It was specified in the original post that we open the stronger suit with 3-3 or 4-4 in the minors. We do not automatically open 1♦ with 1444. A number of people have tried to explain why this leads to "terrible problems in competitive auctions" but I don't really see it. In particular:

(1) If partner responds 1♠, we bid 1NT. This shows 12-14 points and usually 1-2 spades. We raise routinely to 2♠ on balanced hands with three spades.

(2) If opponents bid one heart and partner doubles, we will rebid 1NT. Since partner's double shows exactly four spades, there is no danger of partner "thinking we have a spade fit" and bidding spades again.

(3) If opponents bid two or more hearts and partner doubles, we're converting anyway.

(4) If opponents bid hearts and partner bids 1♠, we bid 1NT. This can be singleton spade, just like if opponents were passing. In fact I bet a lot of the 1♦ openers would be rebidding 1NT with such robust heart stoppers too, rather than introducing a second four card suit.

Obviously the choice of 1♣ worked out poorly here, but it seems like more or less the same thing could happen if we reverse responder's minors and have partner open 1♦, or if we just give opener 1-3-4-5 instead of 1-4-4-4 for the 1♣ opening.

[jdeegan]

Apollo81, on Oct 25 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

awm, on Oct 21 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

You hold the following hand, all vulnerable at teams:

♠Q742 ♥K98 ♦QJ8764 ♣-

Look how similar this hand is to the one in jdeegan's post.

jdeegan, on Oct 21 2007, 11:19 AM, said:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> Both </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> Q754 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> K98 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> J98542 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td>  </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> 1♣-1♠-???? </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->
IMPs early in a 9 board Swiss match against decent opponents. Playing ordinary 2/1.

Coincidence? or....

Busted again, oh well........

The obvious point is that as the original 4-3-6-0 shape got weaker, the alternative bid moved from an aggressive free bid to a pass. Opposite the actual hand:

x
AJ10x
Axxx
A10xx

Justin's approach wins both times, first with 5♦ making 5, second with 3♦ making 3 or 4. It's hard to win team games against opponents who bid that well.

The idea of showing a long suit by starting with a negative double does not seem to apply here. Is this because north is able to reopen at a low level, and he is likely to be short in spades - south and east have 9+ between them.

I have to agree with ArtK78 that it is wrong to open the actual north hand for 1♣ rather than 1♦. The suit qualities are almost identical, but if the subsequent bidding gets competitive, I am going to be left footed.

[bid_em_up]

Pass over 1S, 3D over 2N, double 3S if they still bid it.