What do you bid: Axx, Ax, T98xx, xx
Andrew
Auction:
1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
P-(P)-?
1. do you agree with the initial pass?
1a. If not what do you bid?
2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
Andrew
John Hall
<d280a210-39fd-49d5...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
I've repeated the hand, as if it's only in the subject line people are
liable not to see it:
"What do you bid: Axx, Ax, T98xx, xx"
>
>Auction:
>1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
>P-(P)-?
>
>1. do you agree with the initial pass?
No.
>
>1a. If not what do you bid?
1NT seems obvious to me. You have a spade stop, a balanced hand and the
values for a 1-level bid,
>
>2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
>
By passing the previous round I've fixed myself. All I can do is pass
again, as to come in now could be very expensive. I might have risked it
at pairs, but not at IMPs.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"
castigamatti
No, I bid 1NT, not perfect though, 2D is more descriptive but too high
in fat content for one's diet. I pass now.
B.R.
rich
" 1. do you agree with the initial pass?"
Of course not. Playing "catchup" is no way to play bridge. Simply
bid 1NT to begin with, then you don't have to worry about your future
action.
Rich Regan
jonathan23
> Vul on vul playing IMPs
>
> Auction:
> 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> P-(P)-?
>
> 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
No. We have enough values to suggest that this is our hand, partscore
or game.
>
> 1a. If not what do you bid?
1NT...I have a balanced 8 with a stopper in the opps' suit and Ax
facing partner's five-card suit. If partner has anything in diamonds
we can probably make tricks out of that too.
>
> 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
>
>
> Andrew
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa CANADA
henry...@yahoo.com
I don't but I understand why responder might want to pass. Give
opener any balanced or semibalanced hand with 16-18 hcps and the Qx or
Jxx of spades and any NT hand will play better with him as declarer
than with me.
Because I am very concerned about wrongsiding a nt contract, my choice
would be negative double.
Now that I have passed, I re-open with a double which I hope shows
this hand. In order to forestall howls of protest, I consider a pass
then double auction after 1h (1s) as qualitatively different from 1m
(1h) pass then double or 1c (1d) pass then double showing a decent
hand unsuited to a negative double.
Since 1h (1s) dbl need not promise 4=4 or better in the minors, this
double need not show a decent hand without the right shape for a
negative double since there is no 'right shape' for a negative double
with only unbid minors.
Henrysun909
rhm
Apparently I am the only person who has trouble bidding hands with
only 12 cards
Assuming you had another club and your hand in fact was Axx,Ax,
1098xx,xxx
> Auction:
> 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> P-(P)-?
>
> 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
>
Yes. I only bid in second position if my hand has a clear direction.
Points alone are no good reason to make a distorted bid. Partner will
balance if necessary.
I abhor 1NT. If notrump is the right strain partner has to play it.
1NT is a stupid bid, giving the defense a head start.
I play negative free bids at the two level. However the diamonds are
not robust enough for this action. If my 13th card was a diamond I
would bid 2D.
> 1a. If not what do you bid?
>
> 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
>
Double, which now shows a hand with no clear direction. It is n o t
a penalty double, but partner can decide to leave the DBL in, though
he rarely will.
If partner bids 2NT I play this scrambling (2=5=3=3) and will bid 3D.
If he bids 3C I pass. Partner would most likely pass the double with
3=5=2=3.
Rainer Herrmann
> Andrew
Eric Leong
Double is out as that shows you were going to make a penalty double of
1S.
I would bid 2NT as takeout showing two possible places to play.
Partner will likely bid 3C and I will bid 3D.
If partner is really short in diamonds he now knows to bid 3H.
Eric Leong
Will in New Haven
I really enjoy how everyone here just blandly answered this as if
twelve-card hands were normal. I am going to assume that the extra
card is an X and not a Heart.
If it is a Club, double at my first turn and have a decision of
partner's rebid is 2C. I probably give preference to 2H. If he bids
2D, I'm going to take the safer partscore and pass. If he rebids 2H. I
will be tempted to bid 3H because two Aces could be enough for game.
In fact, I WILL bid 3H. If partner rebids more strongly, I will
cooperate.
If it is a Diamond, I double and bid 2D over a 2C rebid, pass a 2D
rebid and raise 2H to 3H.
If I had passed over 1S, I would pass again with the 3253 hand but
venture 3D with the 3262 hand.
--
Will in New Haven
Raija D
"rhm" <r...@softwareag.com> wrote in message
news:8f8dcd1e-5e86-4f57...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Rainer Herrmann
=======
If it goes
1H(1S)P(2S)
Dbl
then the Double says "I was trap passing 1S". Despite the spade raise,
penalty is still quite a live possibility and how else are we going to
penalize them? I think if coming in now, better to bid 2NT, scrambling
takeout, from responder's side and not wait for opener to scramble.
Andrew
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 4:29 pm, Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vul on vul playing IMPs
>
> > Auction:
> > 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> > P-(P)-?
>
> > 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
>
> > 1a. If not what do you bid?
>
> > 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
>
> > Andrew
>
> I really enjoy how everyone here just blandly answered this as if
> twelve-card hands were normal. I am going to assume that the extra
> card is an X and not a Heart.
Sorry--the hand was indeed supposed to be: Axx, Ax, T98xx, xxx
> If it is a Club, double at my first turn and have a decision of
> partner's rebid is 2C.
What if the auction develops:
1H-(1S)-X-(2S)
3C-(P)-?
Andrew
Andrew
> On Nov 19, 10:29 pm, Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vul on vul playing IMPs
>
> Apparently I am the only person who has trouble bidding hands with
> only 12 cards
> Assuming you had another club and your hand in fact was Axx,Ax,
> 1098xx,xxx
I am sorry. You are correct--the 13th card was a small club.
> > Auction:
> > 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> > P-(P)-?
>
> > 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
>
> Yes. I only bid in second position if my hand has a clear direction.
> Points alone are no good reason to make a distorted bid. Partner will
> balance if necessary.
> I abhor 1NT. If notrump is the right strain partner has to play it.
> 1NT is a stupid bid, giving the defense a head start.
I agree with this sentiment.
> I play negative free bids at the two level. However the diamonds are
> not robust enough for this action. If my 13th card was a diamond I
> would bid 2D.
>
> > 1a. If not what do you bid?
>
> > 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
>
> Double, which now shows a hand with no clear direction. It is n o t
> a penalty double, but partner can decide to leave the DBL in, though
> he rarely will.
This is exactly why I posed the hand--to see if people are now playing
this as a card-showing double sequence rather than a penalty sequence.
> If partner bids 2NT I play this scrambling (2=5=3=3) and will bid 3D.
> If he bids 3C I pass. Partner would most likely pass the double with
> 3=5=2=3.
Thanks for the response.
Andrew
castigamatti
While 1NT is not perfect, simpler is always better. In one word
'KISS'.
B.R.
jogs
> Vul on vul playing IMPs
>
> Auction:
> 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> P-(P)-?
>
> 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
No.
>
> 1a. If not what do you bid?
Double. NT is poor because it wrong sides the NT
when partner has Qx or Jxx of spades.
>
> 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
>
> Andrew
Now you're fixed.
jogs
>
> > Vul on vul playing IMPs
>
> > Auction:
> > 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> > P-(P)-?
>
> > 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
>
> > 1a. If not what do you bid?
>
> > 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
>
> > Andrew
>
> I really enjoy how everyone here just blandly answered this as if
> twelve-card hands were normal. I am going to assume that the extra
> card is an X and not a Heart.
>
while attempting to answer the question.
Kieran Dyke
"Andrew" <agum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d280a210-39fd-49d5...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Vul on vul playing IMPs
>
> Auction:
> 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> P-(P)-?
>
> 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
>
> 1a. If not what do you bid?
1NT. Might wrongside, but there's no good way to rightside without missing
the point of the hand. It's just a description, not a final commitment.
>
> 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
Jump in front of a bus. It might have made the auction easier for partner if
I had done this earlier.
Tiggrr
>
>
> Andrew
dak...@aol.com
P-(P)-?
1. do you agree with the initial pass?
No, with 5cH Ax is a good 2H raise.
Prime tricks and partner won't go 4H expecting 3-4 tricks from my 2H.
Besides throwing off their LOTT on this hand -2 DT me + 1-1/2 DT
partner = near a cracking surprise.
Joachim Parsch
>
> On Nov 19, 10:29 pm, Andrew <agump...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Assuming you had another club and your hand in fact was Axx,Ax,
> 1098xx,xxx
>
> > Auction:
> > 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> > P-(P)-?
> >
> > 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
> >
>
> Yes. I only bid in second position if my hand has a clear direction.
> Points alone are no good reason to make a distorted bid. Partner will
> balance if necessary.
Not necessarily - if Partner has some average 5332 hand he will not
always reopen (especially with 3 spades). 1S will then make with
trumps breaking, whereas 1NT from our side will have reasonable
play with trick sources in hearts and diamonds (1098xx in D is
nice for 1NT, but of no use at all against 1S).
> I abhor 1NT. If notrump is the right strain partner has to play it.
> 1NT is a stupid bid, giving the defense a head start.
It is much less stupid than pass, I think. At least it shows your
values and distribution. Double is another possibility, hoping
that partner can rebid NT, with Ax in hearts as the fallback solution.
> > 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
> >
>
> Double, which now shows a hand with no clear direction. It is n o t
> a penalty double, but partner can decide to leave the DBL in, though
> he rarely will.
If you have that agreement in your partnership, that's fine, but I don't
think it's standard (I wouldn't play it anyway, there has to be a
way to show the penalty double).
I don't understand though, why I should not make a take-out double at
the one-level, but should then balance at the two-level. I'm with
Robson-Segal here - in quick, out quick is generally better than
balancing.
Joachim
Dave Flower
> �1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
Yes, I agree that 2H must be given serious consideration.
It would have helped if the original poster had told us whether they
were playing 5-card majors
Dave Flower
rhm
Quote
If you have that agreement in your partnership, that's fine, but I
don't
think it's standard (I wouldn't play it anyway, there has to be a
way to show the penalty double).
End-quote
First I do not care much for what is considered standard today, if I
believe the standard to be wrong. What is standard today, may be
considered silly tomorrow. Just look at the short history of this
game. Standards come and go.
Why do I need to have a way to show a penalty double in this sequence?
There are many many situation in Bridge where the world has long come
to the conclusion that playing a double as pure penalty is losing,
because other needs are far more frequent and important.
How often do you hold a suitable hand where you can make a penalty
double with any confidence after opponents have freely raised each
other at a low level?
I almost never hold such hands and if I would it is extremely likely
that my partner would have made a takeout double with shortage in
spades before in this sequence.
What I hold frequently is a hand in the pass-out position where I want
to contest the part-score.
Quote
I don't understand though, why I should not make a take-out double at
the one-level, but should then balance at the two-level. I'm with
Robson-Segal here - in quick, out quick is generally better than
balancing.
end-quote.
Yes, I agree you did not understand (any some others even refuse to
try to understand the arguments involved, they are dogmatic)
My double is n e i t h e r a pure penalty double n o r a take-out
double. If I would have had 4-4 in the unbid suits or better I would
have doubled before. My second double describer the hand I have. In
Andrew's words it is card showing, which denies 4-4 or more in the
minors, no 3 card or longer support for partner, some cards in
opponents suit but no stopper suitable for bidding notrump but with
enough values to contest the partscore. These hands are much more
frequent than suitable penalty doubles, when the bidding goes that
way.
I am also for "in quick out quick", provided a bid describes my hand
reasonably well. But I refuse to mis-describe my hand for this
principle or bid notrump where I have a good chance of going down
while my partner may make overtricks.
(And by the way, after the 1S overcall, nothing stops partner from
being strong enough to make 3NT, but only from his side )
And partner should reckon with such a hand, if 1S is passed round to
him. He should think twice before passing out 1S, because passing out
1S in such a situation is rarely a good idea.
And yes, I am not convinced that balancing is such a bad idea. I am
for contesting low level part-score at all form of scoring and at all
colors - with judgement of course. I may slightly pass more frequently
at money bridge and when vulnerable, than non vulnerable or at
matchpoints. But I will assume that the strength is more or less
balanced between either side if opponents do not attempt game with a
major suit fit. I get hurt very infrequently with this policy. Other
actions in this game incur far higher risks in my opinion.
Rainer Herrmann
Joachim Parsch
> Why do I need to have a way to show a penalty double in this sequence?
Because you may have one.
> There are many many situation in Bridge where the world has long come
> to the conclusion that playing a double as pure penalty is losing,
> because other needs are far more frequent and important.
Yes, that's why almost any first-round double of an opponent's
bid is some form of take-out.
> How often do you hold a suitable hand where you can make a penalty
> double with any confidence after opponents have freely raised each
> other at a low level?
Rarely, very rarely. Still more often than a hand, with which I
don't like to bid over one spade, but want to bid over 2 spades.
> Quote
> I don't understand though, why I should not make a take-out double at
> the one-level, but should then balance at the two-level. I'm with
> Robson-Segal here - in quick, out quick is generally better than
> balancing.
> end-quote.
>
> Yes, I agree you did not understand (any some others even refuse to
> try to understand the arguments involved, they are dogmatic)
>
> My double is n e i t h e r a pure penalty double n o r a take-out
> double.
I'd suggest the term Action double or card-showing double...
My experience with this kind of double is, that you either
treat it as a take-out double (i.e. partner takes it out at
least as often as your average take-out-X) or it doesn't work.
If partner passes it, you have in effect doubled them just when
they make it on a lucky 33-trump-break.
> If I would have had 4-4 in the unbid suits or better I would
> have doubled before. My second double describer the hand I have. In
> Andrew's words it is card showing, which denies 4-4 or more in the
> minors, no 3 card or longer support for partner, some cards in
> opponents suit but no stopper suitable for bidding notrump but with
> enough values to contest the partscore. These hands are much more
> frequent than suitable penalty doubles, when the bidding goes that
> way.
Yes, but with these hands I have normally bid before.
> I am also for "in quick out quick", provided a bid describes my hand
> reasonably well. But I refuse to mis-describe my hand for this
> principle or bid notrump where I have a good chance of going down
> while my partner may make overtricks.
For one thing I don't think, that double misdescribes the hand. A
negative X in this sequence should not show specifically 44 in the unbid
suits. It shows values with no clear bid, and that you are reasonably
prepared after any continuation from partner. This is the
case - Ax in hearts provides a reasonable parking place in any case.
It's obviously a matter of partnership style.
> (And by the way, after the 1S overcall, nothing stops partner from
> being strong enough to make 3NT, but only from his side )
Yes, that's why X may be better than 1NT.
> And partner should reckon with such a hand, if 1S is passed round to
> him. He should think twice before passing out 1S, because passing out
> 1S in such a situation is rarely a good idea.
Yes, but catering for this type of hands as well as for some others
makes it more difficult for him to judge right, which consequently
will lead to more misjudgements by him. Of course, there are hands,
where partner will correctly pass 1S for a bad score.
> And yes, I am not convinced that balancing is such a bad idea.
I don't think it is a bad idea.
Joachim
Sid
"Andrew" <agum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d280a210-39fd-49d5...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Auction:
> 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> P-(P)-?
>
> 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
I would bid 1NT first time.
> 1a. If not what do you bid?
>
> 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
Oh why, oh why, am I saddled with this problem now?
Sid
rich
Rich says: "Right, so bid 1NT. Then you don't have to type 5 pages of
rhetoric on why you want to pass or make some distorted odd meaning
double."
Rich Regan
Derek Broughton
Double showed 1 four-card (or better) minor (at least the way I'm used to
playing it), so partner isn't going to bid 3C expecting me to leave it there
on a minimum. So when I bid 3H next, she knows it's a minimum (OK, it's a
very good minimum, but you still only have two tricks and short trumps) with
two hearts.
--
derek
jogs
3H. rather be in a 5-2 hearts than 4-3 clubs.
Will in New Haven
Partner's free 3C bid means that 3C probably isn't a bad contract. So
the choice is between passing and correcting to 3H. I have a couple of
Aces, so I keep the bidding alive with 3H. But it's close.
OldPalooka
Perhaps the difference is that I would be more than willing to hire
Rainer. OK to be fair I would also be more than willing to hire
Kieran.
OldPalooka
> Vul on vul playing IMPs
>
> Auction:
> 1H-(1S)-P-(2S)
> P-(P)-?
>
> 1. do you agree with the initial pass?
>
> 1a. If not what do you bid?
>
> 2. If you do agree with pass, what is your next call?
>
> Andrew
I believe that pass and double is right in theory. Sure, 1NT can work
out, and it is not horribly misdescriptive, it just ignores everything
your mom should have taught you about positional values. Even so, it
is a lot less risky than a negative double. I am a big fan of low
level negative doubles on balanced hands, I would have doubled on this
group for more than half of my bridge life. But today, without
discussion, virtually everyone I would like to win in the partnership
lottery would prefer to play that a negative double followed by a move
in hearts shows a balanced 3 card invitational hand, not a 3253
scramble. I personally would not mind being a heart short if I were
not also a king short in values to be missing a heart. And would it
not be breaking the golden rule to invite partner to compete to 3C and
drop him there on this collection?
-- Bill Shutts
rich
And you aren't considering hiring me? I am crushed :). I did
finish 5/6 in my local sectional just last weekend... and you are
still not impressed?
RR
Andrew
The partnership was indeed playing 5-card majors.
Andrew
jonathan23
Oh, I thought they played a short club :)
Seriously though, your insight is quite good and I rethink my original
"book" thought to bid 1NT...two Aces do not 8 HCP make and the double
does leave lots of options.
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa CANADA
rhm
Give partner for example
Qx, KQJxx, AKx, KJx
Rainer Herrmann says:
Pass and let partner bid notrump over 1H (1S) showing in this case
18-19 and raise him to 3NT, making ten or 11 tricks depending on
whether partner gets a spade lead or not.
Rich Regan says: "Right, so bid 1NT" and with the above hand partner
will raise to 3NT. RHO will have no problem leading a spade in
response to LHO 1S overcall. Rich's result: One down
Poor me and I always thought the main purpose of bidding was to try to
reach the best contract.
Rainer Herrmann
Will in New Haven
Was partner's NT rebid with QX an attempt to reach the best contract?
I think you are going to need more of an auction to reach 3NT by
partner, although I agree that the free 1NT rebid will prevent it
entirely.
OldPalooka
Naah, if leong won't hire you I could not consider it. Those foreign
guys are out of his scope, so they are still candidates. But with
results like that I may have to reconsider.
rich
"Give partner for example
Qx, KQJxx, AKx, KJx "
Well, I would open the above 2NT. So we both win. :)
I am not oblivious to the qualities of right siding a contract. I
think it is more important to describe your hand accurately and
succinctly.
In my methods...
1NT = 8-10 balanced with probable spade stopper
X = minors
Pass = penalty pass of spades or lack of values to respond.
This is simply a clear 1NT bid. I also can support hearts later with
my Ax.
Your methods involve passing with 2 aces, and doubling when you don't
have the right shape, then more options after that. Your
misdescription may get you to rightside the wrong contract.
RR