[PhilKing]

Can't responder be 5134?

[benlessard]

Obvious pass, but here its another case that action double (or semi-penalty doubles) are probably better than standard takeout doubles. 10-11 fairly balanced hands are going to be a lot more frequent than 5134 hands. With 4234 you can bid 2NT as takeout in the minors. I believe that many time where there is no unbid M at the 2 level pure takeout doubles are not optimal.

[mfa1010]

benlessard, on 2013-July-12, 09:42, said:

Obvious pass, but here its another case that action double (or semi-penalty doubles) are probably better than standard takeout doubles. 10-11 fairly balanced hands are going to be a lot more frequent than 5134 hands. With 4234 you can bid 2NT as takeout in the minors. I believe that many time where there is no unbid M at the 2 level pure takeout doubles are not optimal.

I wouldn't want to sacrifice my natural 2N for playing it as takeout for minors.

[Winstonm]

gnasher, on 2013-July-12, 07:35, said:

The problem is
Opener: 2344
Responder: 4234

If you would double with 4234, it's dangerous for opener to leave it in with 2344.

The hand you gave as a problem is an 8-card fit for the opps - selling out to their fit at the 2-level is not going to be winning bridge. The worst case scenario is where opps have an 8-card fit and we have a 7-card fit and bid at the 3-level. Too bad. The opps are unlikely to double us when they have a fit, we might make on a 4/3 fit, and they could take the push to 3H.

I understand this is not the world's finest hand - shape and jacks are bad - but it does have two undervalued aces to make up for the two jacks, so it is worth its 10 points - it's just not a real good 10.

I don't see why playing support doubles changes this problem - wouldn't we protect partner's opening hand passed back to us if we weren't playing support doubles? Or maybe I just have a hard on for this hand because I cut my teeth playing matchpoints, and I resist selling out cheaply.

[benlessard]

Quote

I wouldn't want to sacrifice my natural 2N for playing it as takeout for minors.

You just double with those hands now (with or without a stopper). Switching 2Nt and double is a common theme of semi-penalty doubles. Sometimes its not perfect especially when you have AQ doubleton in opps suit and NT from your side is better than 3m from partner side but in the long run im almost sure its superior to standard take-out X

[IVAN CY LO]

PhilKing, on 2013-July-12, 08:24, said:

Can't responder be 5134?

If responder is 5134 with a fair 9-10HCP, easy to bid 2S at this position.

[gnasher]

Winstonm, on 2013-July-12, 16:27, said:

The hand you gave as a problem is an 8-card fit for the opps - selling out to their fit at the 2-level is not going to be winning bridge. The worst case scenario is where opps have an 8-card fit and we have a 7-card fit and bid at the 3-level. Too bad. The opps are unlikely to double us when they have a fit, we might make on a 4/3 fit, and they could take the push to 3H.

I think you misunderstood my point. Somebody was arguing that opener should leave in the double with a 2344 shape. Defending their eight-card fit doubled at the two-level on a combined 22-count is unlikely to be winning bridge. So 2344 opposite 4234, he has a problem. I wasn't suggesting that the rest of the world has any problem with these shapes.

[PhilKing]

IVAN CY LO, on 2013-July-12, 17:20, said:

If responder is 5134 with a fair 9-10HCP, easy to bid 2S at this position.

Sadly I play that 2♠ shows spades, so I would have to fall back on a take-out double.

Perhaps I am too stuck in the modern era to base my methods around extracting penalties at the two-level with three trumps and use double instead to try and find our best contract. This is unlikely to be two spades in a 5-1 fit, when partner may have a real trump stack.

[Winstonm]

gnasher, on 2013-July-12, 17:29, said:

I think you misunderstood my point. Somebody was arguing that opener should leave in the double with a 2344 shape. Defending their eight-card fit doubled at the two-level on a combined 22-count is unlikely to be winning bridge. So 2344 opposite 4234, he has a problem. I wasn't suggesting that the rest of the world has any problem with these shapes.

Thanks for clarifying.

[dake50]

It's unfashionable to pass here: I suspect double would be more popular.

*** I want some better shape, say 5134 with these honors and only 10,
or a near 12 with this bal trash.
Mostly, my concern is I want partner to expect STUFF(hcp/shape/defense tricks)
when I stay in the fight. My guess is we're about 50% to land in a playable contract (+/-1);
25% too close for them to double when down 2+; leaving 25% doubled and down 500+.

[Winstonm]

dake50, on 2013-July-13, 09:36, said:

It's unfashionable to pass here: I suspect double would be more popular.

*** I want some better shape, say 5134 with these honors and only 10,
or a near 12 with this bal trash.
Mostly, my concern is I want partner to expect STUFF(hcp/shape/defense tricks)
when I stay in the fight. My guess is we're about 50% to land in a playable contract (+/-1);
25% too close for them to double when down 2+; leaving 25% doubled and down 500+.

This is probably a reasonable analysis, but I spent the formative years of playing trying to turn +50s into +100s in these types of auctions. If it is a matchpoint top or bottom chance, then 51-49% is a positive expectation.

In your analysis,if we can make a positive gain or lose less than their partscore 75% of the time, at matchpoints it is a no-brainer to compete.

[aguahombre]

Winstonm, on 2013-July-13, 09:48, said:

This is probably a reasonable analysis, but I spent the formative years of playing trying to turn +50s into +100s in these types of auctions. If it is a matchpoint top or bottom chance, then 51-49% is a positive expectation.

In your analysis,if we can make a positive gain or lose less than their partscore 75% of the time, at matchpoints it is a no-brainer to compete.

The OP diagram has all red. There are no + or - 50's. We are dealing with minus in the hundreds vs minus 110 or plus 100/200. I think the real math is against doing anything at any form of scoring.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-13, 22:20, said:

The OP diagram has all red. There are no + or - 50's. We are dealing with minus in the hundreds vs minus 110 or plus 100/200. I think the real math is against doing anything at any form of scoring.

Yes, i did not put the vulnerability randomly in the diagram. All red was the actual colors in original hand.

I posted this bidding problem not to prove anything or not to start some sort of debate. My goal was sincerely to know how others would treat this hand, because eventhough i may be called somewhat veteran bridge player due to the years since i have fell in love with this game, this hand gave me hard time to decide what to bid.

Outcome of the hand is irrelavant, pd was GIB and (imo) his pass was ridiculous ( if i remember correctly he had 8-4 or 7-4 shape with 12 hcp or so and his long suit was headed by KQJ ) So you can easily tell pass by us is losing action with this pd and with what he held for his pass in this deal.

Fwiw, i chosed to pass just like most of you, and then blamed pd for his pass. But still wanted to know how others would aproach when given this hand and auction.

Thanks for all the replies.

[PhilKing]

MrAce, on 2013-July-14, 03:26, said:

Fwiw, i chosed to pass just like most of you, and then blamed pd for his pass.

Shame on you - do you think GIB has no feelings?

[mfa1010]

benlessard, on 2013-July-12, 16:59, said:

You just double with those hands now (with or without a stopper). Switching 2Nt and double is a common theme of semi-penalty doubles. Sometimes its not perfect especially when you have AQ doubleton in opps suit and NT from your side is better than 3m from partner side but in the long run im almost sure its superior to standard take-out X

No thanks.

When I have a notrump holding I want to bid notrumps.

I don't want to endplay partner in the bidding with a double that forces him to choose between a horribly wrongsided contract or playing for penalties where trumps split in the best possible way for declarer.

[aguahombre]

mfa1010, on 2013-July-14, 13:39, said:

No thanks.

When I have a notrump holding I want to bid notrumps.

I don't want to endplay partner in the bidding with a double that forces him to choose between a horribly wrongsided contract or playing for penalties where trumps split in the best possible way for declarer.

You will find that if you truly have the values to bid a natural 2N here, defending will not be a problem. Dummy will be useless to Declarer for either entries or tricks, but perhaps useful on defense against our NT. Partner will probably use her brain as well, and not pull to a wrong-sided contract with balanced shape.

[mfa1010]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-14, 13:53, said:

You will find that if you truly have the values to bid a natural 2N here, defending will not be a problem. Dummy will be useless to Declarer for either entries or tricks, but perhaps useful on defense against our NT.

I disagree. Defending with a random 22-23 count and trumps 3-3 with the honours onside is much too risky. Say declarer has AQxxxx and some QJTx on the side. That is 9 points. Dummy will have values. One entry and he finesses, splits trumps and have 8 tricks already. He could easily be making overtricks on a completely normal deal.

[mfa1010]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-14, 13:53, said:

Partner will probably use her brain as well, and not pull to a wrong-sided contract with balanced shape.

Her problem is that there are not that many strains for her that are not wrongsided. In fact there is only 1, in this case spades. Alternatively she could cuebid hearts, but that might be overbidding her hand if she has a normal minimum.

[Winstonm]

aguahombre, on 2013-July-13, 22:20, said:

The OP diagram has all red. There are no + or - 50's. We are dealing with minus in the hundreds vs minus 110 or plus 100/200. I think the real math is against doing anything at any form of scoring.

Of course, you are right. I am still having trouble getting used to the new and improved diagram and I thought it was no one vulnerable. That does not change the MP decision, though, if there is a 75% chance of a better score than -110, then we should take action regardless if we go minus 500 or 1400 only 25% or the time.

[aguahombre]

Winstonm, on 2013-July-14, 14:34, said:

Of course, you are right. I am still having trouble getting used to the new and improved diagram and I thought it was no one vulnerable. That does not change the MP decision, though, if there is a 75% chance of a better score than -110, then we should take action regardless if we go minus 500 or 1400 only 25% or the time.

If you start with an assumption of -110, your math works. I have reason to believe there is greater than 50% chance they can't get 110 to start with, and bids by me would be attempts to get better than +100. Not good prospects, IMO.