Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But with such a hand on OP auction, why wouldn't east just bid 2 at his second turn (i.e. over (1NT))?

That would seem the clearest way to show a good hand with good s.

Since he doubled again instead, that would suggest some interest in hearing about an unbid suit from partner.
That he didn't double a 3rd time suggests to me that his interest in s is limited, hence I infer a black 2-suiter with, perhaps, some secondary s, e.g. 5=3=0=5.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So a responsive double seems right.
I do not think that should promise 4+ in both minors.
Rather, it should be somewhat flexible hand with good values, minor suit orientation, and fewer than 3 s. Partner can always bid 2 or 2N (pick a minor) over this double.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I picked the “2 suiter, and another” option, but I think the “other” is s and expect 5=3=0=5 shape (and a very strong hand of course).
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I am suspecting that from a practical perspective, enough pairs will fail to bid any slam that 6 is likely to score well (if it makes) even when 6 would theoretically be better.

Also, opener will have four s on only about 26% of the deals (and five on about 5%). So checking for a fit will only occasionally find one.

And even when opener has four , 6 actually makes considerably more frequently than 6 (65% vs. 55.5%), so bidding the slam more likely to make is probably wise even at matchpoints where the higher scoring 6 may have a theoretical advantage.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You really need to tell us what 2NT would mean on this auction.

I suppose there must be some who would treat it as …. what's that weird convention? … oh yeah “natural.”

For others, it would be long s with secondary s (e.g. 4=6 minors).

For still others of us, it could be “good/bad”.
Yes, even though partner has only passed, so opener's hand must be “good” for him to bid again at all, it can still be useful for opener to be able to differentiate between a mere “good” hand vs. a “great” hand that still entertains some hopes for game.

This OP hand must be in the latter category as not much is needed for 3NT (Qxx-x-xxxxx-xxxx should be enough).
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is a good problem, Leo.

Passing this deal out could be the winner, but that is too pessimistic for me.

Maybe we should play 2 in 4th chair as weak–that would be perfect on this hand (switch the minors and I'd open 2 in 4th chair with this) :-).

Perhaps I should just open my normal 1 and hope for the best. It wouldn't be too amazing to buy the hand in 2 after e.g. 1-1-2 if partner happens to have some length in the majors.

But I'm afraid that 1 would too often allow them easy entry into the auction where they might discover their good major suit fit and outbid us.

Most likely, we would have to compete to at least the 3 level in s (or s??) anyway to buy the hand, so I'm going to risk a funny 4th chair 3 opening to try to short-circuit the auction.

I'm not too confident that this is the winning choice though.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But why not jump to 6 rather than 5?

It seems quite unlikely to me that playing 5 is likely to win us many matchponts on this deal as I imagine most will bid some slam.

Of couse, if slam doesn't make, then we may score well for playing 5, but that is considerably against the odds.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing MATCHPOINTS, it is considerably better to play in 6 rather than 6 when opener has 4 (or 5) s.

Looking at a 2000 deal simulation where opener has four s:
* 6 outscored 6 on 1110 deals
* 6 and 6 tied on 387 deals
* 6 outscored 6 on 503 deals

Using “BAM” style scoring (1 point for each win, 0.5 for
each tie), that is a 65.175% win for 6 over 6.

A 1000 deal simulation where opener had 5 s (which of course is relatively uncommon) had 6 beating 6 at BAM scoring with a BAM score of 79.7%.

However, using IMP scoring gives a different result.
Returning to the 2000 deal simulation where opener always
has four s, we find that:
6 made on 1316 deals (7 on 399 of them)
6 made on 1057 deals (7 on 391 of them)

NV, 6 outscored 6 by 1918 IMPs over the 2000 deals
VUL, 6 outscored 6 by 2557 IMPs.

These results assume none of the slams are doubled.

So playing matchpoints in a strong field (where most can be assumed to reach slam), it would probably be best to check if opener has 4+ s (via Stayman) and play 6 if he does, otherwise 6.
In a weaker field (where many will not reach any slam), it might be better to go with 6 which will make more often than 6 even when opener has four s.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I almost think that partner's pass must be played as desire to defend (2XX).

Otherwise, anytime opener's partner had a bad hand and short s, he could simply redouble and laugh when doubler pulled his partner's “non-committal” pass to some 3 level contract.

BTW, Bridge World Standard has something to say about passing the redouble on this auction type:
    "Passes over redoubles:
A pass over a redouble is:
(a) for penalty when a preemptive opening is
doubled in either position, a suit one-bid
is doubled in reopening position,
or a bid at the two-level or higher is
doubled after the opponents have bid
three or more times;"
BWS has some other circumstances where a pass of a redouble is for take-out, but I won't quote those here as they do not appear to be relevent to OP auction.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A good observation, Leo. Makes passing even more appealing.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
David,
I don't know where you are from, but in US tournaments my experience is that the vast majority who play some sort of 2/1 GF with strong NT methods would respond to partner's 1 in a 4 card major rather than 1 with 5+ s unless they had *at least* game invitational values.

And before the wide-spread use of “XYZ” methods, many would have required full GF values as responder in order to respond 1 when holding a 4 card major.

This style is standard “Walsh”. I'm not necessarily arguing it is “best”, but it is common.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Simulation showed 12+ tricks available in s (played by the weak hand) on 63.3% of the deals just assuming opener has random 22-24 HCP balanced hand.

So if no better methods available, blasting 6 would be the best “one and done” guess at the final contract.
Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
(a) the double is 100% take-out, so why is it “begging to
concede something ending in 60”?

I think the *shape* of this OP hand is perfect for
the balancing (TO) double.
Sure, one would always like to have a few more HCPs,
but I can't imagine passing this hand out in (1) at
matchpoints.

(b) had opener rebid 1NT (or 1) in an uncontested auction,
a 2 rebid by responder would certainly have been
forcing (GF actually).

In actual auction with the (1) overcall, had partner
rebid 1NT, 2 by responder again would be forcing.

Does/should the fact that opener chose to excercise
his option to pass over (1) suddenly change
responder's entire rebid structure??

If I thought there were strong arguments in favor of
adopting different methods for responder on this
(somewhat uncommon) auction, then I would do so.

But otherwise, I think there is virtue in retaining
the normal responding structure one would have
without the (1) butt-in.

This is why we play “XYZ” when opener rebids 1M–
so we can maintain essentially the same structure
for responder after opener's 1M rebid as we play
after his 1NT rebid.
In that case, the arguments for a different structure
are probably stronger (than on OP auction) because
opener's 1M rebid can be based on considerably
different hand types (both in strength and shape)
than a 1NT rebid.

Here on OP auction, presumably opener has some sort
of a fairly minimal and fairly balanced hand, so
retaining responder's “normal” rebid structure is
likely to suffice and saves a lot of additional
memory work for a not too common situation.

So here my choice of “double” is based primarily on
uncertainty about the OPer's methods after the overcall.
In my partnerships, I would confidently rebid 2 knowing
it would be treated as a relay to 2 just as it would have
been had partner rebid 1NT instead of passing.
Sept. 8
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The normal thing to do without extra values when partner makes a PH 2/1 response (unusual IMO) is to PASS.

Such calls should generally show 6+ card suit and absolutely no interest in partner's major. Otherwise, you just make your normal (e.g. 1NT now “semi” forcing) response and await developments.

For sure, a (natural) PH 2 response denies support for opener's major. That's why we have “Drury” (and raises).

Your talk about “leading a ” makes no sense. I expect it is their side that is going to be on lead.
Sept. 7
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think “2-way checkback” structure should apply to responder on this auction (so 2 ==> 2), but I would not risk that partner would be on the same wave-length without prior discussion.

If “winging it” here, I think 2 is too risky as partner might think I have a (much) better hand than I do. He could well think that 2 is forcing.

So without any guidelines, I think “double” (take-out of course) is my safest option.
If partner removes that to 1NT, can I *then* invoke a “2-way NMF” 2 relay to 2?
Or do I just pull to 2 “for play”?
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What can it possibly have going for it when it is most likely to result in our playing 2, perhaps in a 5-1 “fit” when we know that we belong in s?
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course one cannot answer this question without knowing the significance of partner's pass of LHO's XX.

It might also be nice to get some idea what sort of agreements they might have about their XX (although I likely would be suspicious regardless of what they said).

My view is that partner's pass should mean that he wants to (or at least is willing for me to consider) defending (2XX).

If that is what it means, then I have a reasonable hand to take him up on that suggestion. The worst feature of my hand is my holding. If partner doesn't have a clear-cut lead, he is likely to choose a which might prove unfortunate.

I think it would be crazy for partner to pass the XX with any hand that had no interest in defending (2XX) given that he presumably has Lebensohl 2NT as well as 3 level bids available for other hands, unless of course we have some explicit agreement that his PASS is NOT a suggestion that we defend.

The alternative intepretation for his pass (but one that I think would require prior agreement) is that he has “no preference” among the unbid suits and, likely, a poor hand too.
Perhaps some 4=3=3=3 with very modest values.
In that case, I would have an easy 3, thankful that I actually have a 5 card suit.
Sept. 7
Craig Zastera edited this comment Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To help calibrate your definitions of what a 4th seat 4 opener should (and should not) look like, here are some relevent examples from Mike Lawrence's “The Complete Guide to Passed Hand Bidding.”
"Either of these hands would be sound 4th seat four bids:
1. 2-QJ986532-AQJ9-void
2. AKQ9765-2-8-QJT5

But NOT:
3. void-AKJ9754-KQ9-KJ9
about which Mike says:
"Open 1 in 4th chair.
This hand is too good for a Four Heart bid.
In addition, and this is a real danger, your partner
doesn't need that much to make slam."
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
PH 2 response (assuming it is natural) with OP hand is TERRIBLE.

First of all it is absolutely Non-forcing. You are a passed hand, so your new suit bid cannot be forcing.

Second, it denies primary support. Could easily have a stiff and never more than two.

Just make a normal Drury response.

Or, with agreement, you might try a Fit-showing PH jump to 3. I would probably not do this opposite a *3rd seat* 1, but since partner is in 4th chair, it is probably OK as he will not have opened as light as he might in 3rd chair.

Still, the PH 3 JS is not really necessary with good Drury agreeements. For example,
after P-1-2(Drury)-2(artificial inquiry)-3 now should show this hand type.
Sept. 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps I don't understand the problem.

We seem to be missing 2 keycards (and likely other honors as well), so what else to do but pass and hope we can make 5?
Sept. 6
.

Bottom Home Top