Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think what you say would be (more or less) true if advancer had simply bid his suit at minimum level.

But in OP auction, advancer has shown extra values (9-11) with his jump to 2.

In that case, doubler's cue-bid, while still showing “extras”, need not be as strong as 20+ since advancer has promised some significant values, so partnership is guaranteed game-going values without doubler needing to have 20+.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 = 9 - 11 “advancer points”.
Doesn't have to be more than four s, although 5 is common.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But can't the cue-bid mean “we have enough assets for game, but it's not clear which game is best as I have only 3 card support for your s.”

Hence, game-forcing but strain TBD.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This has come up enough against me that I feel confident that:
(a) pass is non-forcing
The opponents may well be able to make their contract

(b) double is take-out oriented (i.e. negative)

are the best choices.

Not quite sure about 3NT. As a practical matter, I don't see responder has enough bids to differentiate stopper vs. not, so I voted for “says nothing about stopper(s)”–just sufficient values and appropriate shape to believe 3NT is our spot.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I amend the above comment to agree that 3 is not absolutely forcing (since 2 was NF), although opener is likely not expecting it to be passed.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I cannot understand why our system should suddenly not be on.
I bid 2 Stayman, no doubt with a plan for continuation in all normal auctions which might well have included a Smolen 3M jump rebid over opener's 2 reply.

Partner's redouble is just a sub-species of his 2 replies had LHO not doubled my 2. Over that double, presumably 2 would deny a 4 card major while saying something about opener's s (and s by inference), e.g. 4 or 5 s.

Hence, his XX simply denies a four card major while also showing some length (4-5) while denying 4+ s.

Therefore, I would expect all my continuations over this XX to carry essentially the same meanings they would have had had partner simply replied 2 to my Stayman 2 in an uncontested auction.
Except, of course, my 2 removal would mean I had planned to pass his 2 response, and I also have the option of choosing to play 2XX with 3+ s and game invitational values (or even minimal GF values).
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leonard,
That might be the sort of hand with which responder would deem pass appropriate (even if opener not expecting it).
Say: Kxxx-xx-QTxxxx-x

After all, since opener's 2 rebid was NF, it is hard to argue that his 3 3rd call is 100% forcing.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I picked “other” as none of your options felt quite right, although 2nd option was perhaps closest.

I think 3 here is forcing and shows about 17-18 HCPs and is likely to be “quasi-natural” aka “patterning out”, so that 1=5=3=4 would be “typical” but not absolutely required.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Like Buddy's description except for the NF part.
Nov. 13
ATB
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Further, the OP auction is one of those explicitly cited by Kit Woolsey as a candidate for his “Relay Double” treatment:
(2)-DBL-(3)-DBL
would ask partner (doubler) to bid 3 unless his hand was quite unusual (e.g. much stronger than expected).

Over such 3, doubler would pass with just competitive values and length or correct to 4m NOT invitational.

Conversely, immediate bids of 3, 4, or 4 by advancer would be stronger, e.g. true game invites.
Nov. 13
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't quite understand why one would think the director should be called. Are we alleging “cheating”, “collusion”, or some sort of illicit private understandings?

South chose an imaginative way to bid his hand.
He wanted to establish a GF immediately, so GF 2 instead of 1 which might prove awkward later. Seems more natural than 2. Presumably, this partnership didn't have a strong 2 JS available.

The worst part of his bidding IMO was invoking Keycard with a void so he can't know which is missing. But people do that all the time.

It is fine to dislike South's bidding and to be annoyed at yourself for failing to find the winning lead. But I hardly see that there is reason to expect the director to make it all better for you.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 shows a minimum opener with four s (LOTT, etc.).
The “value” bid on OP hand is 3, but the auction persuades me to try NT where my hand is more valuable.

Imagine partner with e.g. Axxx-xxx-Kxx-xxx
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If partnership plays Smolen transfers at the 3 level, then that is what I would bid here–3 to show 5 and 4.
I voted under that assumption, even though my partnerships play Smolen at the 2-level (so I would actually bid 2 Smolen).
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For those who pass, would strengthening the holding persuade you to double? If so, how much better would the s have to be? Would :K4 be enough? How about :A4?
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I know I should pass, but and suit “body” are too much for me to resist.
When bad partner responds in s, I pass and prepare to apologize.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I agree that the previous bidding has been so awful as to make it difficult to answer OP question fairly.

*Probably* on this auction partner's 5 should be a demand for 6 with a control. But responder's previous bidding has been so bad that one desperately wants to attempt “rectification” now by *NOT* bidding slam with this trash.

Responder's first bid should have been 2, not 2.
Keep in mind that 2 (assuming it is natural) is 100% non-forcing since responder is a passed hand.
Do you really want opener to pass 2 when you know the hand belongs in s??

If you made responder's hand stronger (say A instead of K as OPer suggested above), it *still* would not be a (natural) 2 response.

If you beefed up the hand enough to make it too strong for 2, then the correct choice would be a stronger raise, however that is shown in OP methods (we use Drury, but actual OP hand is not strong enough for that IMO).
Never a non-forcing response in a new suit with 3 card support for partner.
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If we could assume that a 2 rebid would be natural and NF on this auction, that choice might have more appeal than 1NT.

But how confident are we that partner would take 2 that way? And do you think that is what 2 *should* mean?
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To see whether or not this hand merits a “downgrade” to a 15-17 1NT opener, I tried a 1000 deal simulation with random balanced 7 HCP hands (with fewer than 5 s) opposite to see how often 3NT is makeable (double-dummy).

My previous studies have shown the following:
1. Average 17 HCP balanced hands opposite 7 HCPs:
3NT makes 36.5% of the time

2. Average 18 HCP balanced hands opposite 7 HCPs:
3NT makes 55.6% of the time.

The above are with no 8+ card major suit fits.

So how did OP hand (KQ-QJ5-KQT3-KQ98) do in 3NT with
random balanced 7 counts opposite?

3NT made on 311 / 1000 deals.

So congratulations to all who downgrade this hand.
It actually performed slightly worse than an average balanced *17* count.

update: expanded simulation to 5000 deals
This time, 3NT made on only 1398 (< 28%)
Nov. 12
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henry,

If advancer's simple 1 advance shows a maximum of 8 “support points” (as I believe and I think is common), then it seems to me that if doubler's single raise (to 2) is interpreted as showing game interest, then necessarily that single raise ought to promise at least 17 points in support of s (assuming 25 combined points are needed for game).

Further, since doubler's single raise to 2 leaves room for advancer to make a “retry” (either with 3 or some other call between 2 and 3), I think doubler's single raise to 2 can be somewhat “wide-ranging”, e.g. roughly 17 - 20 (or so) “support points.”
That way, if advancer has a “max” (say 8 or a good 7), he just raises 2 to 4, whereas if he has a little less (say 6 or even a good 5), he makes a “retry” over 2 and now doubler can “go” with 19-20 or pass 3 with 17-18.

Thus, I think doubler's jump raise to 3 ought to show a bit more, say at least a good 20 up to perhaps 22 “support points”, inviting game if advancer has anything, e.g. 5 s to the K or maybe a tad more.

The above is based on the assumption that “double then cue-bid” is not a part of doubler's “game invitational raise” structure. If the cue-bid were to be incorporated into the raise structure, that would give doubler more ways to try for game, hence finer gradations than described above might be possible.

I thought my OP hand with 19 HCPs, plus the doubleton (unusual) as well as an upgrade for the likely well-placed AQ made my hand worth about 21, hence just a bit too strong for a simple raise to 2 after doubling.
Nov. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No problem, Greg.
I appreciate everyone taking the time to vote and/or comment on my problems, so I like to show the actual deal, even though I know “one deal doesn't prove anything.”
Nov. 11
.

Bottom Home Top