[Jinksy]

These came up in the latest EBU mag's 'club bidding' quiz, but the answers the setter (Julian Pottage) gave seemed bizarre to me:

In both cases you're assumed to be playing Acol: 4-card majors and a weak NT. Scoring is MP, love all.

---

---

What's your call now on each, and what do you make of the bidding so far on the latter? Also what would you do if N had dealt and opened 1♠, S had raised to two, so that now it was your first call?

(What I really want to say on the second is 'if you'd open, mentally weaken the hand the minimum amount such that you'd have passed it. Now would you X?' but that wouldn't fit the poll.

Or to put it another way, is there any hand where you'd consider yourself too weak to open, but good enough to pass 2♠?)

[eagles123]

Hand 1

2S i think 3d shows extras

hand 2

i'd open and i'd x apart from that

[PhantomSac]

Can't imagine not doubling on hand 2.

I don't know enough about Acol and 4 card majors to answer the first one probably.

[PhilKing]

On the first hand I bid 3♦. The reason is, that if partner, has a typical minimum negative double, I want to play in, er, 3♦.

On the second, since it's matchpoints, it's a WTP double.

[billw55]

Hand 1: If 3♦ is wrong I'm going to have to relearn a lot of stuff. Partner knew when he doubled that he was likely forcing us to the three level.
Hand 2: Nonvul at matchpoints, easy double.

[PhantomSac]

PhilKing, on 2015-August-04, 13:20, said:

On the second, since it's matchpoints, it's a WTP double.

billw55 said:

Hand 2: Nonvul at matchpoints, easy double.

Would you guys not X at imps? I mean what are we waiting for we are a passed hand. I would double at imps vul and consider it a WTP. We could still have game and there is still value in competing for the partscore and people are still not ripping us at imps enough even if we are in some trouble. I would actually think MP vul against good players is the scariest X but would still X then.

[PhilKing]

PhantomSac, on 2015-August-04, 13:37, said:

Would you guys not X at imps? I mean what are we waiting for we are a passed hand. I would double at imps vul and consider it a WTP. We could still have game and there is still value in competing for the partscore and people are still not ripping us at imps enough even if we are in some trouble. I would actually think MP vul against good players is the scariest X but would still X then.

At imps it's an easy double as opposed to a WTP double.

[nige1]

I rank
1. 3♦ = NAT. Descriptive for most players. Although, for some (including for some forum members, AFIR), rebidding a minor at the 3-level shows extra values.
2. 2♠ = NAT. Minimum with rebiddable suit. (playing 4-card majors)

---

I rank
1. Double = T/O. An Acol opener, so could hardly have more. having passed.
2. 3♥ = NAT. A 5-2 or 5-3 ♥ fit may play better than a 4-3 minor fit. I didn't open 2♥.
3. Pass = Timorous,

---

[Winstonm]

First hand: Partner's negative double was at the 2-level, so he should have something. In theory, he either has both minors or a single-suited club hand of about 11 hcp. I bid 3D - if partner's clubs are that long he can bid 4.

Second hand looks like an automatic takeout double.

[mikeh]

1. At the risk of revealing my ignorance of Acol, doesn't 3♦ strongly suggest, if not promise, the 5th spade? For example, what do we open with, say, 4=1=4=4, 4=4=1=4, 4=4=4=1? I'd expect a minor in all cases, due to rebid issues. A strong 1N holding is, I assume, dealt with in some other manner (I'd use 2N to show that with or without a stopper, but maybe that isn't acol)

2. Double, clear in any situation. As Justin notes, most dangerous if red at mps, where good opps will hammer you with any excuse if they don't want to bid 3♠.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2015-August-04, 17:35, said:

1. At the risk of revealing my ignorance of Acol, doesn't 3♦ strongly suggest, if not promise, the 5th spade? For example, what do we open with, say, 4=1=4=4, 4=4=1=4, 4=4=4=1? I'd expect a minor in all cases, due to rebid issues. A strong 1N holding is, I assume, dealt with in some other manner (I'd use 2N to show that with or without a stopper, but maybe that isn't acol)

Almost nobody open 1♠ on any 4441s but what you do open varies from pair to pair.

Not sure whether there's consensus on what 2N means and what you do with a strong NT. There is even variation in what you open with a 4M4m32 strong NT.

[Jinksy]

I'm quite surprised by the popular answers to both of these.

On the first, why are we bidding 3♦ when in a recent thread there was discussion about how neg Xes are more about the majors than minors, such that people thought (something like) 1♣ (2♠) X P / 3♦ showed extra values?

Ok here we've heard about both the majors, so P's X is obviously more minor-oriented than in the other thread, but I would still expect P to have 2Ss or a good hand with no better bid. Similarly(?) if my minors were reversed and it had just gone 1♠ P 2♦, I'd be rebidding spades to show a minimum (and, playing Acol, the unshown fifth spade). So what's so different here? And what would I do on a similar hand but with extras? Rebid 4♦? (and what if the extras still left it sub-GF - eg with the diamond King instead of the Jack - or whatever you think would constitute an intermediate hand.)

***

On the second, I don't feel strongly against Xing, but I was expecting more people to think it an auto-opening. Having decided not to open it, it feels like I've done my hand evaluation, and I'd thought a hand that isn't strong enough to open also isn't strong enough to force P to bid at the three level when one opp is unlimited. Maybe I should go for damage limitation and get in now, but the usual principle people go by in these marginal situations seems to be 'once you've made a decision, stick with it', hence my (lone) vote for Xing only if I hadn't had a chance to pass. Why does that principle not apply here?

[gszes]

hand 1
3d If p is near min for neg x 3d may easily be our last safe spot so I choose that with game still a long way off if p cannot move further. What is opener to do with 4s 3h 4d 2c and a min over the x? It would seem 3d is the only reasonable choice if nothing else fits (ie no heart stop etc). Game is a long way off even with our current hand so the 3d rebid covers an unfortunately large amount of hands. If someone wanted to argue for 4d with the problem hand I would have little heartache with it though it lacks flexibility.

hand 2
Bridge bidding is a constant struggle with reevaluation. My hand was insufficient for -me- to open but i am close to the top of my original pass and have pretty darn good distribution and armed with the knowledge the opps have a fit thus dramatically increasing the odds we have one as well that is why i x over 2s.

[PhilKing]

Jinksy, on 2015-August-06, 13:29, said:

I'm quite surprised by the popular answers to both of these.

On the first, why are we bidding 3♦ when in a recent thread there was discussion about how neg Xes are more about the majors than minors, such that people thought (something like) 1♣ (2♠) X P / 3♦ showed extra values?

Ok here we've heard about both the majors, so P's X is obviously more minor-oriented than in the other thread, but I would still expect P to have 2Ss or a good hand with no better bid. Similarly(?) if my minors were reversed and it had just gone 1♠ P 2♦, I'd be rebidding spades to show a minimum (and, playing Acol, the unshown fifth spade). So what's so different here? And what would I do on a similar hand but with extras? Rebid 4♦? (and what if the extras still left it sub-GF - eg with the diamond King instead of the Jack - or whatever you think would constitute an intermediate hand.)

***

On the second, I don't feel strongly against Xing, but I was expecting more people to think it an auto-opening. Having decided not to open it, it feels like I've done my hand evaluation, and I'd thought a hand that isn't strong enough to open also isn't strong enough to force P to bid at the three level when one opp is unlimited. Maybe I should go for damage limitation and get in now, but the usual principle people go by in these marginal situations seems to be 'once you've made a decision, stick with it', hence my (lone) vote for Xing only if I hadn't had a chance to pass. Why does that principle not apply here?

On the first hand, I can't even comprehend the objections to 3♦. You say the double is "obviously more minor-oriented than in the other thread". As far as I am concerned, partner is showing the minors, or at the least, a hand that can handle a bid of 3m (eg a 3334 11 count). If partner has only one minor and a doubleton spade we are still OK, since at the very worst he should have a 2335 ten count. In the thread where we opened 1♣ and partner doubled spades, he is even implying diamonds, so it's not surprising that most believe we should not just trot out a high bid in diamonds without actually having a good hand.

If we rebid 2♠, we are liable to end in some pretty ridiculous part scores when partner is 1255 or 1354.

On the second hand, I simply do not agree that once I have passed, I have made a decision not to get involved at the three level. I don't see the logic - doubling rates to be a huge winner compared to pass. I can take or leave a 1♥ opening - I might open depending on how I feel, but that has no real bearing on whether I bid now. In fact, I am rather happy about it, since now partner will not get carried away.

[manudude03]

Looking at the poll results to the second question. I may have misinterpreted it. I would have opened, but since I passed, I double now. If I had opened 1H before, I would pass now.

3D is clear on the first hand. This hand does have extras.

[helene_t]

I don't think that 3♦ shows extras although I can see a case why it should. With 8-9 points, long clubs and a doubleton spade p can't do anything other than double, and then 2♠ works better than 3♦.

But the reason why this is different from
1♠-2♥
3♦
is that here, p has almost always 3+ diamonds so 3♦ is nonforcing.

[gwnn]

PhilKing, on 2015-August-06, 15:39, said:

On the first hand, I can't even comprehend the objections to 3♦. You say the double is "obviously more minor-oriented than in the other thread". As far as I am concerned, partner is showing the minors, or at the least, a hand that can handle a bid of 3m (eg a 3334 11 count). If partner has only one minor and a doubleton spade we are still OK, since at the very worst he should have a 2335 ten count. In the thread where we opened 1♣ and partner doubled spades, he is not even implying diamonds, so it's not surprising that most believe we should not just trot out a high bid in diamonds without actually having a good hand.

If we rebid 2♠, we are liable to end in some pretty ridiculous part scores when partner is 1255 or 1354.

On the second hand, I simply do not agree that once I have passed, I have made a decision not to get involved at the three level. I don't see the logic - doubling rates to be a huge winner compared to pass. I can take or leave a 1♥ opening - I might open depending on how I feel, but that has no real bearing on whether I bid now. In fact, I am rather happy about it, since now partner will not get carried away.

Fixed obvious typo before people get confused.

[Jinksy]

PhilKing, on 2015-August-06, 15:39, said:

On the first hand, I can't even comprehend the objections to 3♦. You say the double is "obviously more minor-oriented than in the other thread". As far as I am concerned, partner is showing the minors, or at the least, a hand that can handle a bid of 3m (eg a 3334 11 count). If partner has only one minor and a doubleton spade we are still OK, since at the very worst he should have a 2335 ten count. In the thread where we opened 1♣ and partner doubled spades, he is even implying diamonds, so it's not surprising that most believe we should not just trot out a high bid in diamonds without actually having a good hand.

If we rebid 2♠, we are liable to end in some pretty ridiculous part scores when partner is 1255 or 1354.

Ok. So is 3♦ consistent with a minimum hand, or are you upgrading a bit for shape? If the former, how do we show a) enough extras to GF, b) extras but not enough to GF on a hand with similar texture?

[mikeh]

Jinksy, on 2015-August-06, 13:29, said:

On the first, why are we bidding 3♦ when in a recent thread there was discussion about how neg Xes are more about the majors than minors, such that people thought (something like) 1♣ (2♠) X P / 3♦ showed extra values?

Ok here we've heard about both the majors, so P's X is obviously more minor-oriented than in the other thread, but I would still expect P to have 2Ss or a good hand with no better bid. Similarly(?) if my minors were reversed and it had just gone 1♠ P 2♦, I'd be rebidding spades to show a minimum (and, playing Acol, the unshown fifth spade). So what's so different here? And what would I do on a similar hand but with extras? Rebid 4♦? (and what if the extras still left it sub-GF - eg with the diamond King instead of the Jack - or whatever you think would constitute an intermediate hand.)

You are confusing some basic principles.

When one doubles a major suit overcall of partner's minor, it is normal to play that the double is all about the other major. We sacrifice the ability to show the other minor, because we have decided that showing the other major is so important that to require that we also hold the other minor when doing so is too constraining....we end up being unable to bid.

As opener, if we began with 1♣, then anytime we bid diamonds naturally, with partner not having shown diamonds, we put responder in the position of having to raise the level if he doesn't like diamonds and needs to go back to clubs. This is the usual basis for requiring that we need extra values to show diamonds...we are making a reverse.

So your analogy to 1♣ [2♠] x [P] 3♦ doesn't apply to the OP.

As for your second analogy, to 1♠ [P] 2♦ [P] 3♣, again you miss a basic point. The 2♦ call didn't promise any club or spade support at all. Therefore it makes sense to require extra strength for 3♣, especially if 2♦ was not, itself, a gf.

In the OP situation, partner has shown BOTH minors, or at least the ability to handle any call we make based on that assumption. Accordingly, it makes no sense at all to require extra strength to raise diamonds...a suit he has implicitly bid.

Take the auction 1♠[P] 2♦ [P]. Some play that raising to 3♦ requires some extras, but everybody I have discussed this with would immediately say that holding 4 card support qualifies as extras in that context. Here, of course, partner didn't suggest a 5 card suit, as would many for a 2♦ response but surely our holding a 5th diamond means something good?

[PhilKing]

Jinksy, on 2015-August-07, 07:53, said:

Ok. So is 3♦ consistent with a minimum hand, or are you upgrading a bit for shape? If the former, how do we show a) enough extras to GF, b) extras but not enough to GF on a hand with similar texture?

I am not upgrading. I would also bid 3♦ with some mininum 5-4 hands as well as some slightly better hands, so we might miss the odd decent game. One could make a case for a jump to 4♦ being invitational, but I think it is more practical to play it as forcing.