[eugeneric]

White vs Red, IMPS, playing 2/1 with unknown partner, who showed competence for 5-6 boards so far. Opponents ok.

Q865432
void
QJ732
A

RHO passes. What to bid? Thanks!

[nige1]

eugeneric, on 2015-October-02, 13:13, said:

White vs Red, IMPS, playing 2/1 with unknown partner, who showed competence for 5-6 boards so far. Opponents ok.
♠ Q 8 6 5 4 3 2 ♥- ♦ Q J 7 3 2 ♣ A
RHO passes. What to bid?

I rank
1. 4♠ PRE. OK at green in spite of the poor suit quality. The downside of other actions is that by the time you reach 4♠, opponents might have a better idea of what to do.
2. 3♠ PRE.
3. 2♠. PRE. Misdescriptive unless a subsequent ♦ bid would show this kind of hand.
4. 1♠.NAT. Unenterprising
5. Pass. Intending to show 2-suiter later. .

[eagles123]

easy 4s

[dboxley]

eugeneric, on 2015-October-02, 13:13, said:

White vs Red, IMPS, playing 2/1 with unknown partner, who showed competence for 5-6 boards so far. Opponents ok.

Q865432
void
QJ732
A

RHO passes. What to bid? Thanks!

Goulies so who knows. 1S, I don't see any reason to preempt partner who probably has some cards and I have the highest ranking suit. In 1st seat I would probably open 4S. In 3rd or 4th seat it would be no problem.

[neilkaz]

4♠ even in 2nd seat for me with this weak freak that often takes only 1 trick on defense.

[Phil]

Hate 4!s in 2nd seat with this suit and a very playable side suit.

I'd open 1.

[eugeneric]

Thanks guys for all your answers and votes!
If you are curious, I passed. My regular partner (I was not playing with him) favors 1S. He agrees pass is reasonable and I agree 1S is reasonable.
About half of the field opened 2s or 3s and another half passed. One or two opened 1S or 4S.
Those who opened usually reached 4S for a 5-10IMPS (depending on dbl) result. Those who passed did not reach 4S and lost less than 1IMP. The bad results were kind of unreasonable sequences.

My argument for pass (please criticize me, I welcome it): I hope I can enter the bidding later, when I know more about the other hands. This may result in an average score, but there is potential for a great result, as:
1)They may have some surprises if they play the hand
2)They may be tempted to impulsively double us in a S or D contract

[rhm]

eugeneric, on 2015-October-05, 19:36, said:

Thanks guys for all your answers and votes!
If you are curious, I passed. My regular partner (I was not playing with him) favors 1S. He agrees pass is reasonable and I agree 1S is reasonable.
About half of the field opened 2s or 3s and another half passed. One or two opened 1S or 4S.
Those who opened usually reached 4S for a 5-10IMPS (depending on dbl) result. Those who passed did not reach 4S and lost less than 1IMP. The bad results were kind of unreasonable sequences.

My argument for pass (please criticize me, I welcome it): I hope I can enter the bidding later, when I know more about the other hands. This may result in an average score, but there is potential for a great result, as:
1)They may have some surprises if they play the hand
2)They may be tempted to impulsively double us in a S or D contract

I do not see the merit of passing with such an offensive hand and no rebid problems. (For me a 5 loser hand and I consider this assessment conservative)
I will never understand why some people open balanced 11 HCP hands but pass with such a hand.
Sure if you pass you might deceive opponents when you come in later.
In fact opponents are deceived by not being alerted to your style. You will profit from not fully disclose your methods to them, at best a dubious, though quite common practice.
Anyway, it is much more likely your partner will be deceived.
The only options I would consider is 1♠ and 4♠.
I prefer 1♠, since we might make 6♦ while going down in 4♠

Rainer Herrmann

[eugeneric]

>In fact opponents are deceived by not being alerted to your style. You will profit from not fully disclose your methods to them, at best a dubious, though quite common practice.
Fair enough, except the above. Playing with unknown partner you pick up

AKQXXXX
void
xxxxxxx
void

You bid whatever you decide to bid. Did you "deceive opponents by not being alerted to your style"? Note that in my case, half the field made an 'unethical' bid. Self-alerted or not, I don't know, but let me guess...

[rhm]

eugeneric, on 2015-October-06, 02:27, said:

>In fact opponents are deceived by not being alerted to your style. You will profit from not fully disclose your methods to them, at best a dubious, though quite common practice.
Fair enough, except the above. Playing with unknown partner you pick up

AKQXXXX
void
xxxxxxx
void

You bid whatever you decide to bid. Did you "deceive opponents by not being alerted to your style"? Note that in my case, half the field made an 'unethical' bid. Self-alerted or not, I don't know, but let me guess...

If you psyche intentionally (and assuming you do not do it often so that your partner is "aware" about it) there is no issue and I agree there is no issue when playing in a new partnership or in an Individual.
However, if you play in an established partnership and consider the best bid with such hands to pass initially, because you think no bid describes your hand well (so it is not a psyche) there is an issue.
For an established partnership I would consider this dubious, assuming your partner will not alert when you come in later at a high level.
It has long been established that treatments arising from past experience are just as alertable than conventions.
But this guideline is followed more in theory than in practice and when an alert is missed they usually get away with it, because this is often considered a "grey" area.
Few partners do alert. If the partnership succeeds and they make their doubled contract with an overtrick, most declarers are proud of themselves how clever they have been.
The ethical side is rarely even discussed.

Rainer Herrmann

[helene_t]

Yes, when you play with an unknown partner you don't have to tell opps about your own style which partner doesn't know.

But I think it is best to open this hand. Especially with an unknown partner who may not be able to figure out what you have when you start with pass and then bid aggresively later.

That it is second seat call for disciplined bidding but then again, it is white/red at IMPs so there are more to gain from jamming their auction than there is to lose from jamming your own auction.

And although you have a decent side suit, you do have a 7-card major after all. It is very likely that you belong in spades, and even if you belong in diamonds it may not matter because
- you may not be able to show your diamonds anyway
- opps may outbid you in hearts

So either 1♠ or 4♠. 1♠ still allows you to find the diamond fit, probably better than pass does since once you have shown you spades you can elect to bid diamonds next.

So I don't see the advantage of pass as opposed to 1♠. Of course it could work - opps don't expect you to be 7-5 when you pass. But neither does partner. And partner is more interested in your hand than opps are.

4♠ is fine also.

[PhantomSac]

4S

[Fluffy]

Phil, on 2015-October-05, 15:17, said:

Hate 4!s in 2nd seat with this suit and a very playable side suit.

I'd open 1.

I had a bad experience with a similar hand:

http://www.cavendish...pe=B3-1&lang=en

See board 27.

As you can deduct most of the field opens 4♥ at equal and goes 2 down unless west makes an unlucky ♣A lead, the hand is not the same, the suit quality is better, the vulnerability is less agressive and there is no side ace. But I think you get the idea.

....

Bad experience because it was second to last round and while I was having a bad tournament, I happened to be playing against the players who were on first position and one of them is one of my best friends. I had no ***** idea what to open with that, all I could think is... if I get a good score here I will hate me forever, if I get a bad everybody will point a finger at me forever.

I got 2 averages on that round which makes me feel very good, but in retrospect I think I should had simply rejected to play that round. Someone else faced friends on that round BTW, and their results although very possible, they couldn't look more suspicious.

[gordontd]

Fluffy, on 2015-October-09, 06:33, said:

I think I should had simply rejected to play that round.

On what basis could you have done that?

[Fluffy]

Conflict of interests, I wanted my opponent to prevail and fight for the 70.000 prize.

[PhantomSac]

Dont play the cavendish if you're unable to play bridge in that situation

[Fluffy]

You are very wrong here.

[PhantomSac]

lol Fluffy, so you think the correct course of action is to refuse to play that round? And how does that work? Do your opponents get zero imps for the round, or do they get a prorated amount of imps relative to their score, imps/board? If the former you may be helping them (if they have a huge lead), or you may be hurting them (if they are in contention but need a good round to win). If the latter you are obviously helping them.

The correct course of action is to man up and play bridge exactly as you would against anyone else. If you cannot stomach the thought of being in this position and behaving ethically and perhaps costing your friends a lot of money then do not play the cavendish. The fact that you think "not playing" is even tenable is laughable dude.

[PhantomSac]

It is also completely unfair to the other pairs in contention if you refuse to play, depending on the score. Imagine you were in second and a pair was in first and their opps refused to play, wouldn't you be pissed as your best chance to be first would be for the pair in first to have a bad round?

This is all part of playing in the cavendish. It happens to everybody who has played in it enough time and has any friends.

[Fluffy]

Yeah its much better than I play and dump (If you think this things don't happen I will LOL at you). That's would be so fair. It is not my fault. It is organization's fault.

Organization suposedly takes care of me playing against whoever pairs I have financially invested, or invested in me early. This is exactly the same.