[Cyberyeti]

IMPs

---

What do you bid now and what do you do over partner's most likely bids ?

[mikeh]

I don’t play (nor do I think it common expert treatment to play) that the double says anything about clubs….but it does say that responder can handle us bidding clubs…so if he doesn’t hold long clubs, either he has some diamond tolerance or expects to be able to bid notrump over most diamond rebids.

Having said that, my hand and the auction suggests that if he has 4 spades then he likely has clubs….I’d expect 4324 or 4315 as the most likely shapes given that the opps haven’t yet bounced to the 3 level.

I know that at the table I’d bid a simple 5D. I do not want to give LHO the chance to bid 4H over 4D.

The hand isn’t strong enough either offensively or defensively to bid 3H then diamonds (or pass 3N and hope they can’t run clubs on us). 3H announces ownership of the hand and invites penalty doubling in due course…somehow I doubt that I have a raft of defence.

Btw, this isn’t a great hand for my preferred treatment of double….4+ spades but not 6 unless less than invitational (6+ spades with invitational + values bid 2H…2S instead becomes a diamond raise, limit +

But even if he has 5 spades, this hand screams diamonds.

Given my choice of 5D I doubt that I have to cater to partner’s likely rebids😀 but I’ll sit for a double of an unlikely 5H.

[jillybean]

I want to bid 5♦ or 4♠, (choice of games?) but I will settle with 2♠ for now.

[LBengtsson]

If X = 4♠ and no more, then 5♦ seems the right bid. Even if partner has a 5♠ suit, I still think 5♦ is the best bid. No plan other than to make the most sensible bid at the table. If we miss slam then that is unlucky.

[Cyberyeti]

This was a flat board in 5♦+1, 6♦ and 6♠ were cold. Partner has a nice 4225 with his only real worry being 2 heart losers. Overcaller had 6 hearts, raiser had 4 but in a flat heap.

I thought partner should have done something less precipitous than 5♦, it seems this forum disagrees.

[mikeh]

Give us responder’s hand. Did he have a 2C response? Obviously he held 2 Aces and throw in the black queens or the club King and the double is, imo, extremely poor.

Plus 5D cannot logically have two heart losers when responder is holding both black aces so maybe he had a move available. It’s impossible to assess this without seeing the hand.

AQxx xx xx Axxxx has surely too much to pass 5D….I’d probably double with that since 2C then 2S would, imo, be an overbid, forcing to game.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2022-June-26, 18:22, said:

Give us responder’s hand. Did he have a 2C response? Obviously he held 2 Aces and throw in the black queens or the club King and the double is, imo, extremely poor.

Plus 5D cannot logically have two heart losers when responder is holding both black aces so maybe he had a move available. It’s impossible to assess this without seeing the hand.

AQxx xx xx Axxxx has surely too much to pass 5D….I’d probably double with that since 2C then 2S would, imo, be an overbid, forcing to game.

The problem is that it's unlikely to be 2♣ then 2♠, it's likely to be 2♣ then double over 4♥. Yes I could have bid 2♣ but this would not have helped, 5♦ to me would be more consistent with xx, Kx, 8 solid, x (or the same with K♦ being one of the black kings), I hardly visualised a singleton heart in partner's hand as likely with only a single raise by opps. With a solid suit and only one heart loser (and basically a 9 playing trick hand) I think something more than 5♦ was called for. Our partnership style is to double on this shape pretty much regardless of strength unless xxxx/AKQJx type hand.

A slightly strange thing is that despite all the shape and tricks in the diamond hand, you actually get richer off 4♥x than you do for 5♦+1 because of the club ruff to go with a diamond, the ♣A and 3 spades.

[mw64ahw]

With at least 10 playing tricks between the pair after the negative X does 3♥ convey the playing strength adequately and provide East with encouragement for the slam if non-minimum?

[Cyberyeti]

 mw64ahw, on 2022-June-27, 02:38, said:

With at least 10 playing tricks between the pair after the negative X does 3♥ convey the playing strength adequately and provide East with encouragement for the slam if non-minimum?

What it does tell you is if opps don't raise and partner doesn't bid 3N, there's no wastage so his points are working.

[DavidKok]

Funny, I prefer 4♦ (forcing slam try in diamonds) to 5♦ (though I wish you wouldn't tell us the limit of the hand). I'm never letting the opponents play 4♥, so I don't feel the urgent need to preempt them out of that. Our defence against 5♥X is lacking but if the bidding goes (P)-1♦-(1♥)-X; (2♥)-4♦-(4♥)-P-(P); 5♦-(5♥)-X I will trust partner's double. I'm never playing this in spades, sorry partner if you have a void.

[mikeh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-June-27, 00:10, said:

The problem is that it's unlikely to be 2♣ then 2♠, it's likely to be 2♣ then double over 4♥. Yes I could have bid 2♣ but this would not have helped, 5♦ to me would be more consistent with xx, Kx, 8 solid, x (or the same with K♦ being one of the black kings), I hardly visualised a singleton heart in partner's hand as likely with only a single raise by opps. With a solid suit and only one heart loser (and basically a 9 playing trick hand) I think something more than 5♦ was called for. Our partnership style is to double on this shape pretty much regardless of strength unless xxxx/AKQJx type hand.

A slightly strange thing is that despite all the shape and tricks in the diamond hand, you actually get richer off 4♥x than you do for 5♦+1 because of the club ruff to go with a diamond, the ♣A and 3 spades.

You are being inconsistent in your analysis. Did your partner suggest that you should have raised 5D or bid 2C, and you posted to prove your point that 5D was an error? Is that why you won’t tell us your hand?

Your inconsistency lies in arguing that had you bid 2C, your next problem would be having to double 4H.

If responder has an opening hand, then the opps lack the power required to bid 4H….unless they have great shape. Opener has long diamonds, responder has a good hand with both blacks….if they bid 4H either they are very bad players or they have 10+ hearts. Yet you fear them bidding 4H AND you defend your pass of 5D on the basis that partner, for reasons that I completely fail to comprehend, likely has xx Kx AKQJxxxx x. I can’t imagine bidding 5D with that. Besides which, if I bid 2C, my later double of 4H hardly shows a trump stack. It shows a game force response and partner looks at his hand…of course opener will often bid 2S over 2H, but assume advancer bids 3H rather than 2H and opener passes…overcaller raises…responder doubles. That’s not, for most good players, a penalty double anymore than 1D 4H x is penalty. Opener bids 4S with virtually any 4=1=6=2 hand types, as one example.

Having to negative double simply because one has 4 spades is a very poor system decision…sort of like responding 1S to 1D with AQxx xx xx AKxxx.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2022-June-27, 05:51, said:

You are being inconsistent in your analysis. Did your partner suggest that you should have raised 5D or bid 2C, and you posted to prove your point that 5D was an error? Is that why you won’t tell us your hand?

Your inconsistency lies in arguing that had you bid 2C, your next problem would be having to double 4H.

If responder has an opening hand, then the opps lack the power required to bid 4H….unless they have great shape. Opener has long diamonds, responder has a good hand with both blacks….if they bid 4H either they are very bad players or they have 10+ hearts. Yet you fear them bidding 4H AND you defend your pass of 5D on the basis that partner, for reasons that I completely fail to comprehend, likely has xx Kx AKQJxxxx x. I can’t imagine bidding 5D with that. Besides which, if I bid 2C, my later double of 4H hardly shows a trump stack. It shows a game force response and partner looks at his hand…of course opener will often bid 2S over 2H, but assume advancer bids 3H rather than 2H and opener passes…overcaller raises…responder doubles. That’s not, for most good players, a penalty double anymore than 1D 4H x is penalty. Opener bids 4S with virtually any 4=1=6=2 hand types, as one example.

Having to negative double simply because one has 4 spades is a very poor system decision…sort of like responding 1S to 1D with AQxx xx xx AKxxx.

Come on Mike, partner has only one heart once in a blue moon here and he's decided to barrage the auction opposite what could be anywhere from about a 6 count upwards. Sounds to me HE doesn't fancy a slam opposite the right 10 count.

I have both black AQ10s yes I could bid 2♣ (not GF for us btw) but where does that get us ?

Hearts could easily be 7-3 rather than 6-4 and in that case partner is bidding over 4♥, it got to 4♥ in 2 bids at the other table.

There's a massive difference to using a negative double in a competitive auction and responding 1♠ on the hand you give, the chance of the auction getting bounced before you bid again is much higher.

I can't imagine NOT bidding 5♦ with the hand I gave, you haven't beaten 4♥ yet opposite some perfectly normal but minimum doubles and you may make opposite some pretty minimum ones (♠AK and out for example), if you're going to bid 5♦ over 4♥, do it now.

[mikeh]

You and I have very different ideas about bidding. I think your construction makes no sense. 5D on a hand where he needs you to hold a huge hand for him to make? Ludicrous, imo.

I suspect you’re stuck in denial. You have an easy 6D raise, but want to blame your partner. Did you really think 5D was an advance save, bid with the expectation of going down?

You hold both black aces and both black queens and you have to find some way to justify passing so you make up a hand where slam is very poor. C’mon, cyber…..we all make misjudgments, but the way to learn to do better next time is to recognize when we did so. It’s not to post partner’s hand, concealing yours, and hope that you’ll get support.

Next time post both hands and ask us to assess the blame. My sense is that you were hoping to get ammunition with which to defend yourself. Well, you didn’t

[AL78]

I'd bid 4♦ on the basis that if partner's double implies something in the black suits, slam is not out of the question, and if the opps bid 4♥ I am not letting them play there unless partner wants to penalise them. The hand seems a bit too good in terms of playing strength and loser count to commit unilaterally to 5♦ after partner has made a noise.

[mikeh]

 AL78, on 2022-June-27, 11:31, said:

I'd bid 4♦ on the basis that if partner's double implies something in the black suits, slam is not out of the question, and if the opps bid 4♥ I am not letting them play there unless partner wants to penalise them. The hand seems a bit too good in terms of playing strength and loser count to commit unilaterally to 5♦ after partner has made a noise.

I know David, with whom I often agree, felt that 4D was a slam try but I’d be surprised (I’ve been surprised before, of course) if that were a consensus expert view. I say that as someone who has defined, in my two main partnerships, that 4m is frequently forcing.

The problem is that a slam try by definition creates a forcing pass situation. If 4D is seen as ‘too strong’ for 5D then logically partner is in a forcing pass situation over 4H, as are we.

Absent ‘inverted forcing pass’, he is then supposed to double 4H anytime he doesn’t have a good hand for diamonds (such a good hand might be perhaps stiff or void in hearts and 3+ diamonds and another card) regardless of whether he has, in his hand, defence. Furthermore, if he passes, we are ourselves forced to bid.

Thus, if 4D is slamming, he may take us too high or, worse, he may double on hand where the only plus is on defence but we can’t know if he’s got something like Qxxx Kxx x Kxxxx or Qxxx xx xxx KJxx….both of which are easy negative doubles of 1H and on neither of which do we make 5D but on the former, 5D is a phantom (we rate to beat 4H) and on the latter it’s a good save.

The reason for this is that the double has not announced ownership of the hand…far from it. It didn’t show any significant values and definitely didn’t promise another bid even if we rebid 2C or 2D or 1S.

For me, the hand cited by Cyber….xx Kx AKQJxxxx x….would be a good 4D bid. It says: I have very long, good diamonds. I don’t have the values for game unless you have an unexpected hand, but I can stand 5D over 4H if that appeals to you. With say Axxx x xxx KQxxx I’d expect 5D over 4H. With say Qxxx Jx xx AQxxx I’d expect to defend 4H and quite often go plus when 5D goes down at least 2 if overcaller has the heart AQ…if he only has one of those, we’re almost sure of beating 4H, possibly two or more.

Moreover, you don’t need 4D for this very low frequency meaning. You have 3H. 3H is an amorphous cue. It sets up a gf auction without as yet saying which strain you intend. If they bid 4H, partner can pass with many hands…a double now is an expression of a desire to defend. You then clarify….here by bidding 5D.

However, 3H then 5D is stronger than an immediate 5D. Given that on our actual hand we have no way of knowing whether 5D is a save, a make or a double game swing, I don’t see why we’d bid 3H first

Give me AJx void AKQxxxxx Qx and now I bid 3H very comfortably…that’s a slam try opposite a moderate negative double.the hand we have can’t even make game opposite many normal negative doubles and on some isn’t even a good save, since the opps may neither bid nor make 4H.

[cherdano]

What would we bid with ♠Kx ♥xx ♦AKQJTxxx ♣x? Well, I would also bid 5♦, hence I fail to understand how partner with, apparently, ♠AQTx ♥xx ♦xx ♣AQTxx has an "automatic" raise to 6♦.

I hate the initial double though, especially as it doesn't even seem to promise four spades - or did I misunderstand that part? 2♣ shows your values AND five clubs. Double doesn't show values, doesn't promise 4 spades, and doesn't really promise clubs either. Seems like aiming at a small target. With a water balloon. Where nothing near the target is allowed to get wet.

[Cyberyeti]

 cherdano, on 2022-June-28, 03:06, said:

What would we bid with ♠Kx ♥xx ♦AKQJTxxx ♣x? Well, I would also bid 5♦, hence I fail to understand how partner with, apparently, ♠AQTx ♥xx ♦xx ♣AQTxx has an "automatic" raise to 6♦.

I hate the initial double though, especially as it doesn't even seem to promise four spades - or did I misunderstand that part? 2♣ shows your values AND five clubs. Double doesn't show values, doesn't promise 4 spades, and doesn't really promise clubs either. Seems like aiming at a small target. With a water balloon. Where nothing near the target is allowed to get wet.

Double doesn't 100% promise 4 spades but has them 90+% of the time (what do you do with AKQ, xxxx, Kx, xxxx), we take the view you're effectively bidding 8 cards rather than 5.

[DavidKok]

There are several ways to bid diamonds over 1♦-(1♥)-X-2♥; ?. I play Good/Bad 2NT here, so that adds a few more. The list below should be exhaustive. Also all of them deny 4-card spade support:

• Pass - I've already opened 1♦, if I have a horrid hand I'm not forced to bid here! My 1♦ is unbalanced so there's even less reason to get in there.
  
• 3♦ - Shows a sound opening but no GF, approximately 14-17 points of playing strength.
  
• 2NT, then 3♦ over 3♣ - Shows a weak opening, 13- with long diamonds.
  
• 2NT, then 4♦ over 3♣ - GF with long diamonds, slam try.
  
• 5♦ - A hand with a lot of playing strength in diamonds but not a lot of values.
  
• Just blasting 6♦, with or without 2NT/3♥ for whatever reason - a crazy hand, expecting to make, usually with a void or a singleton in hearts and a second suit.
  
• 3♥, then 4♦ -
  
• 3♥, then 5♦ -
  
• 2NT, then 5♦ over 3♣ -
  
• 4♦ -

I've left some of them open, because I don't know what they should mean. In my partnership I would interpret them as follows.
7. A flexible strong hand with a sixth diamond but not sure of strain. Usually 3=1=6=3 or 3=0=6=4.
8. A strong hand with long diamonds, no longer worth a slam try in light of partner's heart values. Usually a broken seven-card diamond suit with heart shortage, and fear they'll win the 'race to 5/9 tricks' in 3NT.
9. A hand that would be worth a slam try over a non-3♣ answer (note that this shows a minimum by responder) but is just worth a game when responder bids 3♣.
10. Any hand with great diamond concentration that does not fit the above. Forcing by necessity - I have enough ways to show NF diamond hands.

The big downside of 7-9 is that the opponents might not be silent, or partner might not cooperate and bid 3♣ (minimum). If the opponents jam 4♥ and we take it out with 5♦ we do not get to clarify which hand we have (4 and 9 would both bid this way, as would 7 and 8), and partner will be forced to pass with hands that might have been suitable for 6♦ (or, much worse, might take the plunge opposite a hand that was never looking for slam). That's why I prefer 4♦ on a hand with extreme diamond concentration, and I think the other routes should show more flexible hand types that wish to involve partner more. I've made my bidding plan (push to at least 5♦ even if partner doubles 4♥, and sit for a penalty double of 5♥ or higher) and I think the best way to communicate this to partner is by starting with 4♦, since 6♦ might be on opposite a suitable hand.
The forcing pass issue is definitely a problem, but it is equally a problem over a different route. If we start with 3♥ or 2NT, and now LHO bids 4♥ and partner doubles, do we leave it in? I think we still shouldn't (especially over 3♥ which implies more defensive values and does not promise as many diamonds), since our defence is practically negative. And if we're going to run from 4♥X anyway, I wish to tell partner that we have a big diamond concentration but might have the playing strength for 6 opposite a suitable hand along the way.