[FrancesHinden]

Scoring: IMP

P -P-1♥-X
2NT-P-3♥-P
P-?

---

2NT shows a good raise to 3♥

[inquiry]

With a sane partner, 3♠.. although i dislike my ♥JACK..........

With a partner who would not understand I could bid 3♠ with such holding, then I would pass. They know who they are.

[Walddk]

I have enough for 3♠ when I did not bid over 2NT. Partner has a strong, rather balanced hand.

Roland

[cjames]

3♠ this round for me, agree with Roland.

[gnasher]

3♠ shouldn't come to any harm - partner won't expect much, and won't bid 3NT or anything else unwelcome. It does, of course, require a certain amount of trust in the opponents' judgement.

[Apollo81]

definitely 3♠ now, probably on the previous round too

[jdonn]

3♠ now wtp.

[Winstonm]

Although there are certainly the values and shape to bid, I am leary to do so because of this auction.

A passed hand 2N heart raise doesn't have to show the world. They stopped short of game yet my partner didn't make a second double - why not? Where are all the HCP?

Partner's double does not have to be much in spades, Qxx would do if the hand were Qxx, x, AJxx, AKxxx. Perhaps opener has KJ9 of spades and downgraded due to the double or something like that.

Although there are reasons to bid, my nose tells me the winning action is pass, and that is what I do.

[benlessard]

Quote

prefer 3S to begin with, definitely 3S now. 4S could be cold on hands partner wouldn't bid on with over 4H.

Yep i rarely pass when partner make a take-out X and i have a 6 card support. Doubling 2Nt should suggest values to X 3H or to bid 3Nt. So a direct 3C,3D,3S suggest shapes and a direct 3H should suggest S and value for a 3S or 4S contract.

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 5 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

P  -P-1♥-X
2NT-P-3♥-P
P-??
2NT shows a good raise to 3♥

---

4♠ may well make so I prefer 4♠ (not 3♠) on the previous round even although we are vulnerable!
Now, IMO _P = 10, 4♠ = 8, 3♠ = 6.
Partner hasn't doubled 3♥ and that is worrying. Nevertheless, I suppose that 3♠ is reasonable, hoping to judge correctly whether to venture an undisciplined 4♠ over opponents' 4♥. The danger is that Pass over 2N then 3♠ or 4♠ may convince partner that we have defensive hand. I think that partner will expect delayed bids to be stronger and less shapely than immediate bids.

[655321]

3♠.

Would probably have bid 3♠ last round too, but I understand passing.

[FrancesHinden]

Thanks for all the replies. No-one has actually said it, but you may have guessed that this is a ruling question - the issue was if pass is a logical alternative to 3S.

Under current English regulations (the "70% rule") it clearly is not, as we have an 89% vote for doubling (only counting those who were happy with the first pass).

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 7 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

Thanks for all the replies.  No-one has actually said it, but you may have guessed that this is a ruling question - the issue was if pass is a logical alternative to 3S.
Under current English regulations (the "70% rule") it clearly is not, as we have an 89% vote for doubling [presumably typo for bidding 3♠]  (only counting those who were happy with the first pass).

Again, IMO, the ruling hinges on agreements. Those who posted comments mostly bid 3♠ on the previous round. But a vote for a delayed 3♠ is reasonable if you agree that a delayed action is more weak and shapely than an immediate action. A protective 3♠ may expose you to a Biltcliffe Coup: opponents mayl wake up and bid game. Partner's slow pass reduces that risk; hence it makes 3♠ safer.

[cherdano]

Indeed, if double showed diamonds with longer clubs then that would also change things.

A balancing action is weaker than a direct bid in standard bridge, and it would be highly unusual to have a different agreement here.

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 7 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

Under current English regulations (the "70% rule") it clearly is not, as we have an 89% vote for doubling (only counting those who were happy with the first pass).

But IMHO it should be. This is very much an auction where you're reading the opponents. If you read that the opps were very close to bidding game, you wouldn't consider 3♠ with this drek. I'm pretty sure most people who bid 3♠ could be convinced otherwise if, say, it was LHO who took 5 minutes to bid and RHO looked unhappy about his pass.

The delay made what should make a difficult decision easy. In the U.S., the fact that virtually everybody would consider a pass here and some people would actually do it would make it an LA. Usually, I prefer the English method, but not here.

[Wackojack]

This hand "does me ead in".

If we are to believe the opps bidding, they have 9 hearts. We can assume that we hold 10 spades. Thus, the Law OTT (sometimes not reliable, but the best we have to go on) says that one of us can make 10 tricks and the other 9. We have an advantage over the opps in that they have less idea about how many spades we have between us than we do about how many hearts they have between them. So we have a better guess about the total tricks. Now if I (after passing) come in with 3 spades, opps will be in a better position to evalute their hands based on the assumption that I am weak and hold more that 4 spades. We then get into the arena of mind games. Do the opps (based on LOTT) evalute that:
1. They cannot make 4♥ so we can make 4♠ and therefore pass 3♠?
2. One of the opps re-evaluates their trick taking potential based on (say) 2 small spades are not bad after all and thus thinks that 4♥ is on and moreover therefore that 4♠ is not on.
Thus my not bidding spades at the first opportunity has got the opponents up to our level in the evaluation stakes.

OTOH if I bid 3♠ at the first opportunity, the opponents are likely to judge that the total tricks available are 17 or 18. In both these cases, it will not be clear to them whether or not they should go on to a vulnerable 4♥. Against this partner is in a guessing position should LHO now push to 4♥. Should he bid on to 4♠ based on extras? Or double to show extras with good defensive values?


All in all it is a head banging excercise, but the arguments for 3♠ at the first opportunity gets my vote.

[nige1]

cherdano, on Jul 8 2008, 11:03 PM, said:

Indeed, if double showed diamonds with longer clubs then that would also change things.
A balancing action is weaker than a direct bid in standard bridge, and it would be highly unusual to have a different agreement here.

I accept that the Standard agreement depends on where you live and the teams you play in. In the UK, if RHO makes a strong forcing bid, such as 1♣ (Precision), 2♣ (Acol) or 2N (Jacoby) - as in this case - then the standard agreement is

• Weak/shapely hands take immediate action, while
  
• Strong/balanced hands wait and protect later if they deem it safe.

[gnasher]

Wackojack, on Jul 9 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

If we are to believe the opps bidding, they have 9 hearts. We can assume that we hold 10 spades.

I wouldn't assume that. Partner's most likely hand-type is a balanced hand too strong for a 1NT overcall, so he may have 2, 3 or 4 spades.

This is the main reason for not bidding 3♠ on the first round. No one would mind being in spades opposite a 4153 shape; the problem is that partner may have a balanced 19-count and bid 3NT, thinking that we have some high cards as well as spades.

[brianshark]

I'm pretty sure that partner can look at his 19 count, look at our initial pass and look at the opponents invitational auction and infer that we are broke.