[AL78]

Here are another couple from the same evening as the previous two hands, and were the only two really poor scores.

Matchpoints, 5 card majors, 1♣ could be as short as two.

---

Not my finest hour, I went one down for a 12% board, turns out I should have left it in 3♠. A few people found a NT contract which may be easier for those playing a weak NT. I knew partner only had three spades at the point she showed delayed support, so attempted to correct to the club contract with a certain 8+ card fit, unfortunately partner didn't read what I was doing. 3♠ and 4♣ both make but we managed to hang ourselves by our own rope.


We again got too high on the next one, but this was down to me:

---

I got punished with another AQ over the KJ and another pair holding AK and a doubleton getting a ruff to go two off. This was a board of high variance, people in diamond, heart, spade and NT contracts with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately I made one less trick that the other three in a spade contract, if I can get out for one off, it would have been a bit better. I made the mistake of not ducking the opening diamond lead, there is a chance that West would not give East a club ruff (East started with AK), but then again, West might find the club return anyway if I let their king hold. The others in a spade contract didn't get perfect defence.

[Stephen Tu]

First board: your partner should support double or raise to 2s if support double not available. If you aren't playing support doubles you probably should, as it comes up extremely frequently playing 5 cd majors. Afterwards she shouldn't be correcting clubs to spades, certainly not twice at any rate.

Second board: Don't raise to 3s. Remember that partner couldn't scrape up a bid over 1D. 1D is a very easy call to bid over when partner has opened already; South should be bidding with length in either or both majors and any sort of normal response. So South likely has <6 or a terrible 6. Game should be extremely unlikely so there's no point in raising to 3s. If the opps compete to 3d just sell out and try to beat it, pushing them up a level is good, better than defending 2d.
EW should always find club ruff as East should be leading opposite of their normal agreement (e.g. K first if agreement is A from AKx, or the other way around).

It would be different if on some other hand East had made a weak jump overcall with 3d, then partner is more likely to have undisclosed values than when she didn't bid over 1d.

[DavidKok]

I agree with the observations Stephen made. Also West should have raised to 3♥ on the first board, putting the pressure on. On the second board West managed to do this just fine, although 2♦ is still a bit wimpy in my opinion and I prefer an immediate jump to 3. 3♦ makes, actually, losing only a diamond and three hearts.

[Zelandakh]

On #7, your 3♣ is invitational and 3♠ accepts the invite. Passing now would be a breach of partnership trust. As Stephen has pointed out, Support Doubles would be helpful here.

On #4 you have to realise that after your partner passes on the first round, you are in competitive mode and not constructive. Be grateful that you have managed to find a playable spot at a low level and take the plus.

On both hands you should be aware that you were playing against rather passive opponents. On #7 think about how you and your partner might have proceeded if West raises to 3♥ and on #4 consider your reaction to a 3♦ raise. Coping adequately with (and on the right hands punishing) pressure bidding is one of the key areas that can move you up the ranks on the bidding side of things but if you only play against weak opponents it is an area that you will only rarely get to practice.

[Stephen Tu]

Zelandakh, on 2020-June-05, 18:47, said:

On #7, your 3♣ is invitational and 3♠ accepts the invite.

I don't think so, not if partner is passing the 2H call. 3C ought to be just competitive IMO ("I don't want to sell out to 2H, I think we should have decent chances of making 3c but not particularly interested in anything higher"). Good hands should probably reopen double, or in some cases cue bid.

[AL78]

Zelandakh, on 2020-June-05, 18:47, said:

On #7, your 3♣ is invitational and 3♠ accepts the invite. Passing now would be a breach of partnership trust. As Stephen has pointed out, Support Doubles would be helpful here.

On #4 you have to realise that after your partner passes on the first round, you are in competitive mode and not constructive. Be grateful that you have managed to find a playable spot at a low level and take the plus.

On both hands you should be aware that you were playing against rather passive opponents. On #7 think about how you and your partner might have proceeded if West raises to 3♥ and on #4 consider your reaction to a 3♦ raise. Coping adequately with (and on the right hands punishing) pressure bidding is one of the key areas that can move you up the ranks on the bidding side of things but if you only play against weak opponents it is an area that you will only rarely get to practice.

If West raises to 3H I would probably bid 4C, on the basis it is likely to be a 30 point pack. We still end up in the wrong place when partner corrects to 4S. The problem is it is difficult for me to bid in a way that tells partner I want to compete the part score, rather than I want to force to game, and I only have four spades. Something is not quite right somewhere if I can't bid the optimal contract in competition and play there.

If West raises to 3D I double as before, but would pass 3S, because 4S will be too high more often than not, and my DK might be useless. I accept I should trust partner to respond in a major with a good 6+ so should have passed 2S.

[AL78]

Zelandakh, on 2020-June-05, 18:47, said:

On #7, your 3♣ is invitational and 3♠ accepts the invite. Passing now would be a breach of partnership trust. As Stephen has pointed out, Support Doubles would be helpful here.

That doesn't make sense if that is really what partner was thinking. South has a horrible aces and spaces eight loser flat hand, which is not suitable to accept an invite.

I will investigate support doubles, and I believe doubles in coumpetition can be used in other situations to distinguish between game invitational and competing the part score (e.e. 1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) X vs 1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) 3♥.

[helene_t]

3♣ is maybe an underbid. Do you play it as forcing? I don't think that's normal. 3♣ is not a "new suit", even if you play a short club system. South's failure to raise space tells you that she has clubs. So 3♣ is normally to play opposite a balanced 12-14, and South should have passed it. Maybe you play it as invitational (as a weak 3♣ bidder bids a Lebenshohl 2nt), but even then I think South should pass.

But South's bidding suggests that she took 3♣ as a GF.

[Stephen Tu]

AL78, on 2020-June-06, 02:44, said:

If West raises to 3H I would probably bid 4C, on the basis it is likely to be a 30 point pack. We still end up in the wrong place when partner corrects to 4S.

You need to teach partner not to correct on such auctions. If you were interested in 3cd spade support (which should have been shown already at 2S, either by supp double or raising on 3), generally you double for "DSIP", not raise level and bid clubs yourself. She should assume you have 4 cd spades when you bid clubs instead of doubling, if they overcall higher and she didn't have opportunity to raise on 3 cds at the 2 level (free raising on 3 what could be a 4 cd suit isn't advisable at higher levels).

Quote

The problem is it is difficult for me to bid in a way that tells partner I want to compete the part score, rather than I want to force to game, and I only have four spades. Something is not quite right somewhere if I can't bid the optimal contract in competition and play there.

That's what your club bid on second round is supposed to do. If you want to invite/FG you would cue or start with double.

Quote

If West raises to 3D I double as before, but would pass 3S, because 4S will be too high more often than not, and my DK might be useless. I accept I should trust partner to respond in a major with a good 6+ so should have passed 2S.

If West raised to 3D (aggro IMO flat and vul, am I a wimp?), you have to consider passing instead of doubling for the same reason of partner not scraping up a bid over 1D. Making 3 opposite not much is harder than making 2 opposite not much, and beating 3D is easier than beating 2D, and you have enough that on a good day you might be able to do that with minimal assistance. Doubling is more attractive at say both NV, where at least if you get to 3M undoubled down 2 it's a good board if 3D was making. Going 2 off vul is bad as you experienced.

AL78, on 2020-June-06, 02:50, said:

I will investigate support doubles, and I believe doubles in coumpetition can be used in other situations to distinguish between game invitational and competing the part score (e.e. 1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) X vs 1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) 3♥.

When you have already established an explicit true fit, typically bidding one more in your suit is competitive, not invitational. To invite you bid a new suit (clubs/diamonds in the first auction). Double is typically still played as for penalties when new suit(s) are available below 3 of yours; only if their suit is one below your suit (so no new suit available to GT) is it std-ish for double to be game invitational instead of penalty suggestion. Admittedly it's rare that you want to double 2S for penalties on your first auction but that's still how double is typically played.
It's when you don't have a fit established yet, but fit is still possible, that double is typically used for takeout/competitive. Or to distinguish 3cd (dbl) vs 4cd support (raise to 2), when raising to 2 is an option, if you choose to adopt support doubles.

[AL78]

helene_t, on 2020-June-06, 03:48, said:

3♣ is maybe an underbid. Do you play it as forcing? I don't think that's normal. 3♣ is not a "new suit", even if you play a short club system. South's failure to raise space tells you that she has clubs. So 3♣ is normally to play opposite a balanced 12-14, and South should have passed it. Maybe you play it as invitational (as a weak 3♣ bidder bids a Lebenshohl 2nt), but even then I think South should pass.

But South's bidding suggests that she took 3♣ as a GF.

I didn't intend it as forcing, I intended it as competing the part score, but I'd rather play in clubs than spades. I thought she would get the message when I bid 4C but she didn't. I knew we had a club fit because as the auction had gone, it is impossible for partner to have only two. It is my understanding that to force in a competitive auction, you either double, bid a new suit, or cue bid the opps suit.

[AL78]

helene_t, on 2020-June-06, 03:48, said:

3♣ is maybe an underbid. Do you play it as forcing? I don't think that's normal. 3♣ is not a "new suit", even if you play a short club system. South's failure to raise space tells you that she has clubs. So 3♣ is normally to play opposite a balanced 12-14, and South should have passed it. Maybe you play it as invitational (as a weak 3♣ bidder bids a Lebenshohl 2nt), but even then I think South should pass.

But South's bidding suggests that she took 3♣ as a GF.

It wasn't intended as forcing.

I'm not familiar with playing Lebensohl in a competitive auction situation, I am only familiar with it after interference over a 1NT opening, after partner has doubled over a weak two opening, and in response to a reverse. If I bid 2NT in a competitive situation she would take it as natural (invitational values and stops in the opps suit), although now you mention it I can see the merit of giving up on a natural 2NT bid in competitive auctions, as it is almost never needed, and it would be better to go for a penalty if 2NT is making our way.

[Zelandakh]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-June-05, 19:02, said:

I don't think so, not if partner is passing the 2H call. 3C ought to be just competitive IMO ("I don't want to sell out to 2H, I think we should have decent chances of making 3c but not particularly interested in anything higher"). Good hands should probably reopen double, or in some cases cue bid.

I guess this shows a difference in bidding philosophy. To me it is better to have the direct 3♣ show an invite and use the alternative route (X or 2NT depending on agreements) for competitive or GF hands. It sounds like you prefer to play a value-showing double rather than a competitive double here, presumably without Lebensohl, in which case there is little choice but for the direct 3♣ to be competitive.

Looking at the hands though it seems clear that this pair took the direct 3♣ to show values rather than just being competitive. Other than Opener valuing their hand as a good weak NT, can you see any other reasonable justification for their 3♠ continuation? I was, however, trying to be diplomatic and talk about the system solution (Support Doubles) rather than dwelling on South's part in the poor result.

AL78, on 2020-June-06, 02:44, said:

If West raises to 3H I would probably bid 4C, on the basis it is likely to be a 30 point pack. We still end up in the wrong place when partner corrects to 4S. The problem is it is difficult for me to bid in a way that tells partner I want to compete the part score, rather than I want to force to game, and I only have four spades. Something is not quite right somewhere if I can't bid the optimal contract in competition and play there.

If West raises to 3D I double as before, but would pass 3S, because 4S will be too high more often than not, and my DK might be useless. I accept I should trust partner to respond in a major with a good 6+ so should have passed 2S.

These rather highlight the point. Pressure bidding is effective and can be difficult to counter. In both cases, if West takes the pressure option you end up with a bad result, even looking at both hands. In this case, the way to get a good score is to X on #7 and Pass on #4. Whether those are really the percentage actions though, I cannot say. Maybe save the hands for a future poll thread...

AL78, on 2020-June-06, 02:50, said:

That doesn't make sense if that is really what partner was thinking. South has a horrible aces and spaces eight loser flat hand, which is not suitable to accept an invite.

If they are a regular partner it might be an idea to ask them what they were thinking. As above, if they were not evaluating their hand as a good weak NT then I have no idea what was in their head.

AL78, on 2020-June-06, 02:50, said:

I will investigate support doubles, and I believe doubles in coumpetition can be used in other situations to distinguish between game invitational and competing the part score (e.e. 1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) X vs 1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) 3♥.

1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) X is played as penalty but 1♥ (1♠) 2♥ (2♠) 3♥ typically shows a ♠ invite as there is now no space for any other call below 3♠ and that is needed for competitive purposes. The term "Maximal Double" is sometimes used for this.

AL78, on 2020-June-06, 05:19, said:

although now you mention it I can see the merit of giving up on a natural 2NT bid in competitive auctions, as it is almost never needed, and it would be better to go for a penalty if 2NT is making our way.

You get the point precisely. 2NT is very rarely the right call in a competitive auction and is extremely useful for a variety of other purposes that come up much more frequently. Therefore a number of very strong pairs have the agreement that 2NT is always artificial in competition and those that do not will normally list the natural 2NT auctions as exceptions rather than the artificial ones.

If you are interested in this approach and also have a partner to work with on it then I would suggest googling "good/bad 2nt", which is the more common way of expressing the use of a Lebensohl-like 2NT in this type of auction. I would also very strongly recommend the book Partnership Bidding at Bridge, which the authors have very kindly made available online for free. It is arguably still the best book on competitive bidding ever produced.

[AL78]

Zelandakh, on 2020-June-06, 06:41, said:

If you are interested in this approach and also have a partner to work with on it then I would suggest googling "good/bad 2nt", which is the more common way of expressing the use of a Lebensohl-like 2NT in this type of auction. I would also very strongly recommend the book Partnership Bidding at Bridge, which the authors have very kindly made available online for free. It is arguably still the best book on competitive bidding ever produced.

Thank you for that link. I have downloaded the book, and will read it at my leisure. My partner has agreed to look into support doubles.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2020-June-06, 06:41, said:

It is arguably still the best book on competitive bidding ever produced.

Not sure anyone who's read it would argue that it's not.