BBO Discussion Forums: reopening with solid suit - BBO Discussion Forums

What would you bid?

After you decide what to bid read the spoiler

IMO, your spoiler makes me more confident about my choice, but with 8.5 playing tricks I don't see any really sensible alternative.

In any event, pondering over LAs is something I really don't do. Quite apart from the fact that these things require quite a lot of thought, sometimes far too much to be sensible at the table, even a slight pause to consider it, in turn, puts partner back in an awkward position. Bridge laws are all very well in theory, in practice I bid what I first thought of and, if the opps are worried, let the director think about it at his/her leisure.

Thanks Nick, but what is your choice?. BTW I think you are wrong on the laws issue, you should follow the laws. Or at the very least not break them on purpose. If you know your option is reinforced by the hessitation it might be time to find alternatives.

Fluffy, on 2015-April-22, 04:33, said:

Does it matter? I can only think of a rote 3♦ or a more imaginative and probably better 3NT. Either way a secretary bird is going to pull me up about it. What do you suggest? Bid 2♦ instead? If that should somehow work to my advantage the dudes sitting opposite are still going to complain!!!

Quote

Perhaps you're experienced enough, clever enough or whatever to think all this through without producing an even longer pause than partner's original tank. What I am saying is that I cannot. It is not that I want to flout any laws, simply that with the best will in the world, I can only make the situation worse. So I bid what I first thought of and let others sort it out. I can do no better.

Certainly for any given hand you can think of what you would have bid without the BIT and what possible second choices are, don't you agree? And if you're not sure if the BIT suggests, fine, just bid as before. If it's clear that the BIT suggested your action and your second choice(s) is(are) not that unreasonable, you should take the same action.

Just a simple example. I had something like a 3334 18-count. My partner opened 2♣, which for us is Precision (10-14 points, 5+♣.) After I alerted, my partner made a loud disappointed noise, making it clear that he mixed up the systems, we had previously played 2♣ as both majors weak. I bid the normal-looking 2♦ relay and my partner bid 2♥ (his better major - according to our old system, promising 5♣+4♥ according to the real system). This was the time at which I could have chosen a conservative 3NT or gone on to investigate further. I don't know what I would have done absent the UI (we were playing pairs so I don't want to be in 5♣ and we always play 4NT as RKC when we have a fit) but I knew 3NT was more likely to be good for us. I just bid 6♣ to get it over with quickly, partner pulled to 6♣, and it went down 4 in peace (opps were kind enough not to X us). 3NT would not have made either but it would have had some chances.

3N for me, the spoiler doesn't change this

In unrelated news, I usually get mildly irritated if a non-beginner tanks after such an elementary auction, especially a tank pass. Tanking is not an infraction but it causes huge headaches for partner. You should have some simple rules of thumb according which you x, 1NT, 2♥, ...

In more related news, I would bid 3NT with or without the UI. I guess the proper bid with a good one-suited diamond hand is 2♥, but we likely don't have this agreement here. Partner's tank pass suggests that we will make 3NT but even if I bid 2NT (or even 1NT? but that isnt an LA for me) he'll raise me. I don't think bidding less than that (2♦, 3♦, ...) is reasonable. I know about our club stopper or lack thereof. too bad.

3NT, no second option.

gwnn, on 2015-April-22, 05:13, said:

If partners thought the same as I do, then I'd probably be able to work out what a BIT suggests. In practice I am rarely sure what a BIT suggests, if it indeed suggests anything at all. Often partners tank because of completely erroneous considerations or they've forgotten what we've agreed or whatever and reading anything into it (even for the opps) is just risking things on the basis what is at best a hunch. Taking time to try to work this all out (futilely) at the table is just a waste as far as I am concerned.

Possibly you all spend a lot of time on appeals committees and can work all this out. I can't (and if I can't, then I am sure there a lot more players who will just look at you blankly and smile).

Nick I think you afressed twice that you think hessitating yourself is bad. It is not. You have all your rights to hessitate 2 or 3 minutes after partner gives you UI. There wil be some time penalties applying later on, but nothing regarding this hand result.

I would bid 3NT without the BIT. And I would think that 3♦ is an LA.

What partner's BIT suggests obviously depends on the system. But it will typically suggest one of these 3 types of hands:

• a penalty pass (not very likely given our heart holding, but certainly possible, depending on West's "overcall style")
  
• a hand that is not good enough to bid 2♣
  
• a hand that wants to bid 1NT, but lacks a heart stop

In all three cases, we will normally get to 3NT whether I will bid 3NT or 3♦. If partner has a penalty pass, he will bid 3NT over my 3♦. If partner has one of the other two hands, he will ask whether I have a heart stop and I will bid 3NT. So, the difference between bidding 3♦ and 3NT is that after 3♦ partner will be declarer if he has a penalty pass.

So, the question is reduced to:
If partner has a penalty pass, is it better to play 3NT from my hand (I bid 3NT) then from partner's hand (I bid 3♦)?

Usually, it is better to put the overcaller on lead. That means that 3NT is demonstrably suggested over 3♦.

So, without the BIT I will bid 3NT and with the BIT I will bid 3♦.

Rik

Fluffy, on 2015-April-23, 01:50, said:

It matters when it causes unpleasantness - as it indeed does.

2d Way too much potential
3d Takes up too much exploration space and is not much more of a guess than 3n with less reward.
3n way too unilateral and can be researched by starting with

2h

The lack of a spade bid means less than 4 spades and the lack of x means something unusual. 2H shows the power of the hand while still leaving plenty of room for exploration. Normally such a bid is trying to find NT (and unable to bid it reasonably by themselves) rather than a suit so the bidding should probably be tailored to showing NT stopper(s) rather than worrying about distribution too much. If p was interested in your distribution they would normally x.

3d may indeed be the highest we can go and if 3n is right we will still get there via 2h. Not much downside less guesswork (bad news for control freaks). We still have the possibility of anything from 3d to 5d(slim) or 3n lets explore and see what is best.

3NT also.

In UI situations, sometimes it is really obvious what is suggested. In such a case, I will try to be ethical and choose another LA, if one exists. In other cases, it is not obvious, at least to me. In which case, I just do my best to bid honestly, and let the director sort it out.

I think this one falls under the latter case.

UA or not I rebid 3NT.

No LA to 3NT: 8 sure tricks and if West leads hearts, he may hand you the ninth -- if partner has a 0-count. No bridge player I know would play him to be that weak on this auction even if he had fast passed: they'd gamble on finding a useful queen or so.

Agree with Rik (as usual). Partners tank creates serious problems for us.

Was going to bid 3NT with break in tempo, don't really know what to do now. 3♦ feels strange with so many tricks. I don't really know what the pause suggests, probably lacking the values for a negative double/2C and has no heart stop.

As 1N shows 18-19 balanced, 2N shows this hand type almost exactly so I'd bid 2N. If partner has nothing we can play 3D or 2N, if partner has something he will bid 3N. I don't want to play 3N opposite nothing or almost nothing. They will lead their best black suit after a 3N balance obviously.

PhantomSac, on 2015-April-24, 11:41, said:

Yes, 2NT seems obvious and until I read your post I was wondering why nobody had mentioned it. 3♦ is a constructive call in this sequence but partner would not expect a 3♦bid to deliver all of a solid suit, a heart stop and a trick the side.