[rhm]

Matchpoints, no special agreements

---

Do you agree with East second Pass?
What do you bid now?
Would your decision be different at IMPs?

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

-Yes
- Pass, if i am making 3 NT i wanna see how they are making more than 6-7 tricks in red.
- I am not sure but i'd probably pass again

I knw this will be minority

[Endymion77]

1) Yes
2) Pass
3) Pass again

[fromageGB]

Yes pass no
Bidding anything looks bad. Hearts are superficially tempting, but ruffing with openers' means that I have trumps to lose, as mine are terrible. NT is possible, but unless North has no entry - doubtful at the vulnerability - we are loads off.

On general "law" analysis, we may have a couple of 8 card fits and they a 9 card fit, so bidding higher is not attractive. Anybody at the 4 level is likely to go 2 off.

Another factor is that in the absence of agreements, partner may well have a strong balanced hand with a couple of spades, and passing stands to gain a big score at any type of bridge.

[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2013-September-18, 06:56, said:

-Yes
- Pass, if i am making 3 NT i wanna see how they are making more than 6-7 tricks in red.
- I am not sure but i'd probably pass again

I knw this will be minority

Well partner could easily have x, KQx, Axx, AKJxxx, ♥4-2, ♣2-1, K♠ standing up, 11 tricks in ♣/NT, 3♠X-1. N has bid a red v green 3♠ opposite a passed hand, his hand could be pretty shapely, I wouldn't be surprised if he was something like 7240 and you really don't have a lot of defence in that case.

[ggwhiz]

Yes and I'm passing

Not a sure thing but a diamond lead could produce a 2nd trump trick via a ruff or promotion and if partner has a classic 1-4-4-4 shape we are unlikely to make anything or the number will be large enough to cover it.

[MrAce]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-18, 08:46, said:

Well partner could easily have x, KQx, Axx, AKJxxx, ♥4-2, ♣2-1, K♠ standing up, 11 tricks in ♣/NT, 3♠X-1. N has bid a red v green 3♠ opposite a passed hand, his hand could be pretty shapely, I wouldn't be surprised if he was something like 7240 and you really don't have a lot of defence in that case.

Well...pd could easily have this...well pd could have that...If you are going to play this constructing hands game at least do me a favour and make correct analysis of tricks for defense, or if you will construct hands to make a point, construct ones that actually supports your concern.



♦ lead or ♦ shift at some point leads to +500. and other one with 7240 leads to +200

I dunno what ♠ K standing up" means but please don't tell me, after you construct a hand for pd, and for opponents in an effort to make passing look bad, you also placed my LHO with ♠ A

[rhm]

While a deal proves nothing, you start questioning your judgment when you receive a poor result:

The actual deal

---

Kudos to GGWHIZ, who foresaw the need of a diamond lead to get a diamond ruff.
I eventually let a mundane club and when partner ducked this 3♠ doubled made, while 4♥ is on for us.
Not that taking the ♣A and switching to a low diamond at trick 2 is anything but obvious from West point of view.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2013-September-18, 16:10, said:

Well...pd could easily have this...well pd could have that...If you are going to play this constructing hands game at least do me a favour and make correct analysis of tricks for defense, or if you will construct hands to make a point, construct ones that actually supports your concern.



♦ lead or ♦ shift at some point leads to +500. and other one with 7240 leads to +200

I dunno what ♠ K standing up" means but please don't tell me, after you construct a hand for pd, and for opponents in an effort to make passing look bad, you also placed my LHO with ♠ A

K♠ standing up means it will win.

Yes if you switch to a diamond early enough you get your ruff but in the real world you won't as in fact happened with the real hand.

(To rhm) Which club was led ? Was it obvious you didn't have the Q ? Could declarer have had AQJxxxx, xxx, xx, x, now you've just telescoped 7 tricks to 5 with the A♣ and low diamond switch.

[the_clown]

At MP I would pass, at IMPS I am torn between 4♥/5♣. Partner would X with any hand with shortness and a 4-3♥ fit would not play well with this poor trumps. Of course it depends who are my opponents, if they are known to be particularly aggressive I may choose to pass even at IMPs.

[jdeegan]

As the lone 4♣ bidder, I was not really surprised at the actual hand. Partner figures to hold four hearts to reopen at this level. Partner figures to have more clubs than diamonds. That leaves room for how many spades? My heart ace is gold. My spade king is dreck. My diamond jack is better than a deuce. I don't want the cheese at this point. I just want out of the trap.

There is a LOTT application here. They figure to have 10 spades less one negative adjustment for my spade king. We should have nine clubs. The probable 4-4 heart fit adds nothing playing in clubs. That comes to (only) 18 total tricks, more or less - 19 if partner has a spade void. This prospect makes me a pessimist, so I bid 4 clubs rather than 4 hearts.

[ArtK78]

I am late at arriving to this thread.

When I first saw the OP, my initial thought was to bid 4♥. I am a firm believer in the principal that takeout doubles should be taken out. But I knew from reading these Fora that there would be a strong vote for passing 3♠x, as it has become fashionable to play for the set on these types of hands. And that is not a disparagement - often you will get a plus score by passing out the double, and sometimes it will be the only plus score available.

Sure enough, the passes started rolling in. Mr Ace said he was passing, and added a less than precient "I know this will be minority." Others piled on in posts, and the result of the voting so far is a substantial majority for passing.

This is not a disparagement to those who chose to pass, and I am not even saying that they are wrong on a significant number of similar bidding situations. But, rightly or wrongly, I would have taken out the double, and as long as I am taking out the double I do so by bidding 4♥, as that is what partner expects me to do with 4 hearts. I have already seen the results of the voting and the posts, so I know that this is a minority position.

Cyberyeti suggested that passing was dangerous, or, at least, not the winning action, but he did not go so far as to say what he would do.

All in all, an interesting discussion. I have not yet been convinced that passing is the right action in these situations, but there certainly are many who think that it is.

One further point. This situation is fundamentally different from an opening 3♠ bid on your right, followed by two passes and a reopening double by partner. If double is partner's first action, he could easily have a strong balanced hand. However, an opening bid by partner followed by 3♠ on your right, pass, pass, double, is much different. Unless you play weak NTs, the chances of partner having a strong NT type of hand are virtually zero, and the chances that he has a more traditional takeout double shape are much higher.