[han]

Hand 6. All red, matchpoints.

AKJxxx Jxxx A Ax

(p) - p - (2C*) - Dbl
(p**) - p - (2D) - ??

* = weak with diamonds or strong.
** = suggestion to play 2CX.

a) Do you agree with the double?
b) What is your call now?

[hrothgar]

(a) Seems a bit weak for double then spades, but there is always the hope that partner shows hearts.
Sure, why not...

(b) I bid 2♠

[Phil]

a) Yes

b) 2♠

I know this multi 2♣ is very common in NE (and Iceland as I’ve seen), but I don’t like it in a bidding contest. It seems you could have just presented this as what would you do over a weak 2♦?

I suppose the 1st double is fine, and I guess I can assume that we use a similar defense to a multi 2♦, so doubling and bidding a new suit shows a good hand. My second choice is a direct 3♠, but I like the idea of trying to get partner to bid hearts.

[mgoetze]

 Phil, on 2011-May-31, 12:13, said:

I know this multi 2♣ is very common in NE (and Iceland as I’ve seen), but I don’t like it in a bidding contest.

Uhm, why not? Surely the contest should not stipulate that we are playing some weird methods (and the multi defense from a previous hand almost qualifies if you ask me ), but opponents' methods are fair game if you ask me.

[Phil]

 mgoetze, on 2011-May-31, 12:35, said:

Uhm, why not? Surely the contest should not stipulate that we are playing some weird methods (and the multi defense from a previous hand almost qualifies if you ask me ), but opponents' methods are fair game if you ask me.

Fair game? Maybe.

A good problem for an international bidding contest? I don't think so.

Perhaps The_Hog can put together a group of problems where we get to cope with Moscito and Ferts.

[mike777]

1) no but it is very close
2) 2s second choice 3s.

[hrothgar]

 Phil, on 2011-May-31, 12:55, said:

A good problem for an international bidding contest? I don't think so.

American exceptionalism requires that the world treat us as the lowest common denominator!

[awm]

Without giving my votes (I'm on the panel), I want to comment that hands like this one and Hand 4 depend a lot on what your agreed defense is to multi-type methods. While I don't have any problem including these sorts of hands (multi is common internationally and even in top-flight US events), there are really two different issues to be determined and it might be helpful to distinguish between them. These are:

(1) What is your preferred defense to these methods / how would you bid assuming your preferred defense? Certainly this might be worthy of discussion and perhaps if there's a commonly agreed defense it could be added to BBO advanced.

(2) Assuming some particular commonly played defense, what bid would you make on the hand in question? These openings can definitely lead to "judgment" issues, but I think in these cases it would be helpful to specify what is the defense that we are playing?

Without knowing what's going on with the above issues, it can be hard to answer the question. For example, on this hand we apparently doubled 2♣. What did that show? With what sort of hand would we expect partner to bid over 2♦ (or here, 2♣X) given our double? A little guidance here would've been helpful.

[Echognome]

a) Yes, but depends on agreements.

b) 2♠. It obviously depends somewhat on my agreements, but I am assuming that my agreements are somewhat similar to over a multi 2♦, so that double and bid shows a good hand.

[whereagles]

Dbl is ok. Since pard didn't make a move, I'll just bury the hearts and bid 3♠ now, which seems more like pard with respect to our playing strength.

[paulg]

 Phil, on 2011-May-31, 12:55, said:

A good problem for an international bidding contest? I don't think so.

Naturally almost everyone interested in this poll is a competitive person who wants to do well. In that context every problem that requires some system agreement that is not detailed in BBO Advanced creates a problem.

But I quite like the odd problem like this. It gives the posters, and panellists, the opportunity to describe their preferred methods and what they would do without prior agreement. What they expect 'expert standard' to be. And, in return, you can all laugh at the panellists' answers.

[mfa1010]

 Phil, on 2011-May-31, 12:55, said:

Fair game? Maybe.

A good problem for an international bidding contest? I don't think so.

Perhaps The_Hog can put together a group of problems where we get to cope with Moscito and Ferts.

Hopefully this contest is mostly for fun and for all of us to learn something, so I don't mind at all problems where we are dealing with unusual systems and situations.

Btw. my partnership agreement against this 2♣ opening is:
X = Takeout of diamonds
2♦ = Michaels cuebid, 5-5 majors
3♦ = Natural preemptive
2♣-X-2♦-X is penalty
Lebensohl applies after 2♣-X-2♦

[cherdano]

Even when we made agreements for how to defend this 2♣, from here one we will probably work on general principles - is X-X-bid stronger than X-bid, or just more flexible? Whatever it means, do we double again to try to find the 4-4 heart fit? Most partnerships won't have discussed this explicitly, so it's up to our judgment which sequence is most likely to produce the best outcome.
Anyway, it's not like our defense is something strange, and the questions we have to answer are pretty normal: is this hand good enough for double and bid? (I vote yes.) Should we double again, or bid our spade suit now? (I vote 2S.)
I guess it's an interesting question whether it might be better to double a second time with the same shape and strength if our major suit strength was tilted more towards hearts.

[Fluffy]

2♠, I would had bid 2♠ before

I think any bid made over this opening must be based on solid srenght, and you should shut up with preemptive hands. I don't think we have enough extras to double 2♣, we have a maximum 2♠ but that's all. In my dreams I would double something that comes back and show m hand pretty well.

So I doubled... it is time to show my spades! This already shows a very good hand, can't imagine bidding anything else. The aces in the minors ain't that great.

[Free]

Dbl is ok, then 2♠. We lack power but we have distribution. After Doubling first, there no real alternative than 2♠ imo.

[Phil]

 mfa1010, on 2011-June-01, 05:50, said:

Hopefully this contest is mostly for fun and for all of us to learn something, so I don't mind at all problems where we are dealing with unusual systems and situations.

I know, but I have the opportunity to give crap back to Han. BBF karma demands it!

[mfa1010]

 Phil, on 2011-June-01, 08:46, said:

I know, but I have the opportunity to give crap back to Han. BBF karma demands it!

[P_Marlowe]

yes and 3S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

Hand 6. All red, matchpoints.

AKJxxx Jxxx A Ax

(p) - p - (2C*) - Dbl
(p**) - p - (2D) - ??

* = weak with diamonds or strong.
** = suggestion to play 2CX.

a) Do you agree with the double?
b) What is your call now?

Adam: Yes, 2S.
Josh: No, direct 2S
Fred: Yes, 2S
Nigel: Yes, 2S
Andy: No, direct 3S
Justin, Yes, 2S
Roger: Yes, Double
Vincent: No, 2S
Hanoi: Yes, Double
Frances: Yes, 2S
Gonzalo: No, 2S
Ben: Yes, 2S
Michael: Yes, Pass
Paul: Yes, 2S


Vincent: No, prefer 2S. It's a maximum, but I prefer to tell pd where my strenght is as soon as pssoible after preempts.

Gonzalo: No, I would have bid 2S before. I think any bid made over this opening must be based on solid strenght, and you should shut up with preemptive hands. I don't think we have enough extras to double 2C, we have a maximum 2S but that's all. In my dreams I would double something that comes back and show my hand pretty well.

Andy: No. I prefer either 3S, or pass planning to bid 3S - whichever shows a strong one-suiter in spades. Double is a bit risky, because it tells LHO that opener has the weak hand, so it's safe for him to preemept.

Josh also doesn't agree and bids 2S. The rest of the panel agrees with the initial double, although some comment that other options are reasonable as well. Let's hear from the doublers.

Adam: Agree with double. 2S now. Obviously everything is a matter of agreement in these auctions, but it seems common to play double includes all strong hands. This hand qualifies. A second double is possible, but there is a pretty big discrepancy in the suit qualities and I'd rather treat this as a "big hand with primary spades" than a "big hand with both majors."

Frances: (a) Yes, assuming this initially showed a take-out double of diamonds. (Recommended defence to this 2C opening: 2D both majors, double t/o of diamonds, 3D pre-emptive, 3M strong, 2NT natural and strong, pass then double 2D weak-NT-type hand.)

(b) 2S, showing a hand that was too strong (and/or had too many hearts) to overcall 2S last round. To be honest I'm struggling to see any alternative, and the hand has got worse when partner has implied some club length.

Three panelists don't follow up with 2S, but with different bids and for different reasons.

Hanoi: I agree with the first double and would repeat the same bid. I have a very good hand and although I have a nice suit, hearts are not to be dismissed.

Roger: Yes, we have too much to just overcall. Then double looks a little weird, but if LHO has short diamonds we are in good shape to collect a number. We don't really have enough to strongly suggest that we can make game either, so +200 or +500 might still be a good score.

Michael: (a)Yes. But 2S would be fair enough also.
(b) Pass. Hopefully partner has a sense of humour... It looks like he will have both minors here. I can't double on my own - too speculative. When we have penalized one suit (here clubs) then subsequent doubles are also penalty. Pass is not forcing, but selling to 2D undoubled could be ok if partner is very weak and misfitted.

Making a takeout double seems more attractice than passing if double is penalty. Partner may not have enough strength to double for penalty and +100 will likely be a bad score.

Scores:

Part a:
Yes = 50 (10)
No = 20 (4)

Part b:
2S = 50 (11)
Double = 20 (2)
Pass = 10 (1)

[han]

Phil already sent me several of his suggestions per email. I don't mind, he has good points. On the other hand, this is what pretty much everybody in the Netherlands plays. Nobody plays weak 2D here, and you can't easily convert this problem to a weak 2D problem.

In retrospect I like hand 7 best, a hand that is all about judgement and not about system. Onward!