What means what?

[kenberg]

Ambiguity is a serious problem in bidding. Sometimes this is from lack of discussion, other times it seems hard to avoid. I am starting this thread hoping that we can provide examples and discuss them. Opinions are welcome, citations from the literature are welcome, example hands are welcome. I will reprise a couple of recent discussions here, and then, now or later, put in some others as new responses.

1. Uncontested auction
1 -  1
2 - 2NT
3
There seemed to be agreement that, as Todd put it, this is:  "I accept your invite, and oh by the way I have three spades."
So it is forcing, a choice of games bid, not a sign-off. This seems logical (to me) and so perhaps should be the meaning w/o discussion.


2. Compare two auctions, opponents opening 1 and raising to 2 :
A:

1      X    2     3


B:


1      X    2     X
Pass   3m  Pass   3

These are two different ways for fourth hand to bid 3 so presumably they show different holdings. I was stunned by how scant the literature seems to be on this, the situation is not rare. Jack posted a hand with the bots with auction A, and the self-alert was that 3 showed 6 to 12 total points. That puts the original doubler in a bad position. Pass opposite the upper range for +170 or bid 4 opposite the lower range for a minus score. I often find Mike Lawrence useful but I could not see a discussion of auction B in his Conventions disk, and only a brief mention in his book on doubles where he says that some play auction B as showing four hearts and modest values, auction A being stronger, but even after mentioning it he does not really say this is common or should be played that way. It seems to me that it should.


Ok, as mentioned, the above is a replay of earlier discussions but I hope for new examples along the same line, broadly speaking.

[kenberg]

The dreaded 4m call.

I will start with an example that I think is pretty clear cut, then move on.


P           P        1           1    
2      2      3            P
P         3        P             P
?

This is a pretty extreme case and surely 4 would be to play. I passed, which was both right and wrong. We can make 3 , they can make 3 , but we were vul so 4 X goes for 200. That makes the pass right. But others bid 4 , it was not doubled ad they were off 100.  Yes it was matchpoints. Had we not been vul I would have bid 4 , still only off 100 if doubled. So non-vul 4 is right, vul it's right when vul if you can put a hex on the opponents so that they do not double..



Now a more subtle case. Or at least I think it is more subtle.

The auction is uncontested.


1     2
2     3
3

The 2 was inverted, strong but not game forcing, the 3 was passable, announcing that the 2 was on good values bit not game forcing values. The 2 and 3 calls showed values in the bid suits.  What happens next?

Certainly if responder has values on he will next bid 3NT. Maybe opener will move on from there, maybe not, but if responder has as little as Kx I imagine he now bids 3NT.

But if he doesn't have Kx?   Are we in a game force yet? It seems that opener could have a hand where he can easily imagine 9 tricks in NT if responder can stop clubs, but still he has trouble seeing where 11 tricks are coming from if the hand is to be played in .


At the table I was opener and, over my 3 , partner bid 3 . Another of those good/bad things. In fact we can make 6 in our 4-3 fit, but that's extreme since we have a 10 card fit. We did reach 6 , simply by me bidding 6 over partner's 3 . It was a bit of a gamble.

Partner has a stiff . I am thinking 4 over my 3 would be right. I seem to be worried about , if I am worried about and partner has a stiff we can forget about 3NT, but I might well be interested in his shortness. We had 12 easy tricks, four spades, two hearts, six diamonds, once we get the lead. I had a big hand so I just gambled that the 2 had to be on something useful.  More lucky than scientific.  Possibly his 3 was a good bid, suggesting that if slam isn't there then maybe we should play 4 in our 4-3 fit. On some hands that might have been the right call. And even here, 6 is a fine contract.

[Masse24]

The auction is uncontested.


1     2
2     3
3

The 2 was inverted, strong but not game forcing, the 3 was passable, announcing that the 2 was on good values bit not game forcing values. The 2 and 3 calls showed values in the bid suits.  What happens next?

Certainly if responder has values on he will next bid 3NT. Maybe opener will move on from there, maybe not, but if responder has as little as Kx I imagine he now bids 3NT.

An observation about the 3 call. Assuming a fairly standard inverted minors structure (yes, there are many), responder does not have a four card major. A frequently used method is to bid stoppers up the line, at least up to either 2NT, or to 3m (3m is, I believe, BWS). I know it's not universal, and there are many inverted minors structures used.

My question is, why 2 first, rather than 2 ? Also, the 3M call, in whichever order, obviously shows extras. Certainly enough to play in game opposite 10 HCP. But game at what level? 3NT or 4-level? Or unequivocally game? Can we stop in 4m?

Here is where having some good meta-agreements in place helps. While I am not a proponent of the "never play in 4 of a minor" school, I think here, playing this as a GF works just fine, based on the previous auction. But I would be fine if partner wanted to play that 4m now may be passed. It requires having that conversation.

If you want to play that 4m can be passed--and if you want more--don't bid 4m!

[kenberg]

I agree that this is a tricky case, there are arguments both for and against being able to get out in 4 . Even in some 2/1 systems an exception is made that if  3NT is unplayable then at least some auctions can end in 4m. I don't play these exceptions exactly because I think it is too tough to sort out exactly when they apply and it is a disaster if there is a misunderstanding. And, on the given auction after his 3 , as with most partnerships, it was far from clear to me that we had an agreement.

A side note: Some like to play that 1 - 2 is game forcing. That definitely would not have helped here, since partner does not have a game forcing hand, as shown by his bidding 2 and then 3 (passable) . So if 2 were gf, he would have to do whatever the agreement was to show a decent but not gf hand. For many that would be 3 , and this crowds the auction.  With our actual auction of 1 - 2 - 2 - 3!D - 3 I was able to show extra values, controls in both majors, and a worry about . If partner had had to start with 1 - 3 I could not have done all of that.

As to why I bid 2 the answer is that I did not give it a lot of thought but it probably worked out for the best. Partner bid 3 , showing that he did not have gf values then I bid 3 and this left room for partner to bid 3 . On some hand s this might be useful. As noted, we can make 6 . But on other hands where my values are  more modest, and our length is less extreme, a 4 contract might be just what we want. A strong 4-3 fit, and ten tricks would do it. I would not say that I thought all that through. My shape was 4=3=4=2 and, 4 could be right with that shape. As it happened, pard was 3=3=6=1 with good spades so even at mps we probably want to be in 6 since in it is at least possible that there is a ruff at T1 or a high and then a ruff.

Pard had only a 9 count, not a 10 count, but with six diamonds and a stiff club I am fine with the 2 call.

I do think that there is something to be said for him bidding 4 over my 3 !h since with my bidding (showing controls in the majors and implicitly denying a control in clubs) he might reason that we will be playing in and that his singleton might be of great interest to me. He could say, to himself, hey, I have six diamonds and pard opened a diamond, we are playing in diamonds, I will bid 4 as a second round control.

But I started this thread to talk through some of these things, I am far from convinced as to just what is right.

[wackojack]

The first thing I noticed when I started playing in the iac was that almost universally players had "invm" on their profile.  Back in my Acol years very few played this convention and would tend to improvise on the rare occasions that responder had (a) no major to bid, (b) could not bid a number of no trumps, and (c) was stronger than a natural 3 level raise.  Nowdays I do recognise the need to have "invm" in my repertoire and in the absence of any discussion to the contrary, I would go with Max Hardy in "Bridge for the 21st Century" where he says that if you have stops in both majors, then you bid no trumps unless you have a singleton club when the splinter bid of 3  describes this hand. 

So after 1 - 2 , 2 - 3  - 3  I would be mystified.  I could only assume either (a) partner had something like  Jxx and was looking for something like  Qx in partner's hand or perhaps (b) partner has 6 s and 5   . 

Ken, you say that your actual distribution was 4342 and presumably you had 18-19HCP.  I confess that if I had this hand I would not care if my clubs were a low doubleton.  I would still happily bid 3NT.  It would now be up to the hand with 3361 and 9HCP to decide where to go next.  This raises questions.  What would bids of 4   4 4  , 4  be showing? 4 =A  ?  4    = Ace of that suit denying a lower ranking ace?  And most contentious 4  = minorwood?     

[kenberg]

Here are the exact hands:


: QT9
: K62
: QJ9743
: J



: AKJ4
: A73
: AKT8
: T3

You can imagine I was a bit excited after 1 - 2 .  Slam seemed like a good bet, but there is this problem. (In NT they can take the first 7 tricks.)
 After 1 - 2 - 2 - 3 (passable) I grew more cautious but still interested. As to what means what, partner and I have had no long discussions about inverted minors, and without discussion I treat bids as natural. So 3 . I figure this shows hearts. And 2 showed spades. So, if he has Kx of , I suppose he will bid 3NT. Among the merits, if he does have Kx any NT contract will be played from the right side, and, when he does not bid 3NT I figure he does not have Kx.

As mentioned, I figure my next bid was pretty bad. I just figured he had to have something and bid 6 . My guardian angel was watching over me. It had an interesting effect. My Lho held the A but I guess she figured if I could bid 6 without hearing from partner I must have the K and so she led a , the Q. There are still only 12 tricks but when it came down to the end she was in a pseudo squeeze and had to pitch her A to guard the . She did.

It is true that there are different ways of handling the auction after 1 - 2 . For example, BWS plays 1 -2 -2NT as natural and forcing. I think that there is something to be said for this, but not everyone plays it that way. I think the bots treat that 2NT as passable. Inverted minor raises tarted out, so I understand, with Kaplan-Sheinwold.  They played weak NT so 1 was either on 15+ if balanced, or else there was shape. This changes things.  I haven't checked this history but I think it is right. As to Max Hardy, when I first started playing duplicate a partner gave me Five Card Majors, Western Style. A jolt for someone who learned bridge by reading Goren.

So I like having pard bid 4 over my 3 , but I can see the point of 3 . He did say that if I ever bid again after his 3 he was going to raise to 6. I think cueing !c is easier.

[wackojack]

What stands out  for me, Ken, in your bidding sequence is that you made yourself captain.  Yet you were not able to ascertain partner's clubs holding.  Could partner have held,  Q109,  KQ,  QJ9743,  Q2.  12 points?  You might say no, because after 1 -2  - 2  partner would bid 2NT to show a heart stop and not 3  , ignoring the weak position in clubs.  Nevertheless, as you said you were uncertain about clubs. 

Instead as opener, why not rebid 3NT showing a balanced hand with 18-19 points?  Partner will then become the captain.  The issue now is what should partner bid next?  I believe that 4  has to be Minorwood.  (The rule being, that it is Minorwood when it is an unlimited hand is asking a limited hand)  Best I believe to be keycard and not ace asking say 0314 but could be 1430.   Then the bidding would go:
1  -  2  "invm"
3NT (18-19 bal) -  4  (minorwood)
4  (4)  -  6  . 

This bidding is not watertight.  Opener could easily have  Axxx,    Axx,    AKxx,  Kx and 6  has no hope.  So back to the drawing board.

Responder has to find out if partner has the K  .  So we have to continue with a hopefully agreed asking sequence where next suit up asks for Q  and the 2nd suit up is a specific King ask.  So we bid the 2nd step 4NT asking "Do you have a side suit King?  If so bid it and if not bid 5  .   Opener bids 5 which is what you want to hear and lo and behold you can count 12 tricks and bid 6  .

OK this needs a very experienced partnership but is does demonstrate that using firm bidding principles and very detailed slam bidding agreements you can bid the slam with confidence.                                   

[kenberg]

Certainly Icaptained myself when I bid 6 , a bad bid no doubt that just luckily worked out.  The possible holding for partner of  Q109,  KQ,  QJ9743,  Q2 is one that I have been thinking of. I assume he would pass if the auction went 1 - 2 - 3NT, he has help in all the side suits and a minimum for his 2 call. They would presumably take the first 5 tricks. At matchpoints, there is something to be said for playing 4 . If spades are no worse than 4-2, and there is a good chance that we score 650, beating those in 5 . Of course could be 3-0.  At any rate we don't want to be in 3NT.

At the point of 1 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 I think of this as still a back and forth auction, not a captained one. There has been an exchange of information. I have a strong hand with stops in the majors, partner has a hand that is strong enough for 2 but not strong enough to force to game over my 2 . Now at some point someone has to decide on the final contract. If he does not, over 3 , bid 3NT then we can decide that NT is out, the question is how high to play in ? If I learn of the stiff , then I am prepared to assume captaincy and bid 6 . When I don't hear about the stiff then there is still work to be done. Should we play in or and how high?  Responder will not always have six diamonds, not always have a stiff club and, for that matter, opener could be 4=4=3=2. There will be times when the contract belongs in 4 .  Anyway, jumping to 6 was a lucky guess but up until then I think a mutual exchange of values is better than either person taking over as captain. That's my view on most hands. Eventually someone has to decide, but early no we bid our values, as does partner.

We were not playing minorwood. I see it as a convention that requires more care than many. For example, if we have agreed to play minorwood we would have to decide whether 1 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 4 is minorwood.  As a first approximation, it has seemed to me that  1 - 2 - 2 - 4 would be minorwood, but 1 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 4 maybe not. Not being sure, I don't play it.

But this is "what means what", so that fits right in.

[jcreech]

Ken,

I'm a bit confused about why a pseudo squeeze would be necessary. 

Here are the exact hands:


: QT9
: K62
: QJ9743
: J



: AKJ4
: A73
: AKT8
: T3

With these two hands, it looks like all you need is no worse than 3-0 diamonds and no defensive ruff on trick two.  After pulling trump, a heart goes on the long spade, and now a heart is ruffed in the short hand.

As for the bidding, if you cannot get partner to cooperate, the final contract is a guess.  On the auction with 2 over 2 , I would bid 3 over 3 , and 5 over any bids other than a cue bid or 3NT.  Hopefully, partner can infer that I am looking for a club control for slam and will bid it with a stiff. 

However, since I am probing for a slam, not 3NT, I would bid 2 over 2 and continue with 3 over 3 , so that partner would not worry about 1st round control of hearts and better placed to see this as a slam exploration rather than an attempt to find 3NT.  The previous auction (showing the bulky spades) feels more like trying to get to 3NT or perhaps play in the Moysian spades.

With the actual hand, if partner does not bid slam, I will mark him/her in my mind as having no bridge imagination and either work to help them develop some or mastermind a bit to help compensate (e.g., bid 6 and cross my fingers).

[kenberg]

In 6 , after the lead, any ruff of a would be in dummy with the long suit, still leaving me with 4+2+6=12 tricks.

As to whether I should bid first 2 and then 3 or the other way around, the first answer is that I really didn't think it through. In retrospect, there could possibly be a reason for first , although I don't feel strongly about it and it doesn't match with what I subsequently did. After the inverted raise, I don't know that partner has six diamonds and I don't know he has a stiff club, so it might not be crazy to bid spades then hearts to see if he takes a  preference to spades.  But that logic only makes sense if, after he does take that preference, I bid 4 which I didn't do. There were a lot of pairs playing 5 making 6 so 4 making 6 would have been a good matchpoint score. Not as good as 6 making 6, but good.

I think, after I bid both majors, if I then bid 5 partner could raise to 6 with his singleton . He said that he planned to do that. So that certainly would have been the better auction. And, if I was not planning on bidding 4 after first spades, then hearts, and partner's support of spades, then yes, I think first hearts, then spades is probably better. For one thing, after 3 , he does not have a lot of options so 4 seems likely. And, following that logic to its conclusion, I guess he could reason that on the given auction after 3 I must be interested in his spade holding or I would not have bid it that way.

Bidding as I did, I had not yet decided for sure what I would do if partner bid 3NT over my 3 . Probably 4NT, which I assume would be inviting 6, rather than rkc. Maybe 4NT is optimistic after partner showed minimal values with his 3 . I had not decided. Of course with his actual hand I was spared the need to decide to raise NT.

Back for a moment to 1 - 2 - 2M(whichever) - 3 . This is passable. When I don't pass, we are presumably forced to the level of at least 3NT but, when NT is unplayable, as it is, then I am not o sure we should be forced to 5 .  Eg 1 - 2 - 2M(whichever) - 3 - 4 ? Invitational to 5 or forcing, trying for 6? I'm inclined toward invitational. Surely if partner wants to try for 6 he has some other suit he can cue over 3 . But what means what? Or maybe that 4 !Dis minorwood. As I say, I don't play minorwood. With most partners I ahve sorted out when Gerber is on, when it is off, and minorwood seems to require a similar effort. Useful no doubt.

PS We have company, kids, grandkids, other relatives, coming tomorrow, some for a week, so if you don't see me online it's a temporary situation.

[jcreech]

Never mind - I was only looking for 12 tricks, not 13.  My bad.

[kenberg]

Board 15 in the USBC today, 5th set I think, was an interesting example of both what means what and who should do what. 
Red against white, S has a 16 point NT opener (playing 14-16). N had a 4-1-7-1 shape, the being something like Txxx and the AJ9xxxx.   

At one table:

1NT - Pass -  3 - 3
X

Ok, the 3 showed , the 3 was natural. The double? Ambitious I think, but he had his max, he had AKJ, and he had xx. So he does not think much of playing in , and thinks he can beat 3 .  Well, they can, but just barely. They get one (the KQT is in dummy), and of course three , and they can get a trick, at least if they get going on it. But N worried and so pulled to 4 . Now  W  got ambitious and doubled 4 when it came around to him. +710 for NS. The contracts were all over the place, one was 5 off 2 for -500 (some right choices have to be made to bring in 10 tricks, there is no hope for 11). Doubles by the NT opener at the 2 level are generally not for penalty, I was a little surprised that it was for penalty at the 3 level but from the holing I gather it was. If the 3 bidder had a void instead of the stiff T they might  not beating this or even worse if partner's 3 is on seven cards to the KJ9 instead if seven to the AJ9..

[wackojack]

I don't expect to convert readers here to minorwood, but for the sake of completeness I will try and define when a bid of 4 or 4 should be regarded as minorwood. 

ALL of these conditions must apply:

(i) A bid that would be a slam try even if not playing minorwood
(ii) A bid made by an unlimited hand or already declared max limited opposite a limited hand.
(iii) The trump suit is agreed or implied agreed

In your auction:
1 (unlimited)      2 (unlimited suit agreed unless overridden later by no trumps)
2M (Unlimited)        3  (Limited)
4  Suit agreed

Whether or not this is minorwood depends on whether or not you view 4  as passable. I tend to agree with you Ken that it is passable and so cannot be minorwood.  However, if you have agreed to play minorwood and have also agreed say that you cannot pass a 4m bid, then this bid would be minorwood because it then becomes a slam try by an unlimited hand asking a limited hand with the trump suit agreed. 

As I said in an earlier post I think it it a good principle that opener limits his hand with his 2nd bid wherever possible. So opener's rebid should be 3NT.  Yes this uses up bidding room but is descriptive giving partner a good chance of judging where to go next.


 

Board 15 in the USBC today, 5th set I think, was an interesting example of both what means what and who should do what. 
Red against white, S has a 16 point NT opener (playing 14-16). N had a 4-1-7-1 shape, the being something like Txxx and the AJ9xxxx.   

At one table:

1NT - Pass -  3 - 3
X

Ok, the 3 showed , the 3 was natural. The double? Ambitious I think, but he had his max, he had AKJ, and he had xx. So he does not think much of playing in , and thinks he can beat 3 .  Well, they can, but just barely. They get one (the KQT is in dummy), and of course three , and they can get a trick, at least if they get going on it. But N worried and so pulled to 4 . Now  W  got ambitious and doubled 4 when it came around to him. +710 for NS. The contracts were all over the place, one was 5 off 2 for -500 (some right choices have to be made to bring in 10 tricks, there is no hope for 11). Doubles by the NT opener at the 2 level are generally not for penalty, I was a little surprised that it was for penalty at the 3 level but from the holing I gather it was. If the 3 bidder had a void instead of the stiff T they might  not beating this or even worse if partner's 3 is on seven cards to the KJ9 instead if seven to the AJ9..

In this case the 3!c bid just shows a long diamond suit.  Therefore  when opps come in with 3  and opener doubles it cannot be for take out.  It just says "As far as I can tell I think 3  can be defeated comfortably"

[kenberg]

I don't doubt that minorwood is useful. I do think it requires some extensive discussion, probably written down so it can be reviewed from time to time.

As to that double not being for takeout for takeout, I more or less agree. The fact that, as you say, the 3 simply shows long diamonds is where my skepticism arises. In this case, responder has the A and that's a critical trick. Transferring to does not really show any strength at all, and what ever strength there is is probably concentrated in a long suit where it might not be very useful. responder knows far more about opener's strength than opener does about responder's strength and so, to me, it seems reasonable that if 3 is to be doubled, responder should do the doubling. When he does it, he announce that he believes he has useful defensive strength. When open doubles 3 , he really is announcing he can set it on his own since responder has not promised any defensive values at all.


So 3 goes down and 4 makes, it's all very close. In the case of 4 , the key is how he plays the . He leads a small from the board toward his AJ9xxxx and sees  a small card from his Rho [I mistakenly said the doubler had KQT, he had KQx which actually causes more of a problem]. Declarer makes his contract if he puts in the J, dropping the stiff T, and goes down if he puts in the 9, losing to the stiff T. He chose correctly.

These were really close doubles! I doubt I would ever double the 3 , either for take-out or for penalties, but I guess I agree that penalties is (slightly) less crazy. And it seems at least possible that the double of 4 helped declarer make it.