ok, but next time?

[kenberg]

A hand arose when playing with the bots that worked out ok, but brought up several questions that I am still wondering about. The full deal in a minute but first I will give you my partner's hand:

: AT986
: Void
: KT984
: K64

Matchpoints, white against red, dealer on your left opens 1 , partner doubles, and your Rho bids 2 . What to do and what means what? My robotic partner made a responsive double and then, after my 3 , bid 4 which I think is just nuts. I think that auction should show game-forcing values but uncertainty about spades, inviting me to bid 5m if I have a weak four card suit (I do) or perhaps doubled with only a three card suit as sometimes is the case. Fortunately I decided to look at the bot's alerts, something I don't usually do since it seems un-bridge-like, and passed.

But looking at just your hand, maybe we should be in 6 ? Not this time, but sometime? Or, perhaps this hand could be strengthened lust a bit and then you want to try for a slam? If you bid 3 over 2 , surely partner will bid 3NT if he stops , and then you could correct to 4 and he would get the message. But for a slam, you probably don't want partner's values wasted in the suit. Maybe jumping to 4 over 2 is the way to make a slam try in spades. Partner, with his double, hasn't exactly bid spades, but I rarely double unless I have at least three, and most people see it the same way.

http://tinyurl.com/yxujwzew

As you can see, I have the mostly worthless A, my trumps are four small, my point count is minimal, and the split 3-1. Making 4 is still easy, so it is reasonable to think that had I held a more suitable hand then we might have had a good play for 6 .

So the question, or one question out of several I can think of, is how N could explore for a slam. I do think that it is reasonable for 4 over 2 to show something like this, but whether it would be understood is another matter.

Added: Partner's alert of the responsive double says that it shows 4+ which is not what I think of as the standard meaning, so maybe in that case his auction is not totally weird, but I still think that it is pretty weird.

[Masse24]

Before clicking the link and looking at your hand, the first bid I thought of was 4 . So yes, I think it's reasonable. Opposite a human, I would expect it to be understood.
I do not play with bots, so have no clue how a bot would interpret the jump.

[kenberg]

The bots come in for a lot of criticism but usually I find them to be reasonable. There are exceptions and I think this is one of them. I posted this hand on the general BBIO thread and barmar, who is part of the BBO team, said that there was some discussion seven years ago as to just how to play responsive doubles and this is what they came to.

A place where I think a responsive double makes sense with four cards in the major we are seeking is when the auction begins 1 - X - 2 . In this case, when fourth hand has four , it would be useful to have two ways of bidding 3 , either with a direct bid of 3 or a slower 3 , starting with the responsive double and then correcting the expected 3m to 3 . I think the latter should be the weaker way, but no doubt others reverse this. Even in this case, the responsive double does not, in my opinion, show four , it might simply be looking for 3m, but it might have four hearts. That can be useful, it seems.

But I do not see the usefulness of 1 - X - 2 - X as showing 4+ . We already have 2 and 3 available for that purpose.  It seems even a jump to 4 on a four card holding is reasonable given enough strength. With that sort of strength, partner is unlikely to have such a strong hand that he really only has a single suit in one of the minors but had too much strength to simply overcall. I suppose I can maybe sort of see using the responsive double followed by 4 with a strong hand and four spades to say "I have values for game but only four spades so do as you think best" but I am not sure even that is needed. And then the responsive double doesn't promise four spades, it just might have four. I really think a responsive double followed by 4 should be short hearts and a strong three card holding, asking partner to make whatever he thinks is the best choice. A 4 contract in a 4-3 tit might be just fine if the suit is strong.

So really, I don't get it here. A responsive double promising four . Why?

Generally I think that "bot standard" is a decent approach when playing pick-up. Most of it is pretty straightforward, it's brief but still covers typical situations. At pick-up, a system doesn't have to be optimal, but brevity and clarity is good, But I really do not understand it in this case. It's a weird usage of the responsive double and I don't see the point of it.

Here is another case where the bots and I see things differently: After three passes I open 1 , it goes 1 - Pass - 2 - X.  Now after 1 - Pass - 2 - Pass I think standard is to play 3 as invitational. Some play 1-2-3 Stop and that has merit, but I believe it is standard to play it as an invit. However, after 1 - Pass - 2 - X I think I should be able to bid 3 as non-invitational. I had a 4=6=3=1 shape and I want to play 3 , So I bid 3 and ended in 4 . I made it on bizarre defense, but I think my 3 should be non-encouraging. In defense of the bot, he had shape of his own, 1=3=4=5.

http://tinyurl.com/y229ty42

Those who passed the double and then bid 3 after 2 - Pass - Pass were allowed to play it there.

So the bot bidding does not always match mine, what else is new, but I think it is reasonable.

[wackojack]

A place where I think a responsive double makes sense with four cards in the major we are seeking is when the auction begins 1 - X - 2 . In this case, when fourth hand has four , it would be useful to have two ways of bidding 3 , either with a direct bid of 3 or a slower 3 , starting with the responsive double and then correcting the expected 3m to 3 . I think the latter should be the weaker way, but no doubt others reverse this.

This use of a responsive double after 1 (x)-2  seems to make sense.  However, I think that the slower route to 3  , i.e. via the responsive double should be stronger than 3  direct.  With a weaker hand you need to get your bid in quick because it could be your only chance.

 

Here is another case where the bots and I see things differently: After three passes I open 1 , it goes 1 - Pass - 2 - X.  Now after 1 - Pass - 2 - Pass I think standard is to play 3 as invitational. Some play 1-2-3 Stop and that has merit, but I believe it is standard to play it as an invit. However, after 1 - Pass - 2 - X I think I should be able to bid 3 as non-invitational. I had a 4=6=3=1 shape and I want to play 3 , So I bid 3 and ended in 4 . I made it on bizarre defense, but I think my 3 should be non-encouraging. In defense of the bot, he had shape of his own, 1=3=4=5.

I recall a few years ago I was partnering a Welsh international and after opening 1  the auction went 1 ! -2  -3 .  We were playing Acol and my understanding was 1-2-3-stop taken from an old book "Acol without tears".  I put this before BBO forums and Fred weighed in on the discussion arguing that 1-2-3 should be an invite to game. 

When it goes   1 - Pass - 2 - X. however, I feel that pass followed by 3  should be stronger than an immediate 3  for pre-emptive reasons.  This again accords with slower is stronger principle. 

[kenberg]

1 - X - 2 - ?

I started looking. So fr the only relevant thing I found was Mike Lawrence: Double: New Meanings for an Old Bid.

He gives fourth hand decent values and four hearts and recommends 3 , then says: "Some partner ships use a double followed by 3 to show a weak heart bid and a direct 3  to show strong values but assuming that you are not playing this treatment you just have to bid 3 when you have them". So at that point he was not recommending using the two ways to bid 3 but he was saying that those who do so play that the X followed by 3 is the weaker of the two. But it would not surprise me if I later find someone who reverses these, as you think it should be.

Added: It occurs to me that discussing follow-ups to the use of a convention could be useful. There are many many bridge books out there, but often they treat a convention, outline its meaning,  and then move on. A "What happens next" could fill in some gaps. As we can see, there is room for disagreement.

[wackojack]

How about this then?
Sometimes partner may make a take out double of 1♥ with only 3 spades, say:
 ♠ Q42, ♥ A5, ♦ A872, ♣ KJ103.  Then say partner has:
 ♠ A873, ♥ 842, ♦ KQJ3, ♣ 94. Now, you can avoid playing in a 4-3 spade by making a responsive double.  Partner bids 3♣, you bid 3♦ and partner passes.
However, if partner has:
♠ J942,♥ A5, ♦ A872, ♣ KJ10 and you have:
♠ A873, ♥ 842, ♦ KQ, ♣ Q942
the bidding would go: 1♥-(dbl)-2♥-(dbl); p (3♦)- p -(3♠); all pass
If you were weaker say:
♠ KQJ3, ♥ 842, ♦ 84, ♣ Q942 then after 1♥-(dbl)-2♥-(?) You would go for 2♠ as you cannot afford to play at the 3 level and would therefore rather play in in a possible 4-3 spade fit at the 2 level than a 4-4 ♣ fit at the 3 level.

Does this make sense?

After 1♠ - (dbl) -2♠, it is harder to work out if there is a heart fit.  A solution is to agree that double shows 4♥ and 2NT is unusual and shows 4-4 in the minors.

[wackojack]

https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&lin=pn%7Cwackojack%2CRobot%2CRobot%2CRobot%7Cst%7C%7Cmd%7C2SQJ2HAKQ5D93CQ743%2CSK94HJ942DKT5CT86%2CS53HT863DAQ642C52%2CSAT876H7DJ87CAKJ9%7Csv%7CE%7Cah%7CBoard%2016%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C1S%7Can%7CMajor%20suit%20opening%20--%205%2B%20%21S%3B%2011-21%20HCP%3B%2012-22%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CD%7Can%7CTakeout%20double%20--%203-5%20%21C%3B%203-5%20%21D%3B%203-4%20%21H%3B%202-%20%21S%3B%2012%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7C2S%7Can%7CFree%20raise%20--%203%2B%20%21S%3B%206-10%20total%20points%7Cmb%7C3H%7Can%7CFree%20bid%3B%20new%20suit%20--%204%2B%20%21H%3B%2011-%20HCP%3B%206-12%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7C4H%7Can%7C4%2B%20%21H%3B%2016%2B%20total%20points%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cmb%7CP%7Cpc%7CCK%7Cpc%7CC3%7Cpc%7CC6%7Cpc%7CC2%7Cpc%7CCA%7Cpc%7CC4%7Cpc%7CC8%7Cpc%7CC5%7Cpc%7CSA%7Cpc%7CS2%7Cpc%7CS4%7Cpc%7CS3%7Cpc%7CS8%7Cpc%7CSJ%7Cpc%7CSK%7Cpc%7CS5%7Cpc%7CD5%7Cpc%7CDQ%7Cpc%7CD7%7Cpc%7CD3%7Cpc%7CH3%7Cpc%7CH7%7Cpc%7CHA%7Cpc%7CH4%7Cpc%7CHK%7Cpc%7CH2%7Cpc%7CH6%7Cpc%7CS6%7Cpc%7CHQ%7Cpc%7CH9%7Cpc%7CH8%7Cpc%7CD8%7Cpc%7CSQ%7Cpc%7CS9%7Cpc%7CD2%7Cpc%7CST%7Cpc%7CCQ%7Cpc%7CCT%7Cpc%7CD4%7Cpc%7CCJ%7Cpc%7CC7%7Cpc%7CDT%7Cpc%7CD6%7Cpc%7CC9%7Cpc%7CDJ%7Cpc%7CD9%7Cpc%7CDK%7Cpc%7CDA%7Cpc%7CHT%7Cpc%7CS7%7Cpc%7CH5%7Cpc%7CHJ%7C

Here is one that got too high

[kenberg]

Yes, using the 2NT after 1 - X - 2 to show the minors has merit. Definitely.

The moral of the story is that you cannot have everything.

The hand that you give is a great example. The 3 alert says it is on 6 to 12 total points. Which is a way of saying that his partner has absolutely no way
to decide whether to pass or bid 4 .  6 to 12 is just to broad. So some way of using the responsive double would be good. It could be that 1 - X - 2 - X should be construed as "Looking at muy hand, I guess we can compete to the 3 level but I don't suggest going higher. Bid your minor, I suppose you have one from your doube, and maybe I will  pass or maybe I will correct to 3 , in which case I suggest that you then  pass 3 unless you have a good deal extra."  Something like that. Then the immediate 3 instead of the responsive double can show a hand that is happy to be bidding to the 3 level.

I am going to look around a bit to see what is written, where, and by whom.

[kenberg]

I offer another hand with the "What means what" theme.

Uncontested auction
1 -  1
2 - 2NT
3

That 3 is the bid I didn't make, I was a little uncertain if partner would take it as a choice of games bid rather than a sign off.  I think since he could well have only four spades the reasoning should be that if I wanted to get out short of game I would just pass 2NT and hope for the best. Still, I wasn't sure so I simply raised to 3NT. It worked out, partner made 3NT and the only pair that was in spades was in 3 , perhaps because my hand bid 3 and that got passed.

     ♠   Q 9 3
     ♥   K Q J 9 5
    ♦   A K J 4
    ♣   5



     ♠   A 10 7 6 4
     ♥   6
     ♦   10 7 3
    ♣   A Q 8 3


Exactly how many tricks you take depends on a lot of things, how the cards lie of course but also choices made by both defense and offense. All in all, probably you want to be in 4 , not 3NT.
I think, after 1 - 1 - 2 - 2NT a bid by me of 3 should be choice of games, not a sign off. Probably I should have done it, partner should figure it out, cog seems logical, but I figured 3NT might be fine and I did not want to see this end in 3 .

There are many such situations suitable for I/A discussion. We had a decent game but there is always room to discuss some things.
 

[Masse24]

Uncontested auction
1 -  1
2 - 2NT
3

3 should be choice of games, not a sign off.

I agree. It should be forcing. Logically, it's forcing. Simply saying, "I accept your invite, and oh by the way I have three spades."

What means what is a good thread title. I suggest you start one, Ken!

[wackojack]

I also agree, however there is an interesting corollary to this.  Give opener the same distribution and a minimum opener say:  Q93,  KQJ95,  A854,  5.  Here even 3 could be too high.  So you must raise to 2  immediately landing you into a good contract. 

Now give responder a near minimum for a 1 over 1 response and only 4 spades, say,  KJ10x,  102,  763,  QJ103  and with this hand opposite the minimum opener we find that we would be better off in 2  (the 5-2 fit)  not 2  (the 4-3 fit).  If however, we disobeyed or didnt recognise the corollary I just identified, the bidding sequence 1 -1  - 2  -2  - pass, would have found us in the best contract.

C'est la vie!  Or is there a solution?  Let us go back to the min opener opposite Ken's original responder's hand and we eschew raising with 3 cards and we rebid 2  .  Then we could of course pass 2NT,  Unfortunately 2N is a poor contract with responder's 10 opposite opener's 12, whereas 3 when responder has 5 has a much better chance than 2NT. So we are back to making an immediate raise to 2  with 3 which is less than prefect.     

[kenberg]

I am more comfortable than some are with raising on three card support. The Qxx that I have is probably adequate, but a little better would be nice. When holding three card support and a stiff, often we can scramble for eight tricks, or maybe seven anyway. And if they try to put a stop to this by starting in on trump right away, that's not always so bad since an unsupported honor might then become a winner.  For that matter, the 5-2 does not always play better than the 4-3. Say you have Axxxx opposite Kx. If that suit is trump and the split is 4-2, you will surely lose two tricks in that suit. If instead your other seven card fit is trump, a 4-3 fit, with Axxx opposite  Kx, then it is true you will be losing two tricks in that suit as well if they split 4-2, but in the meantime you can ruff a card or two from your 5 card suit.

4-3 is sometimes just fine.

But to your larger point, yes, when opener and responder are both i the minimum range there is just no way to cover all the possible situations and still get out in the best two level contract.  With three card support and a stiff, I am often going to raise partner's response. 1 - 1 - 2 .



I am going to see if I can start a what means what thread, focusing on some of simple ambiguities. It's not that we will all agree, but it could be useful.