bid_em_up

Because I am just as surprised that the rest of you play it instead of one of the other methods. This was the first I had heard of it actually being used for an invitational hand, and since Ben was the first to suggest it, I just automatically inferred that it was one of his many "pet" treatments. Obviously, my mistake.

Actually I am not sure whether the majority of North American experts plays 1M-3m etc. artificially. BWS has strong jumpshifts combined with 2/1-GF-except rebid, but in a vote assuming 2/1 absolute GF, 19% voted for natural construtive jump shifts, 42% for invitational jump shifts, and only 38% for a structure where you cannot show and differentiate between constructive and invitational one-suiters. (http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=bw_standard&f=bwspolls.html, 904) Note also question 905, where only 19% voted for adding Bergen raises. Bergen raises seem to be a BBO (plus maybe club-level) phenomenon. There is a big difference between the phrasings of: The probable majority of US players, and The majority of US experts. I will assure you that the majority of US players will play bergen or WJS after 1M opening (or any method other than invitational). I would not make the same statement for US experts. And while BWS may be the "experts" guide, I can only name 1 person out of hundreds of players that I know that actually subscribe to it (and even they may no longer do so). In other words, while it may be the expert standard, it really has no bearing on what goes on in real life.

But, how many people actually play 1M-3m as a minor invitational hand? Ben says he does. Ok. I buy that. Really Josh, you don't play this sequence as Bergen or WJS or mini-splinter, but as an invitational minor hand instead? Ok, I'm surprised, but I'll buy it for now. WTF, Ben tells the truth but I'm a liar?? Oh well you "bought it", it sounded pretty painful for you. I play 3m invitational with every single partner with whom I play 2/1 except for my parents who don't know the bid and aren't comfortable with it. Every single one! And this has been true for at least 3 or 4 years. Are you some sort of mind reader or what? I have always hated Bergen raises, I find WJS pointless, and where the heck did mini-splinters come from, almost no one plays those at least not anywhere I have ever lived. No, thats not what I meant. We all "know" that Ben plays some pretty esoteric stuff, so I can easily buy that he plays it. But seeing as how this was the first I had heard of anyone treating this as invitational, and especially as from a player of your caliber, I was just surprised that you did, considering that the probable majority of US players don't and the popularity of the other methods. But I will take you at your word, is all I meant. Geez. Take a chill pill, man. I'm even more surprised now after seeing Phil and Arend stating they use this also. Is this treatment gaining in popularity and I didn't get the email? :P Mind you, I ask, because I hate bergen and WJS also, and for lack of anything better, I have been playing mini-splinters (so yes, it is played in some places, whether you have lived in them or not :P), but as Phil stated, I am finding them to be ineffective since they come up infrequently. I could have said fit-showing jumps, just as easily, I just pulled three different treatments off the top of my head. So I am somewhat interested in hearing more regarding this treatment.

Did partner hold this hand (the limit raise)? Or did you? If you did, why did you not bid 1S?

But, how many people actually play 1M-3m as a minor invitational hand? Ben says he does. Ok. I buy that. Really Josh, you don't play this sequence as Bergen or WJS or mini-splinter, but as an invitational minor hand instead? Ok, I'm surprised, but I'll buy it for now. However, I would tend to believe that most players do not play this as part of a 2/1 system. As such, that leaves you with 1) 1N forcing or 2) 2D game force. I dont think 1N is out of this world, at all....if you are not playing 1M-3m as invitational, in a 2/1 context. The hand simply isn't good enough for a 2/1 GF bid, imo, as I do not believe we will be able to convince partner this is our holding otherwise. I have no problem bidding: 1♠-1N- 2♥-3♦ 3X-4♦ where X is 3♠ or 3N. I think the pull of 3N to 4D in this sequence is non-forcing, since we initially limited our hand with 1N. But I might sit for 3N, as partner may well be 5-4-2-2, holding Qx or Ax of diamonds, he may also have the stiff Q, which would allow the suit to come in with just one loser. If partner bids 3H over 3D, I will raise to 4H. This may be one of the few times I would actually put an eight card suit down in dummy.

Why should they sacrifice when it is unlikely 5D is making?

Pass. Seems clear-cut. Why? Partner did not raise spades (and he may do so when holding 3). Partner did not rebid 1N, which he may do holding 4 hearts. Partner should hold at least 6 diamonds (normally). Partner is a 3rd seat opener. He may well have nothing but AKxxxx(x) of diamonds and an outside Q or K. If I bid 2H or 2S now, I do not want to hear 3D or any # of NT rebid by partner. So I pass, and hope that he can make 2D.

Without discussion, 3N openings are for minor suits only. With discussion, it can be for any suit. I happen to play it that way in at least one partnership (I don't like it, but partner insists, so.....). I would open this 4S in any seat except fourth at favorable or equal, and 1S in fourth seat. I would open this 3S at unfavorable, again in any seat except fourth, and 1S in 4th seat.

Ben, I will assume you know where this theory is derived from, but maybe others don't. (I also can't tell if your post was tongue-in-cheek or not). :lol: The "Queen lies over the Jack" comes from the principle of actually playing with physical cards and tossing them into the middle of the table (i.e. rubber bridge). Since people would normally cover an honor with an honor, then the Queen would "cover" the jack or "be over it". In a shuffle and play environment, the theory was that the two cards were more likely to remain together in the shuffle/dealing the next deal, leaving the queen still lying over the jack on the next deal, and quite surprisingly, it worked more often than not, usually as a result of improper/inadequate shuffling. This idiom has no merit in an online play environment, where a computer randomly generates the hands. Obviously, in this environment, it is 50% either way....unless there are other factors (bidding, distribution, etc) to indicate otherwise.

As suggested, 5D should be first round diamond control, 5N should be GSF. While it is difficult to picture partners hand, thats not my worry. He asked a question with 5N, my bid is 7S. It's his problem to make it. I would expect partner to be along the lines of KJ10xxxx x Axx Qx, where 7 is practically cold play opposite your assumed 18-20 count...that has 0 points in diamonds as implied via the splinter. If you add, you can have maximum of 6 hcp in spades, and nothing in diamonds, but you still must account for about 13 more HCP. After the 5H bid, thats 4 more (the heart ace), giving you a total of 10. In order to reach your expected values, you must have the club A along with either the heart K or the club K. The heart K allows for a club pitch, while the club King takes care of the suit.

No, it won't. And it is unlikely you will have to come in "at the 5 level". If playing Muiderberg, open it 2H. Otherwise, pass. BTW, partner is never (or shouldn't be) opening 3C in the passout seat, and my particular methods actually prevent partner from preempting in clubs after an opening bid by LHO (we use 3C as a 5-5 specific suit showing bid), so thats something I dont have to worry about. Hands like this, I find, are usually better to let the auction progress normally and hear what is going on. It is unlikely to go all pass, and I think I will be better placed on the next round of bidding to describe my hand. Opening it in 2nd seat, distorts both my values and shape as I may well be unable to show a 2 suited hand at my next opportunity.

deleted

I do play this structure (as opposed to wjs). The way I play it is game forcing, it shows no more than a one loser suit opposite void, and with at least a King outside. When this hand type comes up, the bid works quite well. Opener bids 2N without a fit, any other bid implies fit and is a cuebid in support of responders major. Responder still can cuebid over a 2N response, essentially saying, "I dont care about trump support, the suit is solid, please bid controls". It is not necessarily a "strong" jump shift in the old fashioned terms of 18-19 hcp (although it still can be). It is usually more like hands similar to: AKQ109xx x Axx xx or KQJ10xxx x Kxx Ax or AQJ10xx xx AKx xx, etc. The idea is to set trumps immediately, establish whether or not there is a fit and if so, start exploring controls. It works for my partnership(s). However, in your given auction, as already suggested by jdonn, why 3♦? 3♥ is much better. The 2♥ bid should promise 6+ in this sequence, and Ax is now adequate support.

Ditto. Without discussion, doubles of artificial bids show that suit and willingness to compete there.

I guess this sums up what I was originally trying to get at in my initial reply to Ben. 1st, Ben, I will apologize for being snarlish in my responses, yesterday. Having a bad day, combined with a headache and allergies, I was not @ my best. Sorry. My original intent was that Ben seemed to imply that the 1♠ bid is acceptable in his original post. I will not disagree that in the context of R/S that 1♠ is perfectly fine. But again, it is not what beginners or intermediates are normally taught, at least not in the US (I won't pretend to know what is taught in Norway or Germany or any other country, since I don't live there....but I would expect it to be the same if they are being taught SAYC or 2/1, which are the methods I will normally infer unless stated otherwise). Beginners & Intermediates are taught to double and bid their 5 card suit with 17+ hcp. This hand actually evaluates to about 20 playing points, assuming a fit can be located (17 hcp, 3 distributional) so clearly qualifies for X then bid, from a beginner/intermediate perspective. Given that we are in the B/I forum, I don't know that "we" should be giving creedence to bids which require advanced methods, such as R/S, and especially not without giving acknowledgement that we are using such methods. I feel that most beginner/intermediate players who may come to these boards, would like an answer that is most likely to correspond to their current methods or what they have been taught. It really isn't an issue so much of what I think bid then X or X then bid should mean, we can each come to our own agreements or judgements on that ; it is an issue of what has the beginner/intermediate player more likely to have been taught and then try to answer appropriately. I hope that makes sense, I can't seem to word it any better. If I was still a beginner, or intermediate (and some days, I feel like one) and I came to this forum, and saw Ben or Mike advocating a 1♠ bid without any further discussion or explanation of why they are bidding 1♠, then I would be forced to assume that 1♠ is absolutely the correct call on this hand, no matter what methods I am playing. Since Ben is a BBO yellow (and a fine player), and Mike obviously is a world class player, their words will naturally carry more weight on the subject than any one elses....which is why I was so vehement that 1♠ is wrong, and especially in this forum. I have no problem with actually discussing such methods in this forum, as long as it is clear that the bid I am making is within the context of such methods, and not as a matter of claiming that 1♠ is gospel. Arend, I do not/did not claim that beginners/intermediates are incapable of understanding R/S or that it is too difficult for them (at least I don't think I did). But unless it is specifically stated that I am playing these methods, then what is the beginner/intermediate player who comes to the forums, sees Ben/Mike/you claim 1♠ is correct (or at least acceptable) which is contradictory to everything that they have been taught, with no further explanation, supposed to think? They may or may not realize that unless they make other modifications to their methods or agreement regarding overcall ranges, hand patterns, etc. that the 1♠ bid simply just does not work in their current methods and instead, will now think that bidding 1♠ is both perfectly acceptable and the correct bid (heck, Mike and a BBO yellow said so, it must be true). Again, I apologize for the earlier rants or any ill feelings I may have caused.

2♣-2♦ (waiting, 2♥ would be immediate negative) 2♥-3♣ (positive, suit showing, I prefer to show a secondary source of tricks here than the immediate 3♥ raise....if you don't do it now, you will be unable to do so later) 3♥-4♥ (trump support) 4N-5♣ (1 key for ♥) 5N (all keys and trump Q assured)-6♥ (2 kings) At this point, North should be able to count, 6 hearts in hand, 1 spade, 1 diamond, 3 clubs and whatever other K partner has (either the spade K or the diamond K). Thats 12. Since partner has 5+ clubs, it is entirely probable that we have 4 or more club tricks, or (do I dare say it in the b/i forum?) a squeeze will develop. On the basis of likely having 4 or more club tricks, I think you can safely bid 7H at this point. A 2nd alternative: 2♣-3♣ I prefer to make a positive response with a suit and a positive hand. It lets partner immediately know that I may have a source of tricks. If I have to wait until I hold two of the top three honors before I can bid my own suit as some people like to require, I will be waiting forever, since two of the top three honors are more likely to be in the 2♣ openers hand. One of the top three is a much more reasonable approach. 3♥-4♥ 4N- continued as auction #1. By agreeing to control showing responses, you have actually made the auction more difficult as responder can never show his hand effectively. Given your actual methods, I don't believe you can actually reach 7♥ and feel good about it, at least not until you see dummy. :huh:

Mike, I will try to explain my point of view on X as opposed to 1♠ using a couple of your own quotes from other threads: So aren't we more likely to be in the right strain by starting with an immediate double? We actually win automatically in 2/3 chances (whenever partner bids hearts or spades), and it is entirely possible this hand actually belongs in diamonds. In both of these quotes, you appear to state (my loose interpretation) that we are always better off playing in the right strain. Imo, an immediate 1♠ bid really should say "I think this hand will play best in spades unless you (partner) have a better place to play" and yet, at this point in the auction, there is absolutely no reason to believe this to be true. Partner may well have a better place to play on this hand, but have no reason to bid over 1♠. In fact, I believe that if you were to run another simulation, you are likely to find that 4♥ is the most likely game prospect, not 4♠ (and 5♦ isn't entirely out of the picture, either). On this particular board, these are the original combined N/S hands [hv=n=s109xh98763d865ck8&s=skqjxxhaq54daj9cx]133|200|[/hv] Change the North hand just a fraction to either: [hv=s=s9xhk98763d8cxxxx]133|100|[/hv] or [hv=s=s9xhk98763d8cxxxx]133|100|[/hv] Obviously 4♥ is a reasonable game on either of these hands, and yet....we may be passed out in 1♠ if we bid 1♠ instead of immediately doubling. Because of this, I much prefer putting both majors in play at my first opportunity to do so, rather than at a second chance later in the auction........that may never come. Of course, the possibility also exists that you may well be going down in 1♠, where even if you have no game, you may be making a partial in hearts or diamonds. The only assured way of finding our likely best fit IMMEDIATELY is to double. While partner certainly may bid diamonds, this hand is still good enough to force for one more round by bidding 1S. But he may always bid 2D over the X, or 2H, or 2S, or 3D or 3H preemptively. It is these types of hands that the X is much more likely to cater to and improve our subsequent auctions (again, just my opinion), than the hands where partner happens to be a weak 3-3-3-4 and is forced to pick a 3 card suit. If, by chance the bidding is at 3♣ by the time it gets back to me, with partner having failed to bid, I still dont have to bid 3S (as someone else blindly suggested), I can still X again for takeout, or decide that its the opponents hand and pass. In fact, I have been so overwhelmingly convinced that X is the correct first call at IMP's, that in my current partnership, we will double on any 5-4-3-1 hand without any HCP requirement beyond being a normal takeout double. It took a long time for me to overcome my sentiments regarding the advantages/disadvantages of doing so, but the overall results have proven (at least to me) that this is the best way of treating these hands. Note, I am only convinced of this @ imps, where the scoring differential between a minor suit contract and a major suit contract isn't significant. At MP, since majors outscore minors, and higher scoring contracts win higher percentages, I would still prefer to bid the major first unless the hand is actually strong enough to double then bid.

Well, it is main stream bidding for me. I realize there are those who will choose double over bid their longest suit with some arbitrary number of points. Maybe 16, maybe 17 like your insistance in this case. Just for those who have not read Roboson/Segal, they recommend: I will make doubles on "strong hands" too, it is just that this 17 hcp hand is no where close to strong enough for me to double and then introduce spades, which woudl be a "GOSH" auction (Good one suited hand). Who knows what is mainstream. I think mainstream is closer to what I advocate than what you advocate. To test mainstream, I defined the following BBO test, I had the first seat open 1C, and gave the next hand 17-18 hcp, 5S headed by Q or better, 4 hearts, 3 diamonds, and one club. On the first BBO tourament datbase I tested, 21 of 37 people choose to double, the other group took 1♠ overcalls. Not a rousing success for either. The average lehman of those who doubled was 48.93, of those who overcalled one spade was 52.25. This sample is too small to draw a comparison, but it should be possible to use such an approach to see how "mainstream" one approach is over the other. But certainly, it suggest that bidding your longest suit is not such an odd idea as your "not mainstream bidding" suggest. In fact, I dare say, my esperience kibitizing great players is that better players will bid and then double with this hand than double initially. With bridgebrowser I can limit the search to people with lehmans above some arbitrary number. I might give that a try to see. Bridge Base Forums -> Bridge-Related Discussion -> Beginner and Intermediate Bridge Discussion -> ..^ ^^^ ..|| ..|| In all seriousness Ben, did you miss this part of the discussion? Why else are you talking about what Robson/Segal would do? Or what great players would do? Or what players with a Lehman's over some # would do? This is a beginner/intermediate forum. As such, I reiterate my statement that it is MAINSTREAM for the correct call to be double. Big hands with support for all three other suit should double then bid. End of story. Maybe I should have stated that "it is mainstream that beginners/intermediates should X with this hand type", but given that we are ALREADY in the beginner/intermediate forum, I considered it to be unnecessary. On the other hand, you are advocating an esoteric theory (and one that, in my opinion, sucks, but hey, its just my opinion), that requires both players to be on the same wavelength and to be "students" of R/S methods. Come on. Get. Real.

So you both agree the 10 is the "correct" technical play. It really doesn't matter how you reached this conclusion as long as you got there. But as someone stated elsewhere, its fun to watch. LOL!! Now there are other ways of approaching this: 1) I play the Queen, it wins and I roll home regardless of the location of the spade Ace. 2) I play the Queen, it loses to the Ace, and I go down immediately. 3) I make the correct technical play of the 10, and it loses to AJxxx behind me. Oh well, I was never making. 4) I make the correct technical play of the 10 and it loses to the A. I still make if LHO blindly returns a heart, or if the spade A is onside or if RHO has A doubleton♠. Given that LHO is still a heavy favorite to hold the heart Ace, I'll still take my chances on the heart 10 and either they don't switch to spades, they do but the Ace is onside, or RHO has Ax. I still expect to go down, but I think this has to be the correct long-term play.

I don't think so. Partner has shown 5-5 at a minimum, and is likely 6-5 or 6-6. You may make 6N, but 6C should rate to be the better slam, imo. At imps, it really does not matter a lot if you are in 6 of a minor or 6N. If 6N makes, you lose two imps (1440-1370 = 70). But you lose a bunch if 6N goes down and 6C makes (more likely). Its different at MP, where 6N may be a top board, and 6C only average (or even below average), but even then, I think I would still stop in 6C.

Just curious, were you the declarer, Justine? :rolleyes: And, how DID you set up a team match where all 4 players on your team were jlall?

I would have bid 4♠ over 2♦ and been done with it. If partner now doubles 5♦ knowing that I probably hold 5 spades, I'll respect his decision. Having been forced to bid 2♠ the first time, I will bid 5♠ now, since my spade length is unexpected by partner.

I suppose there is something that prevents us from bidding spades over 1♦ or 1♥? Can you tell me what it is? Or even 2♠ over RHO's expected 2♣? 1♠ over 1♥? Or even 2♠ after 1♥ then 2♣? Really, try and come up with a better argument than this..... Strong hand bids first, then doubles later? On a 5-4-3-1? News to me. Now if it was 6-3-3-1, maybe. But never 5-4-3-1. I don't care what Robson/Segal suggests....it is not mainstream bidding.

Back to the original question, as considered in the B/I forum. You can either: 1) bid 4S 2) bid 3S (invitational) 3) bid 2D (as 4SF) 4) bid 4C (splinter) Overall, #1 rates to be the long term winner. This hand is clearly worth being in game, and I would not worry if I missed a nominal slam. #2 rates to lose, because partner may pass on some minimum opening. #3 isn't a bad option, except it may highlight some weakness in partners hand (i.e, no diamond stop) and you are still going to end up in 4S. You may as well just bid 4S directly as in #1. #4) I would take 4C as a splinter also, but only with discussion. However, I do not consider this to be good enough for a splinter in partners original suit. It doesn't even come close, imo. All you guys claiming that xxxxx is a good club holding for partner to hold, please tell me what the heck you are going to do with all of those clubs, after a trump lead, we win the club stiff and lead a 2nd trump? (I also don't recommend this treatment for B/I as it will simply lead to confusion).

Really, Ben.... Over 1♣, South has a clear double. Forget what he does over 2D. Stiff Club, 543 in other 3 suits, 17 hcp, what the heck is 1S? This isn't MP, an immediate double gives your side your best shot at finding your best fit. And even if it was MP, this hand is still strong enough to double then bid spades.