BPO-005A - Time to discuss

[kfgauss]

The 2NT advance uses up an AMAZING amount of bidding room.  Accordingly, if it asks a question, it needs to ask a VERY specific question.  So far, I've seen three suggestions regarding what question to ask

 

1) Do you hold a minimum or a maximum (for all intents and purposes inviting game opposite a max is an range ask)

 

2) Do you hold a running Club suit (Mike777 suggested that the 3♣ rebid denies AKQxxx in clubs)

 

3) Do you hold a Club suit that has a decent chance of running opposite Hx (or Hxx)

Your relay background is showing through. It's a bit more holistic than you make out. It suggests a group of hands (things like balanced 10 counts -- where if they don't have a club honor, they'll need a bit more strength and/or better stoppers) and basically asks the question: opposite this group of hands, should you be in 3NT (or should you pass or correct to 3C).

 

This is somewhat a combination of 1) and 3). Clearly it's still a question, but it's not a simple question (an example of its complexity is that different partners will bid 2NT with slightly different groups of hands and so you'll have to evaluate slightly differently opposite each group). There's somewhat of a standard for the group of hands 2NT shows, though, (one would hope this is based on some impression of what the optimal group to do this with is) and so we can come up with reasonable answers to this bidding problem. Examples of sorts of questions we need to ask ourselves are: if the clubs run, am I going to have enough side suit tricks quickly enough to make 3NT? if the clubs don't run, will I have enough extra strength to pull through?

 

Andy

 

PS Not that it's necessarily relevant to my comments above, but I bid 3C, but that was probably too pessimistic upon reflection, especially vul at imps. I have the impression that it's right to bid 2NT here with only 8 or so points with the club King, and a reasonable 10 without it, say xxx Kxxx Qxxx Kx or Kxx Kxxx Axxx xx. Even these hands have some play for 3NT though -- especially if the hearts have some spot cards.

[cherdano]

I did a dealmaster analysis and deep finesse alanaysis

on only 100 hands

results.

3nt make 35%

3nt down 65%

My guess is that DD analysis is too beneficial for the defenders in that case -- with a running or almost running suit, it is absolutely critical for them to find the right lead, while the play is probably a one-way street. (Still, maybe my 3♥ was a bit of a stretch.)

 

Btw, what were your constraints exactly?

 

Arend

[Guest Jlall]

So i guess if you stretch to bid a vul game even if its 35% that should be right

not so fast. I'm guessing when 3N is down, its often down multiple tricks. 35 % is definitely not good enough if you go down 200 or 300.

 

edit: oops clicked send too fast. I also meant to point out, if 3N makes at least some of the time partner will bid it (he will upgrade his Kx of clubs some more after 3C).

Edited September 20, 2005 by Jlall

[mikeh]

I voted for 3N, although I recognized that it was an overbid.

 

I saw the alternative, 3♣, as a corresponding underbid (which makes this a good problem... well done, selectors :D )

 

I did not give 3♥ any serious thought and none of the posters have persuaded me otherwise. In fact, I suspect that this is yet another instance of choosing the meaning of a bid in order to fit my hand.

 

We would like to make a strong invitation to 3N: a bid midpoint between 3♣ and 3N. 3♥ seems like the obvious candidate and I am sure that one could logically play it as such.

 

But let me ask you what you would bid with, say, x Ax Axx AQJxxxx?

 

Many of us (me for sure) cannot double 1♥ here. If you could, then subtract the ♣J.

 

maybe you still double, and, if so, then my point is poorly taken and my rant can be ignored :P

 

However, if you do not double 1♥ without ♠ tolerance or a truly enormous hand, then you may want to have some manner of exploring for slam or avoiding the opps running the first 5 ♠ tricks after 2N by partner on xxx Kxx KQxx Kxx.

 

Opener, holding AKQx QJxxx xxx x will lead ♠.

 

How do we accomplish this? Well, to me, looking at my example, I think 3♥ seems like a good start (once you find out that partner claims no ♠ stopper, slam becomes attractive, and 5♣ is the least you will do). If you agree with me, then it seems tough to use 3♥ on the actual problem hand.

 

Hannie got upset with me when I posed a similar counter-example on an earlier post (one on which I actually agreed with the proposed interpretation of the bid, but suggested that not enough thought was given to other interpretations). However, I remain convinced that some of us who propose certain solutions to bidding polls may not always consider that the bid may be (correctly or at least reasonably) interpreted by partner as showing a different hand-type.

[hrothgar]

I did a dealmaster analysis and deep finesse alanaysis

on only 100 hands

results.

3nt make 35%

3nt down 65%

3♣ make 85%

4♣ make 50%

5♣ make 20%

 

So i guess if you stretch to bid a vul game even if its 35% that should be right

Of course, this begs the basic question...

 

How do we ensure that we reach 3NT on the appropriate set of hands while resting safely in 3♣ on the rest...

[luke warm]

i voted 3nt also, thinking pard has hearts stopped and hoping for Hx(x) in clubs

[pigpenz]

I did a dealmaster analysis and deep finesse alanaysis

on only 100 hands

results.

3nt make 35%

3nt down 65%

3♣ make 85%

4♣ make 50%

5♣ make 20%

 

So i guess if you stretch to bid a vul game even if its 35% that should be right

Of course, this begs the basic question...

 

How do we ensure that we reach 3NT on the appropriate set of hands while resting safely in 3♣ on the rest...

when i put in constraints i put in

♠2-5

♥3-5 honors, 1-2 any comb akq

♦2-5

♣1-3

10-12 hcp

 

as far as how to bid only 3♣ when 3nt is wrong I think is prett hard to do. I was always taught that at imps we tend to bid the vul games that are around 35%. I assume that is from an imp table that we dont want to be -10 for missing game versus -5 for being down. Where if 3nt is down then most likely the opps will be there too for a push.

[mike777]

If I understand your post, you are making unilateral bid of 3nt because 3nt makes 35% of the time but will not partner bid 3nt over 3clubs enough and involve partner on some of those simulation hands to make 3club the winning bid?

[Guest Jlall]

I did a dealmaster analysis and deep finesse alanaysis

on only 100 hands

results.

3nt make 35%

3nt down 65%

3♣ make 85%

4♣ make 50%

5♣ make 20%

 

So i guess if you stretch to bid a vul game even if its 35% that should be right

Of course, this begs the basic question...

 

How do we ensure that we reach 3NT on the appropriate set of hands while resting safely in 3♣ on the rest...

when i put in constraints i put in

♠2-5

♥3-5 honors, 1-2 any comb akq

♦2-5

♣1-3

10-12 hcp

 

as far as how to bid only 3♣ when 3nt is wrong I think is prett hard to do. I was always taught that at imps we tend to bid the vul games that are around 35%. I assume that is from an imp table that we dont want to be -10 for missing game versus -5 for being down. Where if 3nt is down then most likely the opps will be there too for a push.

You are assuming you go minus 1. If the opponents were always in 3C at the other table making exactly 110 then...

 

3N= +10

3N-1 -5

3N-2 -7

3N-3 -9.

 

If the opps are in 3C+1 at the other table then...

 

3N= +10

3N-1 -6

3N-2 -8

3N-3 -10.

 

So obviously the odds are different if youre going down multiple tricks. I think that you will agree this is a hand that if you go down, you will go down more than 1 usually.

[Echognome]

Am a bit late in replying. I bid 3♣. If we make game opposite this hand, then partner should bid it.

[karlson]

I'm a little surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that hearts didn't get raised. We have 11 hcp, partner has around 10, therefore lho probably doesn't have a total yarborough. Most of the example hands given so far have about 4 hearts - is it that unlikely that partner has 6 of them? If he does, then we may well have a lot of trouble setting up side suit tricks.

 

Is this a weaker inference than I think?

 

Oh, I voted for 3c.

[inquiry]

Am a bit late in replying. I bid 3♣. If we make game opposite this hand, then partner should bid it.

So far, the votes seem to be going between 3NT and 3♣, with the theory that if you bid 3♣, your partner will be perceptive enough to carry onto 3NT with ♣King and "the right" cards.

 

But really, if 3♣ shows, as it should, some ~10 hcp and balance hand, if overcaller rebids 3♣ is that really an invite to continue bidding? Isn't it, (or should it be), omg, if you have only balanced 10 or so, we better not play in Notrump.

 

And 3♥, while forcing, really, is this hand 3♥ material? I mean, surely 3♥ will get you to game, but what the heck are you telling partner? Shouldn't 3♥ be more than game force, and be a slam try. Is this where you want go?

 

And 3NT, well seems very unilateral. The only thing it gots going for it is, you might make it. In the Brazilian Team Championship, Barbosa found the creative bid of 3♦ not mentioned yet in this thread. 3♦ keeps the door open for 3NT (unlike 3♣ in my opinion), without overstating the values with a 3♥ cue-bid.

 

So a question I think for the "hedge" 3♣ bidders, is this really a way to get 3NT? I think in real world, this is not the way to invite. 3♦ leaves 3NT, 4/5♣, and even a moysein 4-3 ♠ fit available. Seems the right bid for a difficult hand to me.

[Beto]

Beto's description agrees nicely with the actual hand held (10 hcp, balanced). This hand is from the Brazilian Team Championship finals. At one table the player with this hand faced a different problem when his RHO bid 3♥ over 2NT. This is the problem facing Barbosa in the closed room of the finals 3 of 4.

 

 

One of Beto's two hands is actually very close to the held hand.

 

I was Barbosa at the table and it took me some time to decide what to bid.

 

So this 2NT hands i post is exactly what me and

my partner have as an agreement...

 

(partneship style, we can bid 2♣ on ♠Axx ♥x ♦xxx ♣A109xxx)

 

 

At the table i bid 3♦ over 2NT and this was

one of my big mistakes in this match. It costs us 13 IMPs...

but we still won by 19... :)

[Beto]

3♦ leaves 3NT, 4/5♣, and even a moysein 4-3 ♠ fit available.

 

Ben, this was exactly what i thought at the table !

[shoeless]

3nt (down 3 or making) - next!!

[inquiry]

Beto's description agrees nicely with the actual hand held (10 hcp, balanced). This hand is from the Brazilian Team Championship finals. At one table the player with this hand faced a different problem when his RHO bid 3♥ over 2NT. This is the problem facing Barbosa in the closed room of the finals 3 of 4.

 

 

One of Beto's two hands is actually very close to the held hand.

 

I was Barbosa at the table and it took me some time to decide what to bid.

 

So this 2NT hands i post is exactly what me and

my partner have as an agreement...

 

(partneship style, we can bid 2♣ on ♠Axx ♥x ♦xxx ♣A109xxx)

 

 

At the table i bid 3♦ over 2NT and this was

one of my big mistakes in this match. It costs us 13 IMPs...

but we still won by 19... :)

"Biggest mistake" is not a terrible characterization... I think you made the right bid. It just worked out ackwardly. It happens. BTW, Beto has joined the panel this time, I haven't opened his answers yet, but now I am curious, if he made the 3♦ bid again... There is no doubt the complete auction was a miserable failure, this time. But as Roland said earlier, (to paraphrase), the point is to choose the right bid on the 13 card hand, not the 52 card deal it was taken from.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't think 3C is a hedge or invite, it is a signoff. That being said, with a king, Kx of clubs, and the heart ace partner will likely bid 3N anyways after finding out i have extra club length. If this king is spades, we'll make, if diamonds we'll go down. I do not expect partner to bid, but it is possible. I bid 3C because I think 3N rates to go down (several) and 3C will rate to make. I consider this hand a minimum 2C bid. Beto obviously had extras in his partnership style, but I would not consider that style to be standard.

[Beto]

"Biggest mistake" is not a terrible characterization... I think you made the right bid. It just worked out ackwardly. It happens. BTW, Beto has joined the panel this time, I haven't opened his answers yet, but now I am curious, if he made the 3♦ bid again... There is no doubt the complete auction was a miserable failure, this time. But as Roland said earlier, (to paraphrase), the point is to choose the right bid on the 13 card hand, not the 52 card deal it was taken from.

Yes, i took this as a big mistake because the result was bad...

[HeartA]

I don't think 3C is a hedge or invite, it is a signoff. That being said, with a king, Kx of clubs, and the heart ace partner will likely bid 3N anyways after finding out i have extra club length. If this king is spades, we'll make, if diamonds we'll go down. I do not expect partner to bid, but it is possible. I bid 3C because I think 3N rates to go down (several) and 3C will rate to make. I consider this hand a minimum 2C bid. Beto obviously had extras in his partnership style, but I would not consider that style to be standard.

Well, who said 3♣ shows 6th clubs? It is the weakest bid, imo.

[Guest Jlall]

Well, who said 3♣ shows 6th clubs? It is the weakest bid, imo.

I presumed people would pass with only 5 clubs rather than rebid it. You could easily have a 5-1 and are unlikely to have an 8 card fit. Do you also rebid a major after 1H p 1N p ? with only 5? I don't see any need as you have already shown 5. Pass is also a weak bid.

[P_Marlowe]

3C.

 

Marlowe

[Rebound]

I guess I've missed the point.

 

Partner has invited game with a balanced hand and around 10 hcp. I have an ok hand for a 2-level vulnerable overcall, but not much more than a miminum for that call IMHO so I disagree that it is sufficient to make any kind of forcing call such as 3♦, or 3♥. With the given hand but only 5 clubs I pass. With the 6th club, 3♣. WTP?

[flytoox]

Well, who said 3♣ shows 6th clubs?  It is the weakest bid, imo.

I presumed people would pass with only 5 clubs rather than rebid it. You could easily have a 5-1 and are unlikely to have an 8 card fit. Do you also rebid a major after 1H p 1N p ? with only 5? I don't see any need as you have already shown 5. Pass is also a weak bid.

This is my thought too. I think 3C should be read as signoff but doesnot mind pd bid 3N. It should show 6 cards suit. It would be silly to play 5-2 fit at three level.

[badderzboy]

BILlie type question here, what would 2♥ instead of 2NT mean, I play it as an unassuming cue bid irrespective of support normally xx though for obvious reasons.

 

We have a minimum for our overcall but we have an extra ♣ so surely 3♣ tells all to partner here and he is now captain...

 

Steve

[Gerben42]

I bid 3♣. If partner really has a hand that will make 3NT, why didn't he bid it?