Suppress major?

[kenrexford]

Suppose RHO opens a minor, LHO responds 1H, RHO bids 1S, and you pop in a grabbit 1NT, all pass. Dummy has KQ8x of hearts, and you hold A10x.

 

Q1: Do you play 10 to King (just in case of a silly cover), planning to win, back to Ace, and finesse (wins against 9x or Jx to Right), or let the 10 ride if uncovered?

 

Q2: How often do you, and how often to you think the opposition will, fail to respond 1H with Jxxx, or with 9xxx, when 4333 pattern, or perhaps when 44321 short in Opener's minor?

 

I recently reviewed a 4432, short in Opened minor, with 8 HCP's and 10xxx of hearts -- I was the only one to bid 1NT (good result). On a similar hand, all but one responded 1H with Jxxx and 4333. Many more suppressed a four-card spade suit in Opener's hand when spades were AKJx and diamonds xxxx, in the same auction I am curious about the thinking. When do people suppress majors on weakish, balanced hands?

[Guest Jlall]

1) lead the ace then run the ten. I didn't really think in depth about this but I'm sure it's the percentage play.

 

2) I rarely suppress a major with any shape. It is more attractive in styles where partner will very frequently raise with 3. Even with 3433 and 5432 of hearts I'd rather be in hearts when partner has 4 of them, especially if he has a stiff.

 

3) I've never heard of this auction lol... I have to know what was the 1N bidders hand?

[kenrexford]

You have never heard of Grabbit?!?!? LOL

 

Consider the matchpoint logic here. 1NT makes both ways, right? So, if the opponents are screwing around at the one level too long, bid 1NT first.

 

The hand was Qxx-A10x-AQJxx-xx. 1D-P-1H-P-1S-? 1NT, of course. With 13 HCP's, it looks like a no-fit partscore battle, so bid 1NT first.

 

Dummy actually had xxx-KQ9x-K-10xxxx. As you can see, the hand should produce +120 if you bid 1NT first, or +100 if you let them bid 1NT first, under ideal circumstances. The par was actually +180 if you bid 1NT, or +50 if you defended it, per the field. (Clubs were 3-3, AK of spades in front of the Q)

 

Assume you are NV and doubled. If the lead, being able to see the hands, etc., produce +1/2 trick, then you expect both sides to make 1NT, on average. If you go set -100, they make +120. If you go set -300, they have game. If you go -500, hopefully they were vulnerable.

 

By the way, a redouble usually increases your tricks by another +1, when they panic.

[Kalvan14]

Which, seen from the other side, means also that you cannot let oppos play in 1NT undoubled, in particular if they are not-Vul. And therefore it is mandatory to balance against this contract.

 

Taking another step forward, if your line gets to 1NT and you are not-vul, it does not pay to invite: the oppos should know that they cannot ley you play 1NT, and balance accordingly. Then you can double

[mikeh]

I've never heard of grabbit 1N either and I am NOT going to take it up :angry:

 

I may have missed something, but when did your LHO limit his hand?

 

I understand that it worked here, and I am sure that it will be a fairly frequent winner, especially against weak players when you are not vulnerable at mps. But it isn't bridge.

 

As I have said before, and as this post no doubt reinforces, I have no claim to knowing how to play matchpoints.

[kenrexford]

Harsh words from ignorance! Let me see if I can bridge-ize the call.

 

First, has LHO limited his hand? I suppose not, unless there are only 40 points in the deck. Your 13-count "limits" the opponents to an expectation of a maximum of about 27 HCP's, as worst-case scenario. This makes huge sets (outside the scope of a good call) a limited risk.

 

Second, does 1NT "show" anything useful. Actually, yes. With an opener, or near opener, you lacked ability for initial action of a different type. Hence, you usually have Opener's minor. This provides a nice escape if Advancer has the inclination.

 

Third, is this sort of bid uncommon (bidding on position)? Well, if you ever balance in a competitive auction, especially a pre-balance, is this not the same thing?

 

A call "is bridge" when it is calculated to get your side to the ideal contract most of the time. It is not required to "be bridge" for a bid to work all of the time.

 

And, by the way, the principles of bridge generally do not only work against the "weak" players. You could say that, for instance, Jacoby Transfers only gain against "weak players" because of the lead. This argument does work, strangely, as a criticism of very common conventions, like preempts and weak two bids, where the hand success usually turns on the ability of the opposition to handle the preempt. Thus, your score as a preempter is usually determined by the opposition. So, is a preempt bad bridge because of this reality? More so than Grabbit, which equally disturbs all because it "grabs it" first, a fate not handled well by expert or novice.

[mikeh]

You missed my point :rolleyes:

 

If you read my post again, perhaps you will see that I recognized that your pet bid will probably work well at mps 'especially', not 'only', against weak players: weak players tend not to be able to work out, at the table and without discussion, how to cope with an unexpected development, so the bid rates to escape punishment from weak players on a hand on which a good player would double you and inflict a zero on you.

 

I also said that this approach of yours was not bridge: intended, but clearly not understood, to be a knock on mp scoring: as you apparently do not know, many imp players refer semi-seriously to mp as 'not bridge': meaning that at mps one is rewarded for conduct that would be foolish at imps, aka 'bridge'. Had we been FTF, i suspect that you would have 'got' my point. I would need to see your grabbit in action for an extended period to see if it was a net winner at mps, but I can tell that it would be a disastrous imp bid, where the not-infrequent 5-10 imp losses would offset any number of small gains.

[Guest Jlall]

I recognized that your pet bid will probably work well at mps

I really highly doubt that this will be a long term winner at MP.

 

First of all vulnerability isn't mentioned, but if red it will almost never work unless it is your hand. If you are going set you will go for 100 or 200 or 1100 very often. This will be vs the -90 or so you would have received. If they are also vul even if you make you beat them 100. red/white it will work whenever it is your hand, but why should you assume it's your hand. The opps have both bid, lho is unlimited, and partner has not said a word. If I had to guess whos hand it was I would surely guess it was theres. If you are white/white it's true you may receive -50 vs -90, but they may also X you. They are in prime position to do that. If you go -2 they will very often X for a zero. LHO may just have a good hand in which case you'll go for a large number.

 

Furthermore, forget about high cards, where are your tricks? You know diamonds will break badly. You know they will have a lot of information to defend with.

 

You also forget about the advantage of the lead. This can be worth a trick. It's true vs 1N they often make a bad lead, but here they have exchanged a lot of information and know that you have long diamonds.

 

You also simply go against the field. If the field is defending 1N and beating it 1 when they could have made 90, I feel confident that I will often beat it 2. I will get an average if i just beat it 1, and a very good board if I do beat it two. I don't need to shoot for the stars on random hands. I'll just keep defending normal contracts and try and do it a trick better, or playing normal contracts and try to do that a trick better.

 

Overall I would be almost sure that the expected MP value is definitely minus, but I also think it is a top or bottom bid.

[hrothgar]

Harsh words from ignorance!  Let me see if I can bridge-ize the call.

I see a fair amount of ignorance in this thread, however, its not on the part of MikeH...

 

Your "Grabbit" INT style looks hideous....

 

LHO and RHO are both showing values: If you bid, you are going to be sandwiched between these two hands. If you're lucky you'll have an entry to dummy.

 

More importantly, LHO and RHO have not yet shown any kind of fit. If they don't have a fit, you don't have one either. When those red cards come out, you probably don't have any place to run.

 

On those occasions where the opponents buy the hand, you've placed almost all the missing cards for them.

 

You haven't even preempted the opponents. On the example auction

 

(1m) - P - (1♥) - P

(1♠) - 1NT

 

the opponents have already been able to clarify shape and, to some extent, strength.

 

In short, I see a big down side balanced against diddly-squat...

[kenrexford]

This is funny to me. Partially because I agree that MP is no0t bridge. :rolleyes: I missed that point, and apologize as a fellow IMP-er.

 

As to the objections. I cannot offer science to back this up, but the results actually are about 4:1 advantageous. True, vulnerability makes a difference, such that the tactic is best when pulling 1NT is best (NV versus NV). If you pull 1NT into a probable moysian without trepidation of a double, then you also should logically bid 1NT NV-NV for the same reason.

 

It is also helps in the analysis to view the 1NT overcall as perhaps a one-suited optional takeout for Opener's minor. Or, a hedge overcall. Remember the actual auction -- 1D-P-1H-P-1S-? Holding Qxx-Axx-xx-AQJxx, you might like a NV-NV overcall of 2D, right? (2D happens to make on this hand.) If so, why not overcall 1NT instead, showing essentially the same thing but with stuff in the majors? This allows a nice pass (for +180 on the hand) by partner, but he can pull to 2D with a fit. Notably, he also can stick in a 2C call with a weak hand and long clubs, as a side benefit.

 

True, 1NT might get doubled, but then might not 2D get doubled? Might not a one-level overcall get doubled? Might not anything get doubled?

[hrothgar]

True, 1NT might get doubled, but then might not 2D get doubled?  Might not a one-level overcall get doubled?  Might not anything get doubled?

Pass is rarely doubled... This may come as some surprise but YOU DON'T ALWAYS NEED TO BID

 

When you weigh any decision you need to carefully consider expected costs and benefits. My experience suggests that sticking your nose into the opponents no-fit auctions is a big loser. I'm especially leery regarding 5332 hands which never seem to play nearly as well as one would hope.

 

For what its worth, I like assumed fit preempts. I'm perfectly happy opening 2♥ promising 4+ Hearts and 4+ Spades on a hand like

 

♠ KT53

♥KJT3

♦732

♣92

 

The difference here is that I'm in the auction BEFORE the opponents have have the chance to clarify their hands. Its a very aggessive style, but I like to play it because the odds are in your favor. While you're bidding with a stronger hand, I think odds are very much stacked against you.

[han]

This is a great thread, very entertaining. I'm going to read it again.

[inquiry]

True, 1NT might get doubled, but then might not 2D get doubled? Might not a one-level overcall get doubled? Might not anything get doubled?

Pass, pass will not get doubled... I pretty sure of that....

[kenrexford]

Of course pass does not get doubled. My point was precisely this. Pass never gets doubled. So, why ever bid? If you never bid, you never get doubled for a set. The reason is that the expected cost likelihood is lower than the expected gain likelihood.

 

So, look again at the expectations. Forgetting the pull to 2D when a diamond fit exists, what are the expected number of tricks?

 

If lead and declaring makes no difference, then you would expect their +90 to equate to our -50, or -100 if doubled. Their +120 or -300, their -50(-100?) our +90. So, you would say that bidding 1NT first never gains, if we double and they double.

 

The first problem with this is that doubles are also far from certain. Simply take out the double, and you end up with -90/-50, -120/-100, or +50/+90, such that bidding 1NT is best.

 

More importantly, 1NT contracts are usually difficult for the defense. Hence, there is usually a one-trick advantage to declaring 1NT. This aligns the results such that bidding 1NT first is superior.

 

I find it interesting that there are "from my experience" comments regarding the viability of Grabbit from people who would never (and probably have never) play Grabbit.

 

However, the POINT to this post, initially, was to inquire as to how often people will bypass a four-card major at the one-level, and what are the parameters for this decision, as affecting odds on finesses.

 

Note that Ace, then 10, on the example, fails whenever entries are poor, as was the problem, perhaps not mentioned. The hand I faced involved the heart 9, mitigating the problem. But, assuming spade-spade-spade, with 8 in dummy instead of 9, hearts has a problem.

 

Leading the 10 toward dummy at trick 4 seems superior, and bolstered if Jxxx is a "minimum" requirement for a four-card new suit bid for some people. However, 10 riding fails, of course, to Jx from Opener. Unblocking the 10 works whenever Opener is 9x (or Jx or J9 for that matter). The 10 lead at trick 4 is unnecessary if LHO is Jxxx, but critical if J9xx.

 

Hence, which is more likely? J9xx to the left, or Jx/J9/9x to the right? Does bidding theory affect this?

[Guest Jlall]

9x on the right is irrelevant as both lines work.

 

There are 6 J9xx's and there are 4 9xxx's and 1 xxxx making J9xx more likely 6:5. But for some reason you seem to be leaving out 5-1 breaks, certainly possible on the auction.

 

There are 4 J9xxx's as opposed to 1 9xxxx.

 

Against this, many players would simply never duck the heart ten with J9xx(x) especially if holding the 7. If this is your type of opponent you can try the 9 and if they dont cover go up with the king and lead back to the ace.

[hrothgar]

I find it interesting that there are "from my experience" comments regarding the viability of Grabbit from people who would never (and probably have never) play Grabbit.

You're quite right: I haven't played Grabbit. With this said and done, I play LOTS of methods geared towards extracting low level penalty doubles.

 

I play 2/1s as natural and non-forcing opposite MOSCITO's light/limited openings. I do so I can double anyone stupid enough to bid in the sandwhich seat in a non-fit auction.

 

MOSCITO's game invitation relay's opposite limited openings typically deny a fit. (There are a lot of other ways to raise partner). Once again, the main reason is to permit us to hit people at a low level in non-fit auctions.

 

Your wonderous method is very much designed to duplicate a situation where I think I enjoy some of my biggest advantages. But , hey, if this is working for you go ahead and keep bidding 1NT. Just don't complain if/when you run into some competant opposition.

[awm]

It seems like we're comparing two lines here:

 

(1) Lead the ace, then let the ten ride.

(2) Play the ten to the king, then low to the ace.

 

If the suit breaks 4-2, then line (1) fails when RHO has the doubleton jack. If the suit breaks 5-1, then line (1) will always succeed. For a 4-2 break the a priori odds of line (1) failing are 1/3.

 

If the suit breaks 4-2, then line (2) fails when RHO has two cards below the nine, leaving LHO with J9xx. If the suit breaks 5-1, then line (2) fails if RHO's singleton is not the jack or nine. For a 4-2 break the odds of line (2) failing are 6/15.

 

So even if you assume 4-2 break, the first approach is better. If you look at other circumstances:

 

--> LHO seems to have bid with a really bad hand. This makes five-card suit more likely.

--> LHO might not have mentioned a suit of 9xxx or worse, especially given the general weakness.

 

These also point towards line (1) being the winner.

[Guest Jlall]

He said there are entry problems so you have to ride the ten or lead ten to the king then low back but your point is the same other than losing to stiff J off.

[kenrexford]

Ah! You just caught the real issue here. This is a very tight percentage play, coupled with a lot of psychology. Although the 10 should be ducked with J9xx, it will not be enough for the percentages to be off a bit. Hence, it seems compelling to know bidding psychology as well. Will 9xxx be bid always, often, occasionally, or never? This was the grand "hmmmmm" that sparked this post.

 

From a very brief and not remotely reliable review, it seemed that Jxxx was always sufficient for all people when 4432(short in opener's minor; except me), but 10xxx got a few more divergings, when 4333. Opener, on the other hand, was more likely to hide a spade suit after 1m-P-1H-P-?, with very good spades (AKJx) but poor in the minor (9xxx), which makes sense to me (the minor weakness).

 

I know my own reasoning for electing 1NT rather than a major, but I am curious as to real-world experiences as to the "conventional wisdom" and how it affects odds.