A balanced 11 count

[Wackojack]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa43hak82d872c843]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Bidding:

1♣ p 1♥ p

1NT p ?

The 1NT rebid shows 12-14 points

For me the lure of a vulnerable game was too much of a temptation, so I tried 2NT, partner 3♥ with a balanced 13, and we ended the auction in 3NT. This went one down. [/hv]

 

This was a local club team match in which one of my team members is a Welsh international. He said he would pass 1NT. I can construct 14 point hands and 13 point hands with a 5-card club suit where 3NT is a good contract, but I am willing to believe that there are at least twice as many hands with equal strength where 3NT has very little hope of making. My question is:

 

How do you value a 4333 hand with AK +A and nothing else? How many 10's and 9's would I need before this balanced 11 was good for 3NT opposite 14 or a good 13? Have any simulations been done? Have any experts got a ready formula for this evaluation?

 

Thanks

[whereagles]

In teams & vulnerable you have to invite. You can't afford to miss out on a game that will be reached at the other table if the points are there.

[Free]

I agree with Whereagles for once ;) ;) Bidding 2NT is enough, partner knows I raise to game quite fast so he should have a maximum (extra's) before he'll bid 3NT. With minimum we'll be in 2NT which should be playable.

[kenberg]

I agree with your expert that there is much to be said for passing 1NT, and I also agree I would have a tough time doing it.

 

This seems to be a question that is very suitable for simulation, although as always great care is needed to get reliable results: Assuming standard bidding practices, 1C-1H-1N shows at least four clubs and more clubs than diamonds. This assumes opener always bids spades over 1H if he has them, and opens 1D if he is 4-4 in the minors. Not everyone agrees with either of these statements. So, with the above assumptions, opener has exactly four clubs only when exactly 4-3-3-3. This gives some reason to hope for five clubs on this auction. Raising 1N to 2 can go wrong in two ways. Opener might pass and take only 7 tricks, opener might go on and take only 8, or fewer. The costs are different in the two cases. It would need to be decided when opener will raise to 3. A flat 13 in your case. Perhaps he shouldn't. A pair must decide whether an invitation means go unless bare minimum or go when close to a maximum. I'm not second guessing your partner, only saying what has to go into a simulation.

 

I would be truly interested in how a simulation would turn out. At the table, if you passed 1N while 3N was bid and made at the other table, I'm guessing you would have gotten an earful.

 

Ken

[han]

I think that pass is the long time winner, and I would have no difficulty at all to pass this hand. Although it is possible to construct a rare 13-count where 3NT has good chances, it is just as easy to construct 12-counts where 2NT will have no play. I think pass is the percentage call. This hand is a poor 11-count for playing in 3NT.

[han]

At the table, if you passed 1N while 3N was bid and made at the other table, I'm guessing you would have gotten an earful.

I don't think so.

[joshs]

Assuming that you open 1D with 4-4 in the minors (or at least msot of the time) partner usually has 5 clubs for this sequence. Here is a submin hand:

Kxx xx Kxx KQxxx

 

Opposite this submin, game has chances (e.g. 3-2 clubs with ace onside and diamonds 4-3 with A onside or a diamond lead) but I wouldn't want to be there

 

Strengthen the hand to a legit opener:

Kxx xx Kxx KQJxx

and game approaches vul at imps levels, but is probably still submin

 

And with

Kxx xx Axx KQJxx

(a hand that would accept the invite) you would want to be in game.

 

 

I think this hand is (barely) worth a 2N bid.

[jdonn]

Assuming that you open 1D with 4-4 in the minors (or at least msot of the time) partner usually has 5 clubs for this sequence. Here is a submin hand:

Kxx xx Kxx KQxxx

 

Opposite this submin, game has chances (e.g. 3-2 clubs with ace onside and diamonds 4-3 with A onside or a diamond lead) but I wouldn't want to be there

 

Strengthen the hand to a legit opener:

Kxx xx Kxx KQJxx

and game approaches vul at imps levels, but is probably still submin

 

And with

Kxx xx Axx KQJxx

(a hand that would accept the invite)  you would want to be in game.

 

 

I think this hand is (barely) worth a 2N bid.

Turn the jack of clubs into the queen of spades and change the shape a little.

 

KQx xxx Ax KQxxx

 

and game is lousy, opposite a 14 that is so good that some would open 1NT with it. There are many other cases of maximum hands for opener where game is bad. I am not saying this makes it wrong to raise, just food for thought.

 

My one strong opinion about this auction is that opener really should be maximum to accept an invite, since with most 12s responder will just bid game, so responder tends to be on either a very good 11 or terrible 12. I think almost all opener's boring 13s should pass 2NT on this auction (your above hand would accept though). On that basis, I guess this is one of those hands I would bid 2NT vul at imps, but pass otherwise.

[paulg]

I would consider a common UK practice is opening 1♣ with 4-4 minors and a balanced hand. Certainly applies to Welsh internationals B)

 

paul

[kenberg]

I think that pass is the long time winner, and I would have no difficulty at all to pass this hand. Although it is possible to construct a rare 13-count where 3NT has good chances, it is just as easy to construct 12-counts where 2NT will have no play. I think pass is the percentage call. This hand is a poor 11-count for playing in 3NT.

I'm glad to hear you say this. I would like to think I would have the courage of my convictions and pass the 1NT rebid, because I do think chances are poor. Whether I actually would is another question.

 

Ken

[pclayton]

(snip)

 

Turn the jack of clubs into the queen of spades and change the shape a little.

 

KQx xxx Ax KQxxx

 

and game is lousy, opposite a 14 that is so good that some would open 1NT with it. There are many other cases of maximum hands for opener where game is bad. 

 

(Snip)

A lot of us would raise to 2♥ on hands like this, so I'm more inclined to put pard on 2-3 in the reds, not v.v. With 2-3 in the reds, this is the type of game I want to be in red.

 

We also open 1♦ with 4-4 (usually anyway).

 

I hope pard isn't the type that bypasses 4 spades in this auction. Accordingly, pard is a heavy favorite to hold 5 clubs; some vanilla 3=3=3=4 is about the only pattern I can think of that doesn't. Frankly, I think theres a subgroup of hands that a lot of us rebid 1N on with 2=2=3=6's and 3=2=2=6's (although the 2nd pattern brings diamonds back in as a problem).

 

Aces and Kings are notoriously undervalued. These cards will play well opposite a known trick source. I'll bet if you ran a simulation with pard having 5 clubs and a hand that accepts an invite, you'll meet the 36% hurdle without much trouble.

 

2N for me.

[joshs]

Assuming that you open 1D with 4-4 in the minors (or at least msot of the time) partner usually has 5 clubs for this sequence. Here is a submin hand:

Kxx xx Kxx KQxxx

 

Opposite this submin, game has chances (e.g. 3-2 clubs with ace onside and diamonds 4-3 with A onside or a diamond lead) but I wouldn't want to be there

 

Strengthen the hand to a legit opener:

Kxx xx Kxx KQJxx

and game approaches vul at imps levels, but is probably still submin

 

And with

Kxx xx Axx KQJxx

(a hand that would accept the invite)  you would want to be in game.

 

 

I think this hand is (barely) worth a 2N bid.

Turn the jack of clubs into the queen of spades and change the shape a little.

 

KQx xxx Ax KQxxx

 

and game is lousy, opposite a 14 that is so good that some would open 1NT with it. There are many other cases of maximum hands for opener where game is bad. I am not saying this makes it wrong to raise, just food for thought.

 

My one strong opinion about this auction is that opener really should be maximum to accept an invite, since with most 12s responder will just bid game, so responder tends to be on either a very good 11 or terrible 12. I think almost all opener's boring 13s should pass 2NT on this auction (your above hand would accept though). On that basis, I guess this is one of those hands I would bid 2NT vul at imps, but pass otherwise.

And move the SQ into diamonds, and its not bad again. Anyway, we all agree that its close and agree that opener should be max to accept. If opener is a 4333 14, then I don't expect to make it without a few good spot cards, but we might get lucky....

[han]

(snip)

 

Turn the jack of clubs into the queen of spades and change the shape a little.

 

KQx xxx Ax KQxxx

 

and game is lousy, opposite a 14 that is so good that some would open 1NT with it. There are many other cases of maximum hands for opener where game is bad. 

 

(Snip)

A lot of us would raise to 2♥ on hands like this, so I'm more inclined to put pard on 2-3 in the reds, not v.v. With 2-3 in the reds, this is the type of game I want to be in red.

Those that would bid 2H with this, please raise your hand.

[joshs]

I would in east coast style (flexible about bypassing diamonds), but not playing walsh.

[jdonn]

Why is this inference about the 5 clubs so strong? Partner could be 3334, or 4333 where I'm certain it is far more common to rebid 1NT than 1S.

[pclayton]

Why is this inference about the 5 clubs so strong? Partner could be 3334, or 4333 where I'm certain it is far more common to rebid 1NT than 1S.

I would tend to rebid 1N with a 4=3=3=3 (especially if the clubs are weak), but I know a lot of players (usually over 50) that find it mandatory to rebid spades whenever they have 4.

 

Even then, we have:

 

3=2=3=5

2=3=3=5

2=2=4=5

 

and some 3=1=4=5 and 3=1=3=6's and 2=2=3=6's that want to rebid 1N.

 

So I still think that its a strong inference about the 5 clubs.

[joshs]

Why is this inference about the 5 clubs so strong? Partner could be 3334, or 4333 where I'm certain it is far more common to rebid 1NT than 1S.

Its not that strong. Does anyone know the relative frequency of the relevent shapes?

 

3235

2335 (and no raise)

3325 (and no raise)

4333

3334

2245 and weak diamonds (maybe 25% of the hands this shape?)

 

I would assume that about 75% of the hands with 3 hearts and a doubleton raise hearts, to get an order of magnitude here.

[P_Marlowe]

2NT.

 

With kind regads

Marlower

[jdonn]

Why is this inference about the 5 clubs so strong? Partner could be 3334, or 4333 where I'm certain it is far more common to rebid 1NT than 1S.

I would tend to rebid 1N with a 4=3=3=3 (especially if the clubs are weak), but I know a lot of players (usually over 50) that find it mandatory to rebid spades whenever they have 4.

 

Even then, we have:

 

3=2=3=5

2=3=3=5

2=2=4=5

 

and some 3=1=4=5 and 3=1=3=6's and 2=2=3=6's that want to rebid 1N.

 

So I still think that its a strong inference about the 5 clubs.

3145? I'll grudgingly admit it's possible, but it's a reach. 3136? Now you are just being kind if silly.

[pclayton]

Why is this inference about the 5 clubs so strong? Partner could be 3334, or 4333 where I'm certain it is far more common to rebid 1NT than 1S.

I would tend to rebid 1N with a 4=3=3=3 (especially if the clubs are weak), but I know a lot of players (usually over 50) that find it mandatory to rebid spades whenever they have 4.

 

Even then, we have:

 

3=2=3=5

2=3=3=5

2=2=4=5

 

and some 3=1=4=5 and 3=1=3=6's and 2=2=3=6's that want to rebid 1N.

 

So I still think that its a strong inference about the 5 clubs.

3145? I'll grudgingly admit it's possible, but it's a reach. 3136? Now you are just being kind if silly.

Yeah I agree; I'm stretching with 3136; I was thinking of KJx, Q, AQx, Q9xxxx - maybe.

 

Putrid I know. :)

[Wackojack]

This discussion seems to have developed into guessing partner's shape. So FWIIW I can say that we had a general agreement that we bid up the line. So I would normally expect her to open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors, not to bypass a 4-card spade suit, and to perhaps to raise the 1♥ response to 2♥ with 3 holding a poor doubleton spade. OTOH playing 2/1 with another partner, I would expect 1♦ open with 4-4 in the minors, and playing Walsh style a 1NT rebid could have 4 spades. However, I am not sure if 1 style or another should change the valuation of the hand.

 

If one could evaluate by converting to a normalised HCP evaluation. Then I reckon AK + A would increase the value by about half a point and the lack of shape of 10's and 9's would decrease the value by about the same amount (perhaps a bit more) and a vulnerable IMP game needs 24 when the 2 hands are almost equal. It is this rule of thumb approach that I would like to have confirmed.

[kenberg]

This discussion seems to have developed into guessing partner's shape. So FWIIW I can say that we had a general agreement that we bid up the line. So I would normally expect her to open 1♣ with 4-4 in the minors, not to bypass a 4-card spade suit, and to perhaps to raise the 1♥ response to 2♥ with 3 holding a poor doubleton spade. OTOH playing 2/1 with another partner, I would expect 1♦ open with 4-4 in the minors, and playing Walsh style a 1NT rebid could have 4 spades. However, I am not sure if 1 style or another should change the valuation of the hand.

 

If one could evaluate by converting to a normalised HCP evaluation. Then I reckon AK + A would increase the value by about half a point and the lack of shape of 10's and 9's would decrease the value by about the same amount (perhaps a bit more) and a vulnerable IMP game needs 24 when the 2 hands are almost equal. It is this rule of thumb approach that I would like to have confirmed.

Your rule of thumb may not be what I would use. My thinking would be something like: My hand will take three tricks with a slight chance of another if partner has three hearts and they split. My other cards don't much rate to help partner either control the hand (beyond my three tricks) or help him develop tricks. That leaves a lot for partner's hand to do. But it could happen. Sort of a Clint Eastwood hand: You gotta ask yourself this, punk. Are you feeling lucky?

 

Perhaps I am the villain who started getting everyone talking about shape. I was mostly thinking of the problems of simulation. If a simulation is to be useful, it has to be planned carefully and that means knowing what sort of hands are in fact consistent with this bidding. I think it is tough. I virtually never open 1C when 4-4 in the minors (I tried it for a while and the auction always went 1C-(1S)-negative double and there I was with 2 hearts, no spade stop, and a strong wish I had opened 1D). After 1C-1H I used to sometimes skip over a spade suit to bid 1NT but partners got tired of me hogging the NT and so, while I may do it from time to time, I usually don't. But that's me, others are different, and if a simulation were to be done these matters would have to be settled. There would definitely also be the issue of when partner would raise 1H on a 3 card holding (never? well, hardly ever?).

 

Anyway, this has been interesting. There seems to be some pretty strong and experienced voices for passing 1NT. I'll cite them when it goes wrong. Actually, I don't think it much will. Points shmoints there just are not enough tricks.

 

Ken

[Finch]

I would raise, though vul at imps upwards only.

Perhaps I'm biased by recent emphasis on aggregate scoring...

[han]

Frances, how do you go upwards from vulnerable at IMPs? (I assume that you don't play total points ;) )

[Blofeld]

Isn't aggregate the same as total points?