Socal bidding poll problems

[jdonn]

I'm on a rotating panel for the bridge newsletter in the Los Angeles area that does a bidding poll, I get problems every third month. I just received the ones for (I think) June, I thought it might be fun to post them as a poll here and see peoples' answers. I already sent mine in, but maybe I'll post them later. Especially fun to answer are the 'allocate the blame' problems. Just assign East and West each a score between 0% and 100% representing their responsibility for what went wrong, presumably adding up to 100% although often people give answers like "East 0%, West 60%, bad luck 40%".

 

The methods in use are simply straightforward 2/1 with a forcing 1NT response, although methods tend not to have much bearing in these problems. All problems are from real life, and all stories are true (sometimes it's sad to believe that).

 

1. Both vulnerable, imps

East opens 1NT (15-17) and you, South, hold 76 AK9874 1053 A7. What call do you make? (no conventions)

 

2. Neither vulnerable, matchpoints

North East South West

1♥ pass ?

a: What call would you make with 7642 Q85 Q KQJ72?

b: If you bid 1NT and partner bids 2♠, what call would you make?

 

3. East-West vulnerable, imps

West North East South

1♠ dbl 2♠ pass

3♦ 4♥ pass pass

4♠ dbl pass ?

What call would you make with Q6 75 762 J87642?

 

4. Both vulnerable, imps

West

A

A64

J6

AKJ9743

 

East

Q76543

J97543

Q3

-

 

West North East South

1♣ 1♦ dbl pass

2♦ 3♦ pass pass

5♣ pass pass dbl (end)

Apportion the blame for getting to this contract.***

*** I know East has an extra card, this is how it was sent to me. Just explain if your answer differs depending upon which (presumably small) card is taken away.

 

5. Neither vulnerable, matchpoints

West

84

AKQ

K1083

AQJ4

 

East

952

JT63

Q96

K86

 

1♦ 1♥

3♣ 3♦

3♥ 4♦

4♥ 5♦

Apportion the blame for getting to this contract.

[bid_em_up]

deleted

[joshs]

I am on a different months panel, so I guess I will provide my problems when I get them...

1. 2H. Is this a real problem?

2.A. 1N

B. 3H forcing. This is the handtype that prefers the 5-3 to the 4-4 (spade losers might go on the clubs).

3. Whatever Josh actually did at the table is probably wrong in principle (you did hold this hand last month, right Josh?), but I will pass the x anyway. I can be -550 like you.

4. With 6-5 or 6-6 in the majors, I don't really care for a negative x (with 6-6 it would be aweful), but if you make a negative x you have to bid a 6 card major next. So East 100%. East's passing 3D having made a negative x is terrible.

5. West 100% of 0. I don't think anyone did anything terrible, but the patient died anyway. Opener can make the traditional rebid of 2N with the spade flaw to show hand type, but it may wrong side NT. He can underbid with 2C or overbid with 3C. Responder didn't do anything wierd. He certainly wanted to play 5D opposite 1354 shape...Basically opener took a view, and it didn't work out. Was the view a mistake? I don't really think so.

[awm]

1. 2♥.

 

2. 1NT will make the subsequent auction easier. I'll bid 3♥ over 2♠; there are many hands where the 4-4 spade fit will play better than the 5-3 heart fit, but I suspect this is not one of them. Hopefully 3♥ is forcing here (lebensohl/ingberman).

 

3. Pass. Partner hasn't suggested much of a club fit, and my doubleton heart and ♠Q argue for defending.

 

4. I blame east 100%. The initial double was flawed (better to bid a suit with 6-5 or 6-6 in the majors), and east again failed to show a long major after partner's strong 2♦ bid. Perhaps east is regretting the initial double once partner tries to force, but passing when you know partner is about to bid again is a poor solution.

 

5. West needs to take 100% of the blame for masterminding the auction. Certainly rebidding 2NT with two small spades could be a disaster sometimes, but you're going to find a 5-3 heart fit on that auction anyway (checkback) when one exists. There's no way east will ever be convinced to play a 4-3 heart fit holding weak trumps in the long hand, and honestly 4♥ is no bargain on these cards either (three rounds of spades to tap the strong hand, then you have only nine tricks with five hearts and four clubs, so must try to set up diamonds and be hit by the killing second tap). If west rebids 2NT he will play there, making any time spades are 4-4, or not lead.

[luis]

Thanks a lot for sharing the problems! Very nice set!

My humble answers below:

 

1.

Pass, If hearts are fine I can defeat 1NT and if hearts are not fine I might get in trouble bidding 2he with a defensive hand.

 

 

2.

a) 2he, not vulnerable I don't need to overbid, specially at MPs

B) 4♦ but I wouldn't bid 1NT (see a)

 

3.

 

5♣ desperate defense, opener has a two suiter and Qx of spades is really bad. Might be a double fit hand.

 

4.

East 100% the negative double is debatable, and then over 3♦ the pass is terrible, he should bid 4♦ instead asking opener to pick a major. A direct 4♦ over 1♦ is also better. Opener is just bidding what he thinks he can make.

 

 

5.

 

1♦ and 1♥ are fine

3♣ with a balanced hand is horrible, balanced hands should open NT or rebid NT otherwise things get quite difficult.

3♦ is fine

3♥ is probably fine

4♦ I don't like he already said 3♦ with 3 cards so why repeat the same? 3♠ looking for 3NT sounds like a better bid

4♥ is fine

5♦ is terrible, 3♦ already showed 3 cards in diamonds, 4♦ was bad and why now 5♦ ? Is pd stupid or something?

 

3♣ is bad but in the context of no spade stopper can be understood.

Both 4♦ and 5♦ are really bad bids

 

So East 70% West 30%

 

Luis

[awm]

5.

 

1♦ and 1♥ are fine

3♣ with a balanced hand is horrible, balanced hands should open NT or rebid NT otherwise things get quite difficult.

3♦ is fine

3♥ is probably fine

4♦ I don't like he already said 3♦ with 3 cards so why repeat the same? 3♠ looking for 3NT sounds like a better bid

4♥ is fine

5♦ is terrible, 3♦ already showed 3 cards in diamonds, 4♦ was bad and why now 5♦ ? Is pd stupid or something?

 

3♣ is bad but in the context of no spade stopper can be understood.

Both 4♦ and 5♦ are really bad bids

 

So East 70% West 30%

 

Luis

I must admit, bidding 3♠ to look for a spade stopper when partner has shown me 1354 (or maybe 1363) shape would never have occurred to me. Is this really what a 3♠ bid here should mean? I would think either of "looking for stiff honor in spades to provide some help with a partial stopper" or "agreeing hearts and looking for slam" would be better... I don't think 3♦ implies three cards in diamonds, wouldn't it be the default bid with two? The 4♦ call seems very normal to me.

 

The 4♥ bid is somewhat unclear: is this a really determined attempt to play in the 4-3 heart fit, or a cuebid agreeing diamonds? Surely opener won't have four hearts on this auction. Even if passing 4♥ is an option here (i.e. it's an offer to play and not a cue), should east really pass with four hearts to the jack?

 

If west is determined not to rebid 2NT because of the lack of spade stopper, I think 3♥ is a better call. This points the partnership towards the desired strain, and lets partner out on hands (like this one!) where you don't really have a game. Partner will almost always raise 3♥ to four anyway if he has five of them, and if not, who is to say that 3♥ isn't the best resting place? Certainly it will be easier to convince partner to play a 4-3 heart fit if you bid 3♥ (normally showing four) than if you try to back into hearts later.

[han]

1. 2H.

 

2. a. 1NT.

b. 4D.

 

3. Pass.

 

4. west 0%, east 80 %, dealer 20%. East has made a very bad effort, his bidding in no way reflects the actual east hand.

 

5. 100% east, I like west's auction a lot. True, 3H showed something like 1-3-5-4, but 4H really suggested playing there.

[han]

I'm going to disagree with some comments of Adam. It may be wise to point out right away that I always enjoy reading Adam's posts and I have a lot of respect for his well thought-out views, even though my views are often different.

 

Adam said:

5. West needs to take 100% of the blame for masterminding the auction. Certainly rebidding 2NT with two small spades could be a disaster sometimes, but you're going to find a 5-3 heart fit on that auction anyway (checkback) when one exists. There's no way east will ever be convinced to play a 4-3 heart fit holding weak trumps in the long hand, and honestly 4♥ is no bargain on these cards either (three rounds of spades to tap the strong hand, then you have only nine tricks with five hearts and four clubs, so must try to set up diamonds and be hit by the killing second tap). If west rebids 2NT he will play there, making any time spades are 4-4, or not lead.

 

Regarding your first line here, are you saying that anytime somebody takes a view and it works out badly, the player who takes the view should accept that he made a bad decision? If so, I don't like that viewpoint.

 

I missed that it was MPs originally, and I think 3C is less attractive at matchpoints. At IMPs 4H is a better much spot than 2NT, I agree that at MPs this is not so clear. Double dummy the odds are slighly in favor of 4H I think, and I would have been happy to land there (as it beats 2NT when both make).

 

Adam again:

If west is determined not to rebid 2NT because of the lack of spade stopper, I think 3♥ is a better call. This points the partnership towards the desired strain, and lets partner out on hands (like this one!) where you don't really have a game. Partner will almost always raise 3♥ to four anyway if he has five of them, and if not, who is to say that 3♥ isn't the best resting place? Certainly it will be easier to convince partner to play a 4-3 heart fit if you bid 3♥ (normally showing four) than if you try to back into hearts later.

 

3C followed by 3H has a big advantage over 3H directly, namely the chance that you'll get to play 3NT from partner's side when it is right is much larger. I don't think that this is about being determined not to bid 2NT. I think it is about considering the different options and seeing what is likely to work out best.

 

More Adam:

The 4♥ bid is somewhat unclear: is this a really determined attempt to play in the 4-3 heart fit, or a cuebid agreeing diamonds? Surely opener won't have four hearts on this auction. Even if passing 4♥ is an option here (i.e. it's an offer to play and not a cue), should east really pass with four hearts to the jack?

 

With my f2f partners I had the agreement that 4H is not a cuebid but a suggestion to play in auctions like this. So it is not unclear to me. While the purpose of these polls is to use judgement instead of complicated methods, I think that we should assume that we have good agreements. Certainly a good partnership has an agreement about what 4♥ is, and if the agreement is that 4H is a suggestion to play then it makes the west auction much more appealing. Of course if you generally play that 4♥ is a cue then it makes jumpshifting less attractive.

[pclayton]

I'm on a rotating panel for the bridge newsletter in the Los Angeles area that does a bidding poll, I get problems every third month. I just received the ones for (I think) June, I thought it might be fun to post them as a poll here and see peoples' answers. I already sent mine in, but maybe I'll post them later. Especially fun to answer are the 'allocate the blame' problems. Just assign East and West each a score between 0% and 100% representing their responsibility for what went wrong, presumably adding up to 100% although often people give answers like "East 0%, West 60%, bad luck 40%".

 

The methods in use are simply straightforward 2/1 with a forcing 1NT response, although methods tend not to have much bearing in these problems. All problems are from real life, and all stories are true (sometimes it's sad to believe that).

 

1. Both vulnerable, imps

East opens 1NT (15-17) and you, South, hold 76 AK9874 1053 A7.  What call do you make? (no conventions)

 

2. Neither vulnerable, matchpoints

North East South West

1♥ pass ?

a: What call would you make with 7642 Q85 Q KQJ72?

b: If you bid 1NT and partner bids 2♠, what call would you make?

 

3. East-West vulnerable, imps

West North East South

1♠ dbl 2♠ pass

3♦ 4♥ pass pass

4♠ dbl pass ?

What call would you make with Q6 75 762 J87642?

 

4. Both vulnerable, imps

West

A

A64

J6

AKJ9743

 

East

Q76543

J97543

Q3

-

 

West North East South

1♣ 1♦ dbl pass

2♦ 3♦ pass pass

5♣ pass pass dbl (end)

Apportion the blame for getting to this contract.***

*** I know East has an extra card, this is how it was sent to me. Just explain if your answer differs depending upon which (presumably small) card is taken away.

 

5. Neither vulnerable, matchpoints

West

84

AKQ

K1083

AQJ4

 

East

952

JT63

Q96

K86

 

1♦  1♥

3♣  3♦

3♥  4♦

4♥  5♦

Apportion the blame for getting to this contract.

1. 2♥. This isn't a problem, but I'll bet you that Marshall will advocate a pass because it makes it tougher for the opps to make a neg x and get to their 4-4 spade fit. Or, this is a hand that loves to defend 1N because of the great trick source and entry. Well, .....OK.

 

2. I'll take the low road and just bid 2♥. I can't see upgrading this aceless wonder to a limit raise. If I make a forcing 1N call, I will bid 3 very forcing hearts.

 

3. Pass. This ain't my party. There is no guarantee pard has a club fit on this auction.

 

4. I'll assume the heart four is in the wrong spot and East has a 6=5=2=0. I'll give 80% to East for the silly negative double; whats wrong with 1♠? West went jonesing for 3N after and put East on a mild club fit (don't know why). I think even a 3♠ call by East might put the brakes on West and allow a back into 4♥.

 

5. What do I know - I'd could easily see 1♦ - 1♥ - 2N - pass. While I don't like 3♣, it did have the benefit of getting the partnership close to the only makeable game of 4♥. 3♦ is normal; 4♦ looks OK, since it confirms you have real diamond support and not just a forced preference. but 5♦? Complete overreaction to one or two of pard's high trumps getting smashed by spade ruffs. Very interesting, North's bidding portrayed a 1=3=5=4. Substitute the Q♥ for the Q♦ and make N a 1354 and where do you want to play this? Very tough, I'd award 20% to north, 30% to south and 50% to really bad luck.

[Guest Jlall]

1. Both vulnerable, imps

East opens 1NT (15-17) and you, South, hold 76 AK9874 1053 A7. What call do you make? (no conventions)

 

2. Neither vulnerable, matchpoints

North East South West

1♥ pass ?

a: What call would you make with 7642 Q85 Q KQJ72?

b: If you bid 1NT and partner bids 2♠, what call would you make?

 

3. East-West vulnerable, imps

West North East South

1♠ dbl 2♠ pass

3♦ 4♥ pass pass

4♠ dbl pass ?

What call would you make with Q6 75 762 J87642?

 

4. Both vulnerable, imps

West

A

A64

J6

AKJ9743

 

East

Q76543

J97543

Q3

-

 

West North East South

1♣ 1♦ dbl pass

2♦ 3♦ pass pass

5♣ pass pass dbl (end)

Apportion the blame for getting to this contract.***

*** I know East has an extra card, this is how it was sent to me. Just explain if your answer differs depending upon which (presumably small) card is taken away.

 

5. Neither vulnerable, matchpoints

West

84

AKQ

K1083

AQJ4

 

East

952

JT63

Q96

K86

 

1♦ 1♥

3♣ 3♦

3♥ 4♦

4♥ 5♦

Apportion the blame for getting to this contract.

1) 2H. Passing is like rolling over and dying.

 

2) 1N. Good enough for a 3 card limit for me. Over 2S i would bid 3H wishing i played transfers here. 3S to me would not show 4 card support, I already missed that boat.

 

3) Pass feels right. Partner hasn't promised (or denied) any kind of club holding.

 

4) Too many cards, but regardless of which 6 card major east had his X was completely absurd. When will people learn to not make a negative X with this hand type? You can never recover from it. west might have just bid 3C over the X but it is a bit hefty. 2D is understandable. Over 3D south needs to bid his 6 card major. When will he ever bid his 6 card major? Despite whether he likes it or not he's in a game force and pass says he has nothing interesting to bid, it does NOT say I have a minimum. 5C is a bad bid, west should just bid 4C. It probably didnt affect the result much. 90 % to east, his bidding was really bad.

 

5) The 3C bid was a novice mistake. I tell my students all the time not to make this mistake when they try opening 1m with xx in a suit and 16 balanced. Which is more important, telling partner I have 18 or 19 and a balanced hand while bidding NT with a small doubleton spade, or completely misdescribing the shape and orientation of your hand in an effort not to bid NT with xx of spades? 4H is an offer to play, but east will not accept with poor hearts and great minor suit fillers. 95 % to west, (east MAY have passed 4H).

[Guest Jlall]

At IMPs 4H is a better much spot than 2NT, I agree that at MPs this is not so clear. Double dummy the odds are slighly in favor of 4H I think

You are right, but even with the 3C bid the players were not able to bid to 4H. Instead they found 5D. You can't always find the 4-3 fit with 4432 opposite 4333 when the hand with long trumps has them headed to the jack. I don't think showing 5431 is the best way to go about it. Wouldn't everyone bid 4H with x AKx AKJxx QJTx? Opposite that hand when it goes spade spade you are in serious trouble with 5D cold.

[jdonn]

Well I'll post what I said, since they aren't definitive answers anyway, it's just what I sent in. I won't state my panel comments since they are too long, but I'll give the jist.

 

1) 2♥. This sort of hand only ends in these bidding polls because our beloved moderator loves to search for an excuse to do something abnormal, though he won't admit it. It's true this could let LHO in with a negative double, but that could be a bad thing for him as well. Justin said it best, passing here is like rolling over and dying.

 

2)

a) 2♥, I don't consider this worth a limit raise, though I can understand people who do. I count nothing for the diamond queen, which leaves the hand just a little short in my view.

b ) I bid 4♥, though 3♥ is fine. I don't like fast arrival on most auctions, but I think it might make sense on an auction like this. There are too few controls for 4♦ in my opinion, and this spade holding is actually quite bad for slam in either suit most of the time. And yes Justin, I spent more than a few words plugging transfers :o

 

3) I held this one at the table, passed and went -790 with an easy SLAM!!! our way! (12 tricks in clubs, 10 in hearts) Partner's bidding was beyond reproach, he held x AKJTxxx Ax AKQ. LHO was 7141. I now consider my pass a clear error, and think the passes people are making here are reflex actions. I'm very surprised Justin passed, since he is the one who originally gave me the advice I often quote from Hamman. Good opponents are not crazy when they are vul against not. He told me of a hand at matchpoints where Hamman didn't double his r/w opponents in 4H or 4S with four sure-looking tricks, and got a great score because most people doubled but they had a lot of shape and made. It is clear to me now that I should have played them for a lot of shape, and in that case it's easy to see they might make. What happened was really quite predictable. I like taking out into 4NT to offer partner a choice of clubs and hearts, and I think my holdings in those suits are pretty much exactly what he should expect for that bid, and he would definitely choose clubs here (maybe he will think diamonds are included, but if he chose them I could always safely return to hearts anyway.) Maybe the opponents will sac in 5 (unlikely at this vul) and we will be forced to double them for 200, but at least we will go plus. This was imps, you can't take the chance of a double game swing.

 

4) I join the crowd barfing at the negative double. I don't think 2♦ creates a 100% game force though, well in a sense it does but I think 4 of a minor should count as game when you have tried but failed to reach 3NT. On that basis 5♣ was certainly an overbid too, there wasn't much to spare given the 2♦ bid. But obviously east gets most of the blame. I gave west 45% and east 200%, which normalizes to west 18% east 82%. That feels about right to me.

 

5) I really dislike the 3♣ bid, I actually consider it a form of masterminding. Wouldn't anyone open 1NT with the same hand minus a queen? Given the way it went, I also dislike the final 5♦ bid. It's true that east is not enthralled to play in hearts, but it's matchpoints, it's a level lower, and east has already suggested exactly four hearts and three+ diamonds. I don't think that is east's decision to make on this hand. Maybe west could have bid 4♥ over 3♦ with the AKQ, but that would give up on 3NT. Of course if he is so concerned with that he should have rebid 2NT in the first place. I gave west 35% and east 65%, though in hindsight I think it's more like 50 50. And I am 100000% sure that Marshall will say west should have raised 1♥ to 3♥, which is also masterminding but less effectively.

[cherdano]

5. 100% east, I like west's auction a lot. True, 3H showed something like 1-3-5-4, but 4H really suggested playing there.

I think one of the problems with West's auction is that East, given a stronger hand, might drive to slam without worrying about a spade control. Since 5431 hands opened at the 1-level can be quite strong according to the consensus here (and our style), I don't think that West can stop East from driving to slam when a 1=3=5=4 18-count would be enough for 6♥.

 

So at least it is dangerous to misrepresent one's shape like this when partner is unlimited.

 

Arend

[han]

I agree Arend (and others).

 

I found a nice Budhist retreat in the Wisconsin mountains where I stayed since posting that I liked west's auction. I feel clean now, and would rebid 2NT as I should.

[whereagles]

I'm on a rotating panel for the bridge newsletter in the Los Angeles area that does a bidding poll, I get problems every third month. I just received the ones for (I think) June, I thought it might be fun to post them as a poll here and see peoples' answers. I already sent mine in, but maybe I'll post them later. Especially fun to answer are the 'allocate the blame' problems. Just assign East and West each a score between 0% and 100% representing their responsibility for what went wrong, presumably adding up to 100% although often people give answers like "East 0%, West 60%, bad luck 40%".

 

The methods in use are simply straightforward 2/1 with a forcing 1NT response, although methods tend not to have much bearing in these problems. All problems are from real life, and all stories are true (sometimes it's sad to believe that).

 

1. Both vulnerable, imps

East opens 1NT (15-17) and you, South, hold 76 AK9874 1053 A7. What call do you make? (no conventions)

 

2. Neither vulnerable, matchpoints

North East South West

1♥ pass ?

a: What call would you make with 7642 Q85 Q KQJ72?

b: If you bid 1NT and partner bids 2♠, what call would you make?

 

3. East-West vulnerable, imps

West North East South

1♠ dbl 2♠ pass

3♦ 4♥ pass pass

4♠ dbl pass ?

What call would you make with Q6 75 762 J87642?

 

4. Both vulnerable, imps

West

A

A64

J6

AKJ9743

 

East

Q76543

J97543

Q3

-

 

West North East South

1♣ 1♦ dbl pass

2♦ 3♦ pass pass

5♣ pass pass dbl (end)

Apportion the blame for getting to this contract.***

*** I know East has an extra card, this is how it was sent to me. Just explain if your answer differs depending upon which (presumably small) card is taken away.

 

5. Neither vulnerable, matchpoints

West

84

AKQ

K1083

AQJ4

 

East

952

JT63

Q96

K86

 

1♦ 1♥

3♣ 3♦

3♥ 4♦

4♥ 5♦

Apportion the blame for getting to this contract.

too many probs in one post.. lol

 

but here it goes:

 

1. No conventions? 4♥ then.

 

2a. 1NT or 1♠ or 2♥, depending on the day. Today: 2♥.

2b. 3♥. Should show a fit.

 

3. Yuck.. pass, I guess.

 

4. East 97%. Initial double was a bit weakish, but ok. After pard declared he wanted to play a game, East must stand up for his previous actions and bid his hand with 4♦. His pass says "nothing more to add", not "sorry pard, I shouldn't have doubled before"!!!! I give West 3% of the blame because it takes two to tango. I leave it to thee to find out where he went wrong.. lol.

 

5. West 99%. His 2nd bid is 2NT, period. Masterminding just because "I didn't have a spade stopper" is, in my opinion completely unwarranted and is the prime responsible for the whole sillyness. East 1% because he might have passed to some nr. of hearts at some stage.

[joshs]

5) I really dislike the 3♣ bid, I actually consider it a form of masterminding. Wouldn't anyone open 1NT with the same hand minus a queen? Given the way it went, I also dislike the final 5♦ bid. It's true that east is not enthralled to play in hearts, but it's matchpoints, it's a level lower, and east has already suggested exactly four hearts and three+ diamonds. I don't think that is east's decision to make on this hand. Maybe west could have bid 4♥ over 3♦ with the AKQ, but that would give up on 3NT. Of course if he is so concerned with that he should have rebid 2NT in the first place. I gave west 35% and east 65%, though in hindsight I think it's more like 50 50. And I am 100000% sure that Marshall will say west should have raised 1♥ to 3♥, which is also masterminding but less effectively.

Well I definitely disagree here. Comparing a NT opening bid with a NT rebid is not a fair comparision.

 

Would anyone open 1N on x AKxx Axxx KQxx? Would anyone rebid 1N with x AKxx Axxx Qxxx after 1D-1S? The difference is:

you have information about partner's hand, so you have two distinct objectives:

1. describe your hand type for best exploration of strain and level

2. take the most tricks possible in your Final contract- here wrongsiding a contract is a concern, as is finding a playable part score if thats where you belong is also a concern

 

While in the case of the 4441, 1N is a misdiscription, its not that clear that 2C isn't also somewhat of a misdiscription, so bidding the cheap playable spot of 1N is a reasonable bid, although hardly clear (if partner later bids a slam expecting his AKQxxx of spades to be running, its "your fault" for bidding 1N).

 

In this hand after opening 1D you have information. The information you have is that, since partner has more (or equal) hearts than spades, that spades are a major weakness for NT, and you definitely don't belong in NT from your side. So you have to weigh

a. misdescribing your hand by 1 card (value a)

for

b. increasing the number of tricks you will take in a NT contract if thats in fact the strain you belong in.

 

I think jump shifting and then showing 3 hearts is reasonable since the point of it is to get to NT from partner's side if possible. I don't think jumping in hearts is reasonable, since we might belong in 3 other strains. I also think bidding 2N is fine but its ironic to be strongly suggesting a strain (jumping in it) when you know its wrong to be playing that strain from your side.....

 

If you held AQxx xx Jxx AQxx

And the auction went with the opps silent 1C-1D-1S(flexible stlye, can rebid a major or 1N with a balanced hand)-2H-> no one would be arguing about a 3D bid here even if it implies 4135. Yes our actual auction does more than imply a 5431, but still you are lying about only 1 card because your other rebid really is flawed as well.

[jdonn]

1. No conventions? 4♥ then.

 

Are you sure you read the problem correctly buddy? 1NT was from RHO, not from partner.

[joshs]

BTW, I think people misunderstand the strengths and weakness of 3C.

 

The main strength is that you can get to 3N from partner's side.

 

Occasionally you might play 5C when you belong there.

 

It almost never helps finding a 4-3 heart fit becuase your hearts are too strong and the decision to play in a 4-3 is always made by the player with 4 trumps.

 

It can hurt you by bypassing your last reasonable spot in 2N.

 

It can hurt you by getting to 6H when you are off 2 spades. I think this hand might want to lie about the trump Q if keycard occurs, since it does not have the playing strength promised....

 

Note: I am not arguing in favour of 3C, I just don't think its a stupid bid either...

personally I rank 2N,2C,3C in that order but its very very close between them.

[jdonn]

Well I definitely disagree here. Comparing a NT opening bid with a NT rebid is not a fair comparision.

 

Would anyone open 1N on x AKxx Axxx KQxx? Would anyone rebid 1N  with x AKxx Axxx Qxxx after 1D-1S? The difference is:

you have information about partner's hand, so you have two distinct objectives:

1. describe your hand type for best exploration of strain and level

2. take the most tricks possible in your Final contract- here wrongsiding a contract is a concern, as is finding a playable part score if thats where you belong is also a concern

 

While in the case of the 4441, 1N is a misdiscription, its not that clear that 2C isn't also somewhat of a misdiscription, so bidding the cheap playable spot of 1N is a reasonable bid, although hardly clear (if partner later bids a slam expecting his AKQxxx of spades to be running, its "your fault" for bidding 1N).

 

In this hand after opening 1D you have information. The information you have is that, since partner has more (or equal) hearts than spades, that spades are a major weakness for NT, and you definitely don't belong in NT from your side. So you have to weigh

a. misdescribing your hand by 1 card (value a)

for

b. increasing the number of tricks you will take in a NT contract if thats in fact the strain you belong in.

 

I think jump shifting and then showing 3 hearts is reasonable since the point of it is to get to NT from partner's side if possible. I don't think jumping in hearts is reasonable, since we might belong in 3 other strains. I also think bidding 2N is fine but its ironic to be strongly suggesting a strain (jumping in it) when you know its wrong to be playing that strain from your side.....

 

If you held AQxx xx Jxx AQxx

And the auction went  with the opps silent 1C-1D-1S(flexible stlye, can rebid a major or 1N with a balanced hand)-2H-> no one would be arguing about a 3D bid here even if it implies 4135. Yes our actual auction does more than imply a 5431, but still you are lying about only 1 card because your other rebid really is flawed as well.

 

Comparing a notrump rebid with a notrump opening my not always be fair but is fair in this case, because I am only discussing the distinction as it pertains to holding xx of a suit and the rightsiding concerns that flow from that. You said it yourself, with 1444 shape all rebids are something of a misdescription. With a 2344 18-19, a 2NT rebid is not a misdescription. When you hold 16 balanced with a small doubleton, you have the same concerns about rightsiding the hand as dealer that you do on this hand after 1♦ 1♥. In both cases, there is a clear systematic choice.

 

Sure, I also don't like 3♣ because it complicates the auction, and doesn't let us stop short of game like 2NT does. But it is absolutely masterminding. Opening a minor suit denies a balanced 15-17. Opening a minor suit and failing to rebid 2NT denies a balanced 18-19. The fact that there may be an undesirable aspect to your systematic bid or certain advantages to other bids is simply tough noogies, you aren't entitled to fish around for a spur of the moment made up solution. Well you are entitled since you paid your entry fee, but I think from a partnership and systematic aspect this is a judgement that neither player should be entitled to make.

 

Likewise with your example at the end. It's one thing to misdescribe when all bids misdescribe. That is not the case on the original hand.

[han]

BTW, I think people misunderstand the strengths and weakness of 3C.

 

The main strength is that you can get to 3N from partner's side.

Well, I did say that in one of my posts, but that was from before I saw the light.

[joshs]

Well I definitely disagree here. Comparing a NT opening bid with a NT rebid is not a fair comparision.

 

Would anyone open 1N on x AKxx Axxx KQxx? Would anyone rebid 1N  with x AKxx Axxx Qxxx after 1D-1S? The difference is:

you have information about partner's hand, so you have two distinct objectives:

1. describe your hand type for best exploration of strain and level

2. take the most tricks possible in your Final contract- here wrongsiding a contract is a concern, as is finding a playable part score if thats where you belong is also a concern

 

While in the case of the 4441, 1N is a misdiscription, its not that clear that 2C isn't also somewhat of a misdiscription, so bidding the cheap playable spot of 1N is a reasonable bid, although hardly clear (if partner later bids a slam expecting his AKQxxx of spades to be running, its "your fault" for bidding 1N).

 

In this hand after opening 1D you have information. The information you have is that, since partner has more (or equal) hearts than spades, that spades are a major weakness for NT, and you definitely don't belong in NT from your side. So you have to weigh

a. misdescribing your hand by 1 card (value a)

for

b. increasing the number of tricks you will take in a NT contract if thats in fact the strain you belong in.

 

I think jump shifting and then showing 3 hearts is reasonable since the point of it is to get to NT from partner's side if possible. I don't think jumping in hearts is reasonable, since we might belong in 3 other strains. I also think bidding 2N is fine but its ironic to be strongly suggesting a strain (jumping in it) when you know its wrong to be playing that strain from your side.....

 

If you held AQxx xx Jxx AQxx

And the auction went  with the opps silent 1C-1D-1S(flexible stlye, can rebid a major or 1N with a balanced hand)-2H-> no one would be arguing about a 3D bid here even if it implies 4135. Yes our actual auction does more than imply a 5431, but still you are lying about only 1 card because your other rebid really is flawed as well.

 

Comparing a notrump rebid with a notrump opening my not always be fair but is fair in this case, because I am only discussing the distinction as it pertains to holding xx of a suit and the rightsiding concerns that flow from that. You said it yourself, with 1444 shape all rebids are something of a misdescription. With a 2344 18-19, a 2NT rebid is not a misdescription. When you hold 16 balanced with a small doubleton, you have the same concerns about rightsiding the hand as dealer that you do on this hand after 1♦ 1♥. In both cases, there is a clear systematic choice.

 

Sure, I also don't like 3♣ because it complicates the auction, and doesn't let us stop short of game like 2NT does. But it is absolutely masterminding. Opening a minor suit denies a balanced 15-17. Opening a minor suit and failing to rebid 2NT denies a balanced 18-19. The fact that there may be an undesirable aspect to your systematic bid or certain advantages to other bids is simply tough noogies, you aren't entitled to fish around for a spur of the moment made up solution. Well you are entitled since you paid your entry fee, but I think from a partnership and systematic aspect this is a judgement that neither player should be entitled to make.

 

Likewise with your example at the end. It's one thing to misdescribe when all bids misdescribe. That is not the case on the original hand.

2N does misdecscribe. It suggests playing in NT from yourside, which is something you don't want to do. I don't see why the natural meaning of 2N "I want to invite game in NT" is less important than the hand type meaning.

 

If you opened 1D on Ax Kxx AQxxxx Ax and raised a 1N response to 2N, are you masterminding? I just think you are inviting game in NT and happen to be 1 card away from normal shape. If you miss your diamond game or slam because of it, oh well. Is 2N or 3D the % bid? I personally think 2N is the % bid, but its very close. I don't consider either to be masterminding.

[joshs]

BTW, if you held 2344 shape with 2 small spades and a balanced 16 count and you somehow knew that partner had more hearts than spades (for instance if both opponents hearts and spade holdings each fell on the table but while the other opponent was away from the table), I think opening 1N is a mistake. If you played a weak NT and partner responded 1H to 1D I think rebidding NT is a clear error....

[Guest Jlall]

2N does misdecscribe. It suggests playing in NT from yourside, which is something you don't want to do. I don't see why the natural meaning of 2N "I want to invite game in NT" is less important than the hand type meaning.

Most bids tell, they do not ask when partner is unlimited. If you think 2N asks partner to bid game in NT if hes max, you are wrong. Partner is unlimited, and we are still in the process of describing our hand.

 

The way bridge is, we have 1 way to bid 18-19 balanced with no primary fit. Balanced hands bid NT. There is no way to bid that shows 18-19 balanced with anti-positional values. You either show your 18-19 balanced, or you don't.

 

Can you really not see why showing this hand type is MUCH more important than distorting your shape in hopes that partner can bid NT AND it will matter?

 

If you opened 1D on Ax Kxx AQxxxx Ax and raised a 1N response to 2N, are you masterminding? I just think you are inviting game in NT and happen to be 1 card away from normal shape. If you miss your diamond game or slam because of it, oh well. Is 2N or 3D the % bid? I personally think 2N is the % bid, but its very close. I don't consider either to be masterminding.

 

2N here is not a descriptive bid. Do you see why? Partner is limited in both values and major suit holdings. 2N will be bid with various shapes and hand types, and just requests that partner bid 3N with a max, and either pass or sign off in a minor with a minimum. Compare this to when partner bids 1 of a major, where he is unlimited in both of those areas. Now you must define our hand type.

[DelfinoD]

1) 2♥

 

2) 2♣, but if we can't show 9-11 with fit later I would bid 2♥

 

3) pass, I have really nothing for my p.

 

4) for me its 40/60. Neg. double is bad, but 5♣ is also an overbid.

 

5) 100% E. He could have passed 1♦. 4♥ should be understood as a natural will to play. E should pass.

[joshs]

2N does misdecscribe. It suggests playing in NT from yourside, which is something you don't want to do. I don't see why the natural meaning of 2N "I want to invite game in NT" is less important than the hand type meaning.

Most bids tell, they do not ask when partner is unlimited. If you think 2N asks partner to bid game in NT if hes max, you are wrong. Partner is unlimited, and we are still in the process of describing our hand.

 

The way bridge is, we have 1 way to bid 18-19 balanced with no primary fit. Balanced hands bid NT. There is no way to bid that shows 18-19 balanced with anti-positional values. You either show your 18-19 balanced, or you don't.

 

Can you really not see why showing this hand type is MUCH more important than distorting your shape in hopes that partner can bid NT AND it will matter?

 

If you opened 1D on Ax Kxx AQxxxx Ax and raised a 1N response to 2N, are you masterminding? I just think you are inviting game in NT and happen to be 1 card away from normal shape. If you miss your diamond game or slam because of it, oh well. Is 2N or 3D the % bid? I personally think 2N is the % bid, but its very close. I don't consider either to be masterminding.

 

2N here is not a descriptive bid. Do you see why? Partner is limited in both values and major suit holdings. 2N will be bid with various shapes and hand types, and just requests that partner bid 3N with a max, and either pass or sign off in a minor with a minimum. Compare this to when partner bids 1 of a major, where he is unlimited in both of those areas. Now you must define our hand type.

Thats an interesting theory, and it happens to be one that I mostly subscribe to, but thats all it is, its a theory. I am waiting to see you open 1N on Ax Qxx AQxxxx Kx opposite an unpassed hand or 2N on AQ KQxxx KJxx AJ. Since your contention is that all bids tell opposite a hand that hasn't limited himself. I contend that all bids tell within the context of what is known about partner's hand, and the meaning of all bids depends somewhat on what partner has shown. For instance, when 3 suits have been bid, NT bids tell. They say someting about stoppers in the 4'th suit, and sometimes strength. They do not tell about shape.

 

In general I see the following tednancy: players have no problem taking a hand without NT shape and bidding NT on it, but seem to have a problem taking a hand with NT shape and bidding suits with it. I don't completely understand this, and I am one of the biggest advocates of showing hand type at your first opportunity.

 

So maybe I think the problem here is that we disagree about what a 2NT rebid shows? I think it shows a hand worth 18-19 (e.g. inv) that is balanced and has stoppers in the unbid suits. It is sometimes bid on hands that are close to this (semi-balanced, stiff honor, no stopper or partial stopper in a suit, etc.) but that is a decision that that is the lessor of some number of evils, but is not what the bid shows. Some hands are imperfect for any action....

 

Next you are going to tell me that after 1D-(1S)-x-(P) you all are going to rebid 2N because you happen to be 18-19 balanced.... (I think 2N might be a better bid in this auction with the stopperless 2 card spade suit that when the opps haven't bid, since partner's stopper, if he has one, probably remains a stopper with LHO likely having the spade values).