4 Suit Transfers & Minor Suit Stayman

[awm]

Here's an interesting test for someone with a lot of time on his hands.

 

Search through records of top-flight events. Find hands where:

 

(1) At least one pair had the auction 1NT-3NT.

(2) Another pair had a longer auction to 3NT (or 3NTX) from the same side on the same cards.

 

Compare the results of the pairs bidding 1NT-3NT and the pairs having the longer auction ending in 3NT. Over many hands, do the pairs bidding 1NT-3NT do significantly better? How much so?

 

This can be used to try and quantify the advantage of the uninformative auction.

[bid_em_up]

Even if the odds of 9+ were 2x higher (and that is extremely unlikely), you should not invite in this situation. If you are playing the odds, then the average 8 HCP containing a 5 card suit Responder should never invite opposite the average 1N= 15-17 opening. Never. At any colors or form of scoring.

 

(edited from later post)

 

[Danny Kleinman in _The NoTrump Zone_ not only mentions that average 8 HCP hands with a 5card suit should not invite opposite 1N= 15-17, he also mentions that he got the error on this point in the 5th ed of the Encyclopedia changed for the 6th ed.

Foo, you are missing the point entirely. Nobody here is saying (at least I dont think they are) that you should invite with the "average" eight count, as you keep referring to.

 

Instead we (or at least I am) are saying that if you are going to invite, it is better to just bid game directly.

 

Please note.....there IS a difference. A big difference.

 

If you have a hand that is going to invite anyways, the extra Jack that partner may or may not have is unliikely to make much of a difference in the result on the board.

 

Look at the following examples and their possible outcomes, First lets deal with the direct 3N bids and their possible outcomes:

 

1) You bid 3N direct. It always makes. Average plus or better.

2) You bid 3N direct. It always goes down. You get below average on the board, but not a complete zero as others will either invite and have it accepted or bid 3N directly as well.

3) You bid 3N through invitational sequence. It makes. Your chances of cold top on the board are decreased because of the invitational sequence, but the board should still score much better than average.

4) You bid 3N through invitational sequence. It goes down as a result of abnormal defense due to invitational sequence but would likely have made on direct 3N. (You're minus when you should have been plus).

 

You originally would have won or tied the board in 3 out of 4 cases by bidding 3N directly, but now always lose in case 4 and reduce your chances of winning in case 3 as well. Case 2 was the only originally losing case. You effectively convert 2 of your 3 original winning options into possible or probable losing ones.

 

Now deal with hands where invite is made, and declined:

 

5) You invite and its declined. You would have made two no matter what. Board is probably average.

6) You invite and its declined. You make 3 (or more), no matter what the defense does. What should have been well above average (by direct 3N) is no more than average and quite possibly average minus, since others may accept.

7) You invite and its declined. You go down one (or more) regardless of defense. This board is average minus at best.

8) You invite and its declined. You go down 1 due to invitational sequence. You would have made two (or three) if not for the invitational sequence. You lose the board. Since others may or may not invite, the board is average minus at best.

9) You invite and its declined. You go down more than 1 due to invitational sequence. You lose board entirely (except for those in 3N going down more).

 

In all of these cases(#5-8), the invite breaks even in one case (#5), and loses (or rates to lose) in all the rest.

 

Did I miss any? Oh yes. I did forget a couple. The case where you dont invite and opp balances. Now you are almost always losing the board, if their balancing bid makes and you have no shot at making 2N/3N any longer, but if you had bid 3N directly, you would have been -1 or 2 (at favorable) winning the board for -100 against their likely 110. (Alternatively, you may win the board, but only if your side can whack whatever they bid).

 

All I can say is I know what works for me, and has for 15+ years. I will give another example and let you decide what to do:

 

[hv=s=s63hkq103d1076ck632]133|100|[/hv]

 

Do you pass? Do you invite through stayman (your partner will deny a major and pass 2N if you do)? Or do you bite the bullet and bid 3N?

 

Heck, put it up as a poll if you wish.

[hrothgar]

Unfortunately for the "blast or pass" POV, if one makes the default assumptions about 8 opposite 1N=15-17, the conclusion you state is dangerously wrong.

Before spending too much time burrowing into the statistics, I think that we need to ask a much more fundamental question: Does information about "range" allow opener to make a well informed decision about whether or not to bid 3NT?

 

Speaking as a member of the "Blast or Pass" school, I argue that the ability to clarify range is much less important than describing a source of tricks or a stopper or discerning weakness. It might be possible to design a range ask that was precisely enough that it has a positive expected value. However, I suspect that such a bid would be so rare that it that there are better uses for the bid.

[foo]

"Foo, you are missing the point entirely. Nobody here is saying (at least I dont think they are) that you should invite with the "average" eight count, as you keep referring to.

Instead we (or at least I am) are saying that if you are going to invite, it is better to just bid game directly.

Please note.....there IS a difference. A big difference."

 

There are 2 points I'm trying make here:

 

1= Advice that the average 8 HCP containing a 5 card suit is a minimum invite opposite 1N= 15-17 is wrong.

 

Please note that I've included the 5card suit as a requirement of the hand in every post I've made. The difference between the average 8 HCP hand and the average 8 HCP hand containing a 5card suit is the difference between a pass vs an minimum invite according to this advice so its presence can not be ignored or discounted.

 

The reason for me to keep using the word "average" is because I do not want people twisting my POV by using examples of "8 counts" containing 2 A's (2 more controls than average), 4 T's (3 more than average), and 4 9's (3 more than average), etc, etc, and then complaining that not inviting misses a game.

 

2= No matter what your 1N range, there are Responding hands that are legitimate invites. If you "pass or blast" you are taking the view that playing the odds and then counting the opponents mistakes as vigorish is better than bidding your hands accurately.

 

IMHO, this is taking the good idea of minimizing the amount of information we give the opponents to an inappropriate extreme. Just as the overuse of descriptive sequences is too far an extreme in the other direction.

 

Let's put it this another way. If Invites are so bad and just deciding to pass or bid game is so superior, why should we ever use any invitational sequence? Why not just pass or bid game in any situation where you have an invitational hand? Just how invested are the "pass or blast" crowd in their philosophy?

 

Invitational hands are just that. Invitational. They should be bid that way.

No, we should not bid more than we have to. OTOH, we should not bid =less= than we have to get to the right spot either.

[jdonn]

Let's put it this another way.  If Invites are so bad and just deciding to pass or bid game is so superior, why should we ever use any invitational sequence?  Why not just pass or bid game in any situation where you have an invitational hand?  Just how invested are the "pass or blast" crowd in their philosophy?

That's actually a valid question, with a few very good answers.

 

One is that inviting on slower auctions where both players have shown suits doesn't help the opponents figure out what to lead, since in those cases there is generally a suit called for by the auction, or at worst a choice of two suits. However the auctions 1NT p 3NT and 1NT p 2NT p 3NT offer very differing inferences regarding how passively or aggressively to lead, so there is more to gain by disguising your strength.

 

Another reason, also regarding the lead, is that an auction where no suits have been bid gives a somewhat blind choice of suits to lead. The leader may even have identical holdings in two suits and thus a complete guess as to which to lead, and for this reason the defense in general blows more tricks against such auctions. It's hardly a victory to stop in 2NT on some particular setup when there is a 50 50 shot that the lead will let you make more.

 

Another reason is that an invitation opposite a strong notrump has essentially a 1 or 1.5 point range, which is a fine line on which to try to be perfectly accurate. An auction like, say, 1♠ p 1NT p 2♣ p 3♣ is quite a bit more wide ranging, giving more of a need to invite. Also on some auctions, like that one, more than one strain is in play so it would be presumptuous to simply jump to game.

 

Let me ask you a different question. If asked to name pairs who are well known for bidding aggressively and making tight games, any one of us could come up with dozens easily. Can you name even one single expert pair whose claim to fame is their ability to stop on a dime in making 2NT contracts?

 

(I edited this a while after posting, to correct grammer and because I thought of more to say)

[foo]

Let's put it this another way.  If Invites are so bad and just deciding to pass or bid game is so superior, why should we ever use any invitational sequence?  Why not just pass or bid game in any situation where you have an invitational hand?  Just how invested are the "pass or blast" crowd in their philosophy?

That's actually a valid question, with a few very good answers.

 

<very good comments snipped>

 

Let me ask you a different question. If asked to name pairs who are well known for bidding aggressively and making tight games, any one of us could come up with dozens if not hundreds. Can you name even one single expert pair whose claim to fame is their ability to stop on a dime in making 2NT contracts?

I don't think that is the right question.

 

IMHO the correct, or at least more pertinent, question is:

 

"Can you name even one single expert pair whose claim to fame is their ability to bid extraordinarily accurately rather than 'pass or blast' "?

 

...and IMHO =that= question leads one to notice that the better the pair, the more accurately they tend to bid and defend their cards. Especially when facing off vs other such pairs.

 

Meckwell's (and others) (in)famous 23 HCP games are usually not average 23 HCP hands with average degrees of fit and misfit plus average value location.

Players and pairs of this caliber use the language of bidding like a razor sharp surgeon's scalpel and combine it with extraordinary quality bridge logic and visualization skills.

Not only do they tend to bid "good" 23 HCP games, they tend to stay out of "bad" 28 HCP games. That same tendency is seen regarding slams as well.

To put it another way, for them many situations are double dummy that for most others of lesser skill are single dummy.

 

IME, too much use of "pass or blast", =especially= when developing as a player, stunts growth in the very skills needed to become a top class player.

 

One other point, just because System gives you the ability to invite or whatever does not mean that you have to use that ability. If you really believe your best odds of making a contract are to simply bid it rather than invite it, than of course you should do so. The choice to gamble is always a valid one.

 

The point is System should not =force= you to gamble. I want System to give me choices and flexibility, not straitjackets.

[jdonn]

These pairs AREN'T known for bidding extraordinarilly accurately in quantitative auctions, and avoiding bad 28 point games. They are known for bidding aggressive and close games, and trusting their own good play and defensive errors (defense is very difficult after all) to see them home enough of the time to make it worthwhile. The accuracy they are known for are on auctions where degree of fit and such things have to be judged, not on count the jacks hands.

 

Your statement about Meckwell is incorrect. What they are famous for is bidding almost every hand with near game values to game, not for finding only the very good games on such hands.

 

Jeff Meckstroth:

"Whenever I have a choice between a slight underbid and a slight overbid, I nearly always take the latter option. The reason for this is that the upside is usually greater if you are right."

 

"On most deals where we have more than the balance of the HCP, by however slight a margin, even with only a very moderate trump fit, Eric and I tend to bid game. This has always been our style, and I believe it is the right one - defense is by far the most difficult part of the game."

 

He made a point of saying he believes it's the right style, not just for Meckwell. Fred has also said he thinks this is the right style, to blast game instead of inviting after 1NT opening bids. What wiser spokesmen do you need?

[foo]

IMNSHO Jeff Meckstroth's partner is one of the 3 best technicians in bridge currently (Rodwell, Helgemo, and Rosenburg. Eric is my vote for #1 presently).

 

That gives Jeff some freedom that others don't have.

 

Notice that it's not Eric giving this advice.

 

Finally:

Jeff Meckstroth:

"Whenever I have a choice between a slight underbid and a slight overbid, I nearly always take the latter option. The reason for this is that the upside is usually greater if you are right."

 

Slight. And in that I would completely agree; =especially= if GOP was one of the three listed above.

 

I also agree than good news tends to improve NT hands faster than bad news tends to degrade them. Optimism is more likely to be correct than pessism given supporting evidence. But that supporting evidence must be present.

 

=However=, most players are not and are never going to be of the caliber of these. Nor are their partners. Nor are their partnerships.

 

What is a slight overbid or underbid for Jeff in the context of his 30+ year partnership with Eric and ~800 pages of system notes is something most players are not capable of measuring accurately. Nor is the average pair going to have the declaring and defending skills of such a pair.

 

Most players taking Jeff's comments too literally are going to get themselves in trouble.

 

By all means, please bid game at my table every time you have 21+ HCP and a fit.

[jdonn]

IMNSHO Jeff Meckstroth's partner is one of the 3 best technicians in bridge currently (Rodwell, Helgemo, and Rosenburg.  Eric is my vote for #1 presently).

 

That gives Jeff some freedom that others don't have.

 

Notice that it's not Eric giving this advice.

 

Finally:

Jeff Meckstroth:

"Whenever I have a choice between a slight underbid and a slight overbid, I nearly always take the latter option. The reason for this is that the upside is usually greater if you are right."

 

Slight.  And in that I would completely agree; =especially= if GOP was one of the three listed above.

 

I also agree than good news tends to improve NT hands faster than bad news tends to degrade them.  Optimism is more likely to be correct than pessism given supporting evidence.  But that supporting evidence must be present.

 

=However=, most players are not and are never going to be of the caliber of these.  Nor are their partners.  Nor are their partnerships.

 

What is a slight overbid or underbid for Jeff in the context of his 30+ year partnership with Eric and ~800 pages of system notes is something most players are not capable of measuring accurately.  Nor is the average pair going to have the declaring and defending skills of such a pair.

 

Most players taking Jeff's comments too literally are going to get themselves in trouble.

 

By all means, please bid game at my table every time you have 21+ HCP and a fit.

Even if I grant you that Rodwell is the world's best technician (Which I don't and it's not even close as far as I'm concerned, but for the purposes of this post I'll pretend I do), read what Jeff said.

 

"... The reason for this is that the upside is usually greater if you are right."

 

I missed the part where he said "... The reason for this is that my partner is the world's best technician and thus I can get away with it." You are making up his reasoning. Specifically, you are saying he does this just because his partner and partnership are great, despite there being no evidence that this is his reasoning other than you saying it is. In fact his own comments contradict that view, as he gives another reason instead (because the upside is greater).

 

When you say only players of this caliber can do these things effectively, you are the one ignoring his advice.

 

 

"...[bidding close games] has always been our style, and I believe it is the right one." Did I again cut off the part where he said "For the world's best players only"? No, he believes it is the right style, and I believe him too.

 

Minor points...

How can you say that most players can't measure a slight overbid or underbid? I'm quite sure all those who bid 3NT with 10 and 2NT with 9 would agree that bidding 3NT with 9 is a slight overbid. It's a point light, how much more slight can it be? And what do his partnership's defending skills have to do with it? He plays against world class defenders, that should be interpreted as a reason not to overbid, yet there he goes doing it.

 

If the following is wrong then please correct me since I am assuming your intentions, but I don't think you mean to say his advice is being taken too literally. I think you mean to say it is being followed by an audience other than that for which it was intended. And about that, I say you are wrong.

[foo]

"Even if I grant you that Rodwell is the world's best technician (Which I don't and it's not even close as far as I'm concerned..."

Who is your choice? and why do you think it is so clear cut as to be "not even close"?

I'm particularly curious about your answers if it is not one of the three players I listed.

 

"How can you say that most players can't measure a slight overbid or underbid?"

That is not what I said.

What I said is that players of that caliber in partnerships of that longevity and sophistication bid and defend outrageously better than the vast majority of us ever will. They see and hear things ATT the rest of us are just not going to ever perceive.

...and they are way, way, beyond using HCP in any shape or form.

 

Here's simple examples:

How often do you know at the end of the auction exactly how many expected tricks GOP has in their hands? How often do you know GOP's exact number of power tricks (heck, often such pairs know _exactly_ what values GOP has in a suit) and shape?

These folks do the vast majority of the time.

 

...and I'm not talking about (over)use of relay methods.

 

They literally are playing at such a different level of skill than the rest of us that it might as well be called a different game.

 

"If the following is wrong then please correct me since I am assuming your intentions, but I don't think you mean to say his advice is being taken too literally. I think you mean to say it is being followed by an audience other than that for which it was intended."

I meant exactly what I said. Jeff is using the term "HCP" as a shorthand for something =FAR= more sophisticated going on in his head when he decides whether or not he and Eric "have the majority of the HCP".

 

Taking him or any other world class player even vaguely literally when they use the term "HCP", especially when one does not have the personal or pairwise skills to back it up, is a recipe for bad results.

[Gerben42]

"Pass or Blast" at MP does not seem right.

 

Different situations:

 

You bid 3NT, others invite and get accepted. As others have shown, you have the advantage here for the opening lead. After that you are not fooling anyone.

So a plus for the blasters.

 

You bid 3NT, others invite and get declined. In this case you gain when 3NT makes but lose whenever it doesn't (2NT - 1 wins against 3NT - 2).

 

So you choose to PASS with some hands that were marginal invites, since these rate to NOT make 3NT often enough. With these hands you are in 1NT and others are either in 2NT when declined or in 3NT when accepted. Again if you are wrong you pay, but you win when the others go down.

 

So gains for the blasters:

 

A. On the non-informative auction they make more tricks than on the informative auction.

B. You make games the others didn't reach.

C. You stop in 1NT with a marginal invite and others go down in higher contracts.

 

Gains for the inviters:

 

D. You go plus when the blasters go down in game.

E. You go less down when even the invite does not make and the blasters are in game.

F. You make game when the blasters did not make a marginal invite.

 

This is true for all invite situations so some general points:

 

The larger the range for opener, the bigger pluses D and F are.

If you blast, the cost of being wrong is higher.

 

This tells you the blasting method works best in high-level experienced partnerships and 3-point NT ranges. So even if it is a winning method for Fred & Brad, this does not mean it is right for you and me.

[Finch]

Once you learn to evaluate these hands properly, the odds of 3N actually going down DECREASE dramatically (I dont even remember the last time one actually went down, but I'm sure its happened in the last, umm, 6 months, year maybe??),

I find it hard to be polite about statements such as this.

 

It's likely that you have a very selective memory, but if your 3NT contracts always make, then all that says is that you don't bid 3NT enough.

[MickyB]

"Pass or Blast" at MP does not seem right.

 

Different situations:

 

You bid 3NT, others invite and get accepted. As others have shown, you have the advantage here for the opening lead. After that you are not fooling anyone.

So a plus for the blasters.

I suspect that this advantage is less significant at MPs than at IMPs. At IMPs, you are aiming to take the contract down, and that may be best achieved with a passive or aggressive lead. At MPs, your lead will normally be (comparatively) passive because letting through the 11th trick can be as costly as letting through the 9th.

[hrothgar]

I'm going to broaden the scope of the debate somewhat by noting that there are entire families of bidding that are conciously designed to maximize the partnership's ability to "blast".

 

I don't know any good players who adopt storng club methods because they believe that opening 1♣ with 16+ HCP is going to give them a good score. Rather, they believe that the advantages from their limited constructive openings outweigh the losses from the strong club opening. Associated with this, the biggest advantage of limited openings is the ability to blast to a contract.

 

Furthermore, if you look a bidding systems like MOSCITO, things get even more extreme. MOSCITO uses a major's first opening style. MOSCITO opens a four card major in prefer to a five or even six card minor. Furthermore, MOSCITO's response style advocates making a single raise with three trump and a double raise with four. This response structure often results in the partnership playing 2M on a seven card fit without ever discovering that the partnership also holds a nine card fit in a minor.

 

The system designer's believe that the ability to blast to an acceptable contract ASAP is much more useful than slow systemic auctions searching for an optimal contract.

[lowerline]

1.

In my part of the world there seems to be an expert tendency to methods that conceal the 1NT opener's hand as much as possible.

 

2.

Usually 2♣ is a puppet to 2♦, after which responder starts showing his hand. 2♦ and 2♥ are still transfers but can be done on a 4crd suit for some stronger hand types. 2♠ asks for min/max and usually contains several hand types.

1. You know, this stikes me as a funny thing, seeing that the 1NT opener is already a pretty well-defined bid :)

 

2. You mean people are starting to play keri? You must be an aussie :D

No, I am not an aussie, I am belgian. Some dutch top players have come up with a structure they call Heeman. It is based on ideas from Scandinavia (1NT bidding, the scanian way) and since it looks like Keri there must have been an aussie influence as well...

So over here it is Heeman that is gaining popularity with ambitious and established partnerships (it is too complicated for most players).

[hrothgar]

Strangely enough, there is a thread on rec.games.bridge that is attempting to study some of these very issues. The author used a database of hands taken from Bermuda Bowls and European teams championships. He is explictly looking at auctions that start with a 1NT opening and terminate in contracts of 2NT or 3NT. He is attempting to measure the advantages associated with blasting.

 

I make no claims for the accuracy of his methodology. (As always, I'd like to see more formal statistical tests). Even so, I thought that the data might be interesting...

 

The initial posting which focuses on the auction 1N - 3N is at

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...1930a5122716b9a

 

The follow-up (which deals with slow roads to 3N) is at

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...1930a5122716b9a

[david_c]

I make no claims for the accuracy of his methodology.

Very polite - it seems plain wrong to me, for the reasons that other posters on rgb have mentioned (and in fact awm pointed out the problem here before the thread on rgb even appeared).

[hrothgar]

Alex Martelli is also playing with this same question

 

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.b...075e458bf426fdc

[jdonn]

Jeff is using the term "HCP" as a shorthand for something =FAR= more sophisticated going on in his head when he decides whether or not he and Eric "have the majority of the HCP".

 

Taking him or any other world class player even vaguely literally when they use the term "HCP", especially when one does not have the personal or pairwise skills to back it up, is a recipe for bad results.

I don't know what I can do now but laugh and laugh and laugh :D :) :lol:

 

Seriously I can't stop. You're killing me. :lol: :o

 

My boss just asked what is so funny, he heard me! Thanks a lot, now you are just trying to get me in trouble at work :o :) :)

[bid_em_up]

Once you learn to evaluate these hands properly, the odds of 3N actually going down DECREASE dramatically (I dont even remember the last time one actually went down, but I'm sure its happened in the last, umm, 6 months, year maybe??),

I find it hard to be polite about statements such as this.

 

It's likely that you have a very selective memory, but if your 3NT contracts always make, then all that says is that you don't bid 3NT enough.

And I find it hard to be polite about people addressing that which they apparently know nothing about.

 

No offense, but again, IF you learn to evaluate these hands properly, 3N will make much more frequently than it will go down. And yes, the ones that do go down are easily forgotten, usually because it is a normal and reasonable contract.

 

Heck, I was in a 28 count NT game that went down yesterday. Do you think I will remember it six months from now?

 

Obviously, some people tend take things too literally, instead of buying a sense of humor and reading things as the smart-aleck/humorous comments they are intended to be.

 

And if you think I dont bid 3N enough, you obviously dont know me at all. :P

[Finch]

I repeat: if 3NT makes much more frequently than it goes down (at IMPs) then you aren't bidding 3NT enough. (and saying 'no offense' before making an offensive comment doesn't stop it being offensive.)

 

p.s. it's the 28-point 3NT contracts going off that I remember....

[foo]

I'm going to broaden the scope of the debate somewhat by noting that there are entire families of bidding that are conciously designed to maximize the partnership's ability to "blast".

There is a large qualitative difference between designing System so it gives you the =ability= to blast vs designing System so it =forces= you to blast.

 

No matter how you slice it, there are hands where maximizing Our likely score is based on staying low, and there are hands we should blast with, and there are hands we should have thoughtful auctions with.

Removing the ability to choose how to handle a board has to harm Our results in the long run.

 

 

I don't know any good players who adopt strong club methods because they believe that opening 1♣ with 16+ HCP is going to give them a good score. Rather, they believe that the advantages from their limited constructive openings outweigh the losses from the strong club opening. Associated with this, the biggest advantage of limited openings is the ability to blast to a contract.

I don't know who you "know", but the above is not correct.

a= Forcing 1C systems are designed to limit the partnership's assets in 1 bid rather than in 2 bids as in Forcing 2C AKA "Natural" systems.

 

b= Forcing 1C Openings distinguish themselves by their superior slam bidding over Natural systems.

 

c= The limited openings in FC systems not only help those systems fulfill objective "a" above, they also allow FC pairs to use sequences that in Standard are reserved for maximums for shapely hands of great playing strength instead (ie reversing to show 64's or 65's)

 

Faster, more efficient exchange of information may indeed allow for more "blasting", but that is a consequence of all of the above, not the reasons.

 

 

Furthermore, if you look a bidding systems like MOSCITO, things get even more extreme....

...and the last WC won using MOSCITO was? ...and the number of players in the Top 100 in the world who use MOSCITO is? ...and just how good is MOSCITO's record at slam bidding, especially minor suit slams?

In the partscore zone, almost any reasonable contract is fine. We've all played 2M in our 43 with a side 9 card minor fit.

However, playing 4M in our 43 while cold for 6m in our 9 card minor fit is not likely to yield a good score...

 

 

Invitational hands exist. IMNSHO, Systems that give us the ability to choose whether to bid "slow" or bid "fast" with them are strategically and tactically superior to Systems that force us to treat certain hands less flexibly.

 

Pass, bid slow, or blast as you like; but it seems foolish to argue that having less options is better than having more options.

[bid_em_up]

Invitational hands are just that. Invitational. They should be bid that way. No, we should not bid more than we have to. OTOH, we should not bid =less= than we have to get to the right spot either.

The fallacy in this logic is that most other invitational sequences in 2/1 or SAYC are defined by wider ranges that might be available for either opener or responder. Assume 2/1 for a minute, and it goes 1C 1H 2H 3x? This auction has a much wider opening range for the 1C opening bid, than a 1N opening bid that is clearly defined as 15-17 (or 16-18 or whatever you use), making the invitational sequence a necessity.

 

In the NT sequence, I will say again, the extra Jack/Queen that partner may or may not have is unlikely to materially affect the result on the board. If you deem the hand to be worth an invite, then you may as well just bid 3N.

 

Part of the reason for this.....the NT opener is not going to be able to evaluate his fit for your unknown 5 card suit, when making his decision to bid 3N or pass 2N. He will frequently pass a good fitting 15-16 count, where 3N always makes or alternatively, he will bid 3N on a 16-17 non-fitting hand and go down. Since there are no effective methods available to find out how well the hands fit together, and by definition the NT opener will usually have at least a minimum fit (2 card, frequently 3), you simply are better off just bidding 3N without giving any information away.

[bid_em_up]

I repeat: if 3NT makes much more frequently than it goes down (at IMPs) then you aren't bidding 3NT enough. (and saying 'no offense' before making an offensive comment doesn't stop it being offensive.)

 

p.s. it's the 28-point 3NT contracts going off that I remember....

Either that, or you are bidding it too often :P

[foo]

I don't know what I can do now but laugh and laugh and laugh :P :lol: :lol:

Seriously I can't stop. You're killing me. :lol: :lol:

 

My boss just asked what is so funny, he heard me! Thanks a lot, now you are just trying to get me in trouble at work :lol: :lol: :lol:

The comment was neither intended as humor nor intended as disparaging in any way of any specific reader's bridge skills. Nor am I trying to get you in trouble at work. :)

 

The important point is that taking Meckstroth literally means you should bid game on every board where you have a fit and 21+ HCP... ...and we all know that is just wrong.

 

I'm also very curious who, in the opinion of a player of your obvious caliber, are the best technician(s) in Bridge at this time?