Keep the auction open?

[bid_em_up]

1. Maybe you're used to preferences always showing 2 cards. I usually take into consideration that pard may have a 1-3 and have no better bid.

 

2. "Just bidding 3m as a forcing bid" seems like a good way to get into an expensive misunderstanding, which is definitely what'll happen if you try that too often. I prefer 3m as natural and invitational.

 

3. Well, since I have 2 aces I think there's a chance pard will make 2♠. I'd pass if I had an ace less, as I said. 2♠ caters for the case when spades play better than hearts and for every hand where pard is strong enough for one final game try.

 

4. Illusions? I don't think so, but ok. Besides, passing 2♥ looks like masterminding to me. It's gambling that 9 hcp won't produce a game opposite a possible 16-17 and that's something the weak hand is not qualified to do. If you wanna mastermind, do it with the strong hand.

Hearts will always play better than spades (unless partner has 6 or more spades).

 

Catering to this possibility simply is not a good option.

 

Misfits should be devalued, not guessed at.

 

Partner will not hold 17. He would have bid 3H over 1N. He might have 16 but again, the misfit will not play well.

 

How can partner truly have a "natural and invitational" hand as you attempt to suggest? Is he going to bid 3m on a 3 card suit?? And now you want to suggest 5 of minor? With your stiff spade and weak heart holding?

 

Knock yourself out.

[the hog]

Close between Pass and 2S. 2S wins it for me by a narrow margin, as partner can make another move if he has a really good hand. 2NT as a game try is far too rich. From where are your tricks coming? Ds? Onli if pd has Hx. And look at that anaemic C suit! 3H is insane.

[pclayton]

If you want to take a position and pass 2♥; fine. You'll be in the best part score, all of the time (I don't this is a stretch).

 

If you want to try for game, take a false preference to 2♠. Pard will advance with extras (15-17 range) and you will get to 4♥, 3N or even a ♦ contract when its right. You will bid game when its right, but you will lose 6 IMPs to the other table when 2♠ goes down and 2♥ makes.

 

Both have their pluses and minuses. If you open on garbage holding both majors, by all means pass. If you're openings are robust, you better take a call.

 

Nothing convinces me from any of the comments to change my original answer of 2♠ at IMPs and pass at pairs.

[mike777]

2s at imps and 2h at MP.....hmmm i thought the those da.n italy players won all the part scores at imps?

 

:)

 

B)

[mikeh]

Partner will not hold 17. He would have bid 3H over 1N. 

Not if he knows how to play the game: poll true experts on AQJxx AKxx Kxx x and I would bet that fewer than 20% would bid 3♥... and this is a GREAT 17 count.

 

Ok, so I hold the ♠A: make it KQJxx AKxx Kx Jx.. no expert I know would bid 3♥ on this. Not to say that I know all experts... maybe some players better than me would choose 3♥, but I doubt it.

[HeartA]

Ok, so I hold the ♠A: make it KQJxx AKxx Kx Jx.. no expert I know would bid 3♥ on this. Not to say that I know all experts... maybe some players better than me would choose 3♥, but I doubt it.

Well, you cant have CJ either. B)

 

I would bid 2H with KQJxx AKxx Kx Jx, I admit. But this is the best 17, passing 2H would miss a game. But this is the best 17, itsn't it?

[Codo]

nothing in this threat convinced me, that passing is wrong. Yes an Ace may even be a better support then xx, but Txx is even better then that.

Yes I will frequently miss a game but I will be in the better partial more often then the 2 Spade bidders and my pd can trust my false preferences much more.

 

I see really no other bid with this shape. With a little more strength, 2 NT would be fine.

[whereagles]

1. If I really don't want to miss a possible game (pd holds 5-5 majors), I can bid 2NT.

 

2. What is the chance pd has 16-17 HCP?

1. To make an invitational bid with 9 hcp only requires something special, like a good suit of your own or good fillers for pard's suits. I have none of that so 2NT looks too optimistic to me.

 

2. Not as high as him having 11-15, obviously, but this imps. At matchpoints I suppose I could pass 2♥, betting this is our side's best spot. But at imps I think I should try for a game if that doesn't jeapordize our partscore too much, which I don't think it does. After all, why can't pard have 6 spades or 5 good ones, e.g. KQxxx?

 

I think the only time 2♠ is a heavy loser is when pard has a min 55 and hearts plays oh-so-much better. It's possible, of course, but on the other hand he can have a 6-4 with weakish Qxxx hearts and spades play far better.

[whereagles]

1. Misfits should be devalued, not guessed at.

 

2. How can partner truly have a "natural and invitational" hand as you attempt to suggest? Is he going to bid 3m on a 3 card suit?? And now you want to suggest 5 of minor? With your stiff spade and weak heart holding?

1. True, but with a weak hand I prefer to just say what I have and help the strong hand making the decisions. Especially at imps.

 

2. 3m could be a 16-17 hcp 5440, or, if you agree to this with pard, a fragment with 5431. Not playing fragments, the 5431 hand can try 2NT showing 16-17.

[bid_em_up]

Partner will not hold 17. He would have bid 3H over 1N. 

Not if he knows how to play the game: poll true experts on AQJxx AKxx Kxx x and I would bet that fewer than 20% would bid 3♥... and this is a GREAT 17 count.

 

Ok, so I hold the ♠A: make it KQJxx AKxx Kx Jx.. no expert I know would bid 3♥ on this. Not to say that I know all experts... maybe some players better than me would choose 3♥, but I doubt it.

Mike,

 

Surely you dont consider the 2nd hand a true 17 count holding Jx ♣. Change it to KQJxx AKJx Kx xx (same count, different location of hcp) and see how many do. Quit nitpicking.

[zasanya]

If you want to take a position and pass 2♥; fine. You'll be in the best part score, all of the time (I don't this is a stretch).

 

If you want to try for game, take a false preference to 2♠. Pard will advance with extras (15-17 range) and you will get to 4♥, 3N or even a ♦ contract when its right.

I am a great fan of your bidding ideas but I am puzzled by this one.After the false preference to ♠ wont P prefer 4 ♠ to any other game contract?How can one stop at 4♥?

I would really like you to answer that question.

[Blofeld]

Partner will not hold 17. He would have bid 3H over 1N. 

Not if he knows how to play the game: poll true experts on AQJxx AKxx Kxx x and I would bet that fewer than 20% would bid 3♥... and this is a GREAT 17 count.

 

Ok, so I hold the ♠A: make it KQJxx AKxx Kx Jx.. no expert I know would bid 3♥ on this. Not to say that I know all experts... maybe some players better than me would choose 3♥, but I doubt it.

Mike,

 

Surely you dont consider the 2nd hand a true 17 count holding Jx ♣. Change it to KQJxx AKJx Kx xx (same count, different location of hcp) and see how many do. Quit nitpicking.

Doesn't seem very fair for you to downgrade for Jx but not upgrade for all the lovely honours in the rest of the hand. I think Mike's hand is easily worth 17 points ... and your example about 18. Even so I'd bid a simple 2♥ on it.

[pclayton]

If you want to take a position and pass 2♥; fine. You'll be in the best part score, all of the time (I don't this is a stretch).

 

If you want to try for game, take a false preference to 2♠. Pard will advance with extras (15-17 range) and you will get to 4♥, 3N or even a ♦ contract when its right.

I am a great fan of your bidding ideas but I am puzzled by this one.After the false preference to ♠ wont P prefer 4 ♠ to any other game contract?How can one stop at 4♥?

I would really like you to answer that question.

Thanks for the props :)

 

Pard will pattern out with extras over 2♠, right? You generally don't have more than a doubleton spade when you take this preference, so there's no reason why pard should insist on spades.

[MickyB]

1S-1N-2H-2S-3m-4m-4S-? where partner was just bidding 3m as a forcing bid.

It would be an interesting decision to "just bid 3m as a forcing bid", because I'm fairly sure it should be NF! Opener is already limited by his failure to jump to 3♥ so is just patterning out with a game-try, why shouldn't responder pass if that looks likely to be the best spot?

 

I agree with those who are bidding 2♥ on relatively strong hands, leaving extra space makes it much more likely that you will reach the correct strain.

 

At the table I bid 2♠, pard had the dreaded minimum 5-5 with weakish spades and 2♠ drifted 3 off. I'm still not sure if I'll pass or bid 2♠ the next time I am dealt a hand like this!

[mikestar]

Partner will not hold 17. He would have bid 3H over 1N. 

Not if he knows how to play the game: poll true experts on AQJxx AKxx Kxx x and I would bet that fewer than 20% would bid 3♥... and this is a GREAT 17 count.

 

Ok, so I hold the ♠A: make it KQJxx AKxx Kx Jx.. no expert I know would bid 3♥ on this. Not to say that I know all experts... maybe some players better than me would choose 3♥, but I doubt it.

You are missing my point--I think most experts would bid 2♥ on the hand you gave, but my entire argument was concerning 5-5 hands! No 5-4 you can show me has any bearing on the question. Given KQJxx AKxxx Ax x will any expert risk being passed in 2♥? Surely at the very least a subtantial minority will force with this hand--and I expect it to be a majority choice.

[Blofeld]

You are missing my point--I think most experts would bid 2♥ on the hand you gave, but my entire argument was concerning 5-5 hands! No 5-4 you can show me has any bearing on the question. Given KQJxx AKxxx Ax x will any expert risk being passed in 2♥? Surely at the very least a subtantial minority will force with this hand--and I expect it to be a majority choice.

But 5-5 hands a lot worse than that are making game opposite our hand.

Kxxxx AKxxx Kx x

QJTxx KQJxx x Ax

KQJxx KQJxx xx x

 

Also, some 5-4 hands will be making game, and bidding will let you reach these games where passing would not. Which is why it's relevant that partner would bid 2♥ with many of these.

[mikeh]

Partner will not hold 17. He would have bid 3H over 1N. 

Not if he knows how to play the game: poll true experts on AQJxx AKxx Kxx x and I would bet that fewer than 20% would bid 3♥... and this is a GREAT 17 count.

 

Ok, so I hold the ♠A: make it KQJxx AKxx Kx Jx.. no expert I know would bid 3♥ on this. Not to say that I know all experts... maybe some players better than me would choose 3♥, but I doubt it.

You are missing my point--I think most experts would bid 2♥ on the hand you gave, but my entire argument was concerning 5-5 hands! No 5-4 you can show me has any bearing on the question. Given KQJxx AKxxx Ax x will any expert risk being passed in 2♥? Surely at the very least a subtantial minority will force with this hand--and I expect it to be a majority choice.

Part of the problem is that you are confusing my response to bid-em-up with a response to your earlier post. I was attempting to rebut the (clearly wrong) statement that the 2♥ bidder could not hold 17 hcp. Your comment was different: it was that opener was unlikely to hold an 'invitational' 5-5 hand, since most experts would upgrade in order to avoid missing a game.

 

I started replies to your post several times, but alwys stopped because you raise a profundly complex issue, that involves one of the fundamental weaknesses in standard bidding.

 

It may seem like semantics, but in my view the vast majority of experts will bid 2♥ with 'invitational' 5-5 hands. So I strongly disagree with your suggestion that most experts, or even a substantial minority of them, would choose 3♥ rather than risk missing a game. The reason I say this is semantics is that I suspect that you and I have different meanings attributed to the word 'invitational' in this context. Thus KQJxx AKxxx Ax x would not, to me, be an invitational hand over a 1n response to 1♠. Maybe if the x's were" KQJ32 AK432 A2 2, I would downgrade to invitational if white at imps or at mps, but I'd never risk missing a vulnerable game by bidding only 2♥.

 

Change this to KJ10xx AKJxx x AJ and I have the same hcp, and I would unhesitatingly rebid 2♥ over 1N.... and this is a hand I would classify as invitational, such that over a 2♠ preference by partner, I would bid 3H and reach (on the given hand) 4♥.

 

The point is that opener's 1♠ possesses enormous range, and the 2♥ rebid does not simply 'halve' the range: it excludes only the very top of the range: the hands that are worth a game force opposite a potentially weak, misfitting 1N response. Now, obviously, it is impractical to require that opener, for a gf jumpshift, must hold a hand that assures that game has a good play opposite all 1N responses, but it should produce a play for game opposite reasonable minimums.

 

This means that the simple 2♥ rebid is still wide range. This in turn means that the partnership must accept a balance between getting too high opposite minimum opening bids, catering to 'invitational' hands and missing games by staying low to avoid getting too high :)

 

It is possible to reduce the costs associated with this dilemma by lowering the standards needed for jumpshifts, to include, in the game force category, hands of lesser value. However, that merely shifts the source of loss into a previously robust part of the methods, and compounds problems by now reducing the accuracy of slam bidding on those infrequent hands in which responder's hand upgrades to a slam try opposite a jumpshift.

 

In my experience, the vast majority of experts prefer to keep the jumpshift as very strong (and anyone who thinks that there is no meaningful difference between various 5512 17 counts is a non-expert) and confine the ambiguity to the arena of the 2 level change of suit. Where the expert community is aggressive, in this field, is in their willingness to bid over a simple change of suit: i.e., in our sequence, over the 2♥. This thread generated so much discussion because the hand hits the seam between most players' style in this issue.

[Guest Jlall]

But 5-5 hands a lot worse than that are making game opposite our hand.

Kxxxx AKxxx Kx x

QJTxx KQJxx x Ax

KQJxx KQJxx xx x

 

Also, some 5-4 hands will be making game, and bidding will let you reach these games where passing would not. Which is why it's relevant that partner would bid 2♥ with many of these.

And none of these hands will bid over 2S anyways (except maybe the last one and that is debatable). So you are going to end up in 2S instead of 2H anyways. Amazingly, partner will not always evaluate perfectly over a 2S bid. Even when you have a game you will not always get there, and sometimes you will get too high (if partner is 6-4).

 

For bidding 2S to win you have to both bid and make a game.

 

For bidding 2S to lose you have to go minus (either by getting too high, or going down in 2S) when 2H would have gone plus.

 

Even though the gain in the first one is bigger than in the second case, I would argue that the second case is much much much more likely to happen. For partner to bid again with 5-4 he's going to need a great 16 or any 17. For partner to bid again with 5-5 he's going to need the equivalent of 15+. And partner will bid again with 6-4 even more aggressively than 5-5. I don't know about you, but my partners are dealt hands in the 11-15 range far more often than 16 or 17, and they are going to be struggling to make 2H let alone 2S in the 5-1. 2S is going to go down a LOT of the time when partner has a normal hand and is in the 5-1 with barely half the deck.

 

I think people are overrating the amount of time partner will have a hand good enough to bid over 2S. It's not like you've shown extras and he will need a really good hand to bid again and from a frequency point of view it's just not going to happen very often, and even when it does you haven't necessarily won yet.