To Bid or Not to Bid

[mikestar]

Unadjusted LOTT suggests 3♠ on this hand. Let's look at adjustments:

 

1. QTx in enemy trump suit is a major negative adjustment all by itself. It isn't always worthless on offense, but it is very often and is never worth a full 2 points even when it isn't. On the other hand, it has good defensive potential

2. 4-3-3-3 hands often result in fewer total tricks. These two are enough to disqualify 3♠.

3. We are red vs. white so we should pull it in a notch.

4. The raise may encourage a losing ♠ lead. A minor but real negative.

5. The wide range hampers constructive efficiency. These days, both 1♥ and 2♥ may be wafer thin--partner may well have a game try, and this hand will disappoint him quite a bit. (If we have a conventional method of showing a good three-card single raise, this point vanishes.)

6. This is IMPs -- the reward for -100 vs -110/-140 is much lower, but the cost of large sets is relatively more. This argues for conservatism in close cases.

 

So we have four meaningful negatives to 2♠--four strikes and you're out. I can see no positives. I can agree with someone who bids 2♠ with (silent) fear and trepidation, but I can't imagine bidding 2♠ gleefully.

 

As for 3♠, I think this is doubtful at favorable, bad bridge at equal, and barking mad at unfavorable.

[Codo]

These are the positives for 2 Spade:

1.Support with support

2. if they bid and make 3 Heart there is no difference but if they bid 3 Heart and fail, I earn + 50 against -110, quite a difference.

3. Pd knows, that his possible spade honours won´t count much at defence.

4. If he has a game try, I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Can he have less then KJxxx,xx,KJx,KJx? And even with this weak hand, which surey is no game try, you are just -1.

5.In which case can his spade lead be a disaster? With something like KJxxx leading towards the queen? With AQxxx leading the ace giving the King an undeserved trick? So which other lead do I prefer? A suit, where he finesses my queen of ♥/♦ or ♣ for declarer? Not really an improvement.

[inquiry]

These are the positives for 2 Spade:

1.Support with support

2. if they bid and make 3 Heart there is no difference but if they bid 3 Heart and fail, I earn + 50 against -110, quite a difference.

3. Pd knows, that his possible spade honours won´t count much at defence.

4. If he has a game try, I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Can he have less then KJxxx,xx,KJx,KJx? And even with this weak hand, which surey is no game try, you are just -1.

5.In which case can his spade lead be a disaster? With something like KJxxx leading towards the queen? With AQxxx leading the ace giving the King an undeserved trick? So which other lead do I prefer? A suit, where he finesses my queen of ♥/♦ or ♣ for declarer? Not really an improvement.

I expressed my view on this hand early, and I am in complete agreement with Winston. I simply left it to him to carry the arguments up until now. Having read the Lott based - support with support replies, I remain totally unconvinced, particularily about if partner were to make a game try that I would have nothing to be ashamed of...

 

Opposite your proposed hand (KJxxx xx KJx KJx) even if the spade queen in onside, you may well lack an entry to take the spade hook (give both minor aces ot the opener). It is not impossible you could lose 1C, 1C ruff, 2 spades, three aces and the AK of hearts (or 1D, 1D ruff, two more spades, and three other aces and the King of hearts). That is down three in two spades. And if they can master two club ruffs (if leader is xx Axxx xxxxxx x) you are down four.

 

Pessimistic? Well sure, but if EAST has doubleton in either minor, they will be able to find and get a ruff. The real problem is, however, a partner who is not in on the joke. You are vul and this is imps. Partner will make a game try or (blush) occassionally jump to game. I would surely hate to put down this dummy on those occassions after bidding 2♠.

[Winstonm]

I expressed my view on this hand early, and I am in complete agreement with Winston.

 

Thanks, Ben. I was feeling somewhat lonely until now. :D

 

I understand the desire to compete with the 98% likely 9-card fit and the equally empty feeling that if I don't compete I am in for a poor result; however, I still have to place this hand for me in the "disciplined" pass category.

 

As Ben pointed out, 2S may already be way too high and the opponents don't even have to double to earn imps, while I don't wish to encourage partner to compete past the 2-level. What I would be most content with, looking at my hand alone, is to defend 3H, but I have no convenient way to push the opponents to 3H without substantial risk of going set 2 or 3, maybe doubled.

 

While it is certainly right at imps to fight hard for the partscore, it also pays to have some bullets in your gun before you start shooting - and this hand is shooting nothing but blanks.

:D

[pclayton]

If you want to take a one trick deduction for LOTT, thats fine. But the passers are effective deducting two off the LOTT.

 

I can't bring myself to pass with a 9 card fit (and its a lot more likely we have a 10 card fit than a 8 card fit). I hate my quacks, but passing 2♥ is a guaranteed average minus.

[Winstonm]

passing 2♥ is a guaranteed average minus.

 

An average minus at imp scoring? :P

[pclayton]

LOL; thought it was MPs. I still bid.

 

Passing = push or lose 5 :P

[inquiry]

If you want to take a one trick deduction for LOTT, thats fine. But the passers are effective deducting two off the LOTT.

 

I can't bring myself to pass with a 9 card fit (and its a lot more likely we have a 10 card fit than a 8 card fit). I hate my quacks, but passing 2♥ is a guaranteed average minus.

Bridge just has to be something more than counting to 9, closing our eyes and bidding in blind trust of LOTT. Ok, you subtract one from LOTT and bid a "tame" 2♠ and say subtract two is too much. I suggest it is not. No distribution (4-3-3-3), no spade honor, QTx of THEIR suit, no Ace, no king, no quick tricks, no supporting honors for out two minor suit queens, the only side suit TEN in THEIR suit. That is too many "no's", so I add another one to it... No bid.

[glen]

Partner could have something like:

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakxxxxhxdajtxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMPs[/hv]or

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakxxxxhxdajtxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMPs[/hv]or

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakxxxxhxdajtxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMPs[/hv]

or with the minor suits flipped, and we could have decent play for game. These hands are not that uncommon.

[000002]

1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠？

 

is it really frequent that we have a game in here ?

i think we are recreant to give up.

 

to Inquiry:"if they can master two club ruffs (if leader is xx Axxx xxxxxx x) you are down four."

i don't believe anyone will penalize 2♠--- with this hand ---in the living world.

 

regards 000002

[inquiry]

1♥ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠？

 

is it really frequent that we have a game in here ?

i think we are recreant to give up.

 

to Inquiry:"if they can master two club ruffs (if leader is xx Axxx xxxxxx x) you are down four."

i don't believe anyone will penalize 2♠--- with this hand ---in the living world.

 

regards 000002

I never suggested they would double... down four would be, well, punishment enough. But I am not afraid of 2♠ being hurt, i am afraid of 3♠ or 4♠ being hurt if I raise. The hands Glenn shows for 1♠ overcall are nice, so nice, I serious doubt partner will sell out to 2♥ (that is, when I don't raise, the auction is not over).

[glen]

The hands Glen shows for 1♠ overcall are nice, so nice, I serious doubt partner will sell out to 2♥ (that is, when I don't raise, the auction is not over).

Yes, the "the auction is not over" on those hands - the opponents will usually bid above 2♥ before the 1♠ bidder has a rebid, either 4♥, or a blocking 3♥, or a real or pseudo game try.

[000002]

yes, u r right "I serious doubt partner will sell out to 2♥ (that is, when I don't raise, the auction is not over). "

 

but i doubt,IN RED , my partner will reopen without my cooperation dbl.

I believe 2♥ is the final contract in the fact---- unless my partner has 6cards ♠.

 

regards 000002

[Winstonm]

Partner could have something like:

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakxxxxhxdajtxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMPs[/hv]or

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakxxxxhxdajtxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMPs[/hv]or

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakxxxxhxdajtxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMPs[/hv]

or with the minor suits flipped, and we could have decent play for game. These hands are not that uncommon.

I doubt anyone - with the possible exception of hand 1 - would not balance after 1H-1S-2H-P-P

 

Now, after the balance, if you still want to bid 3S at least you have expressed your values and partner won't expect too much.

[Winstonm]

yes,  u r right "I serious doubt partner will sell out to 2♥ (that is, when I don't raise, the auction is not over). "

 

but i doubt,IN RED , my partner will reopen without my cooperation dbl.

I believe 2♥ is the final contract in the fact---- unless my partner has 6cards ♠.

 

regards  000002

Yes, but at the same time you could easily have this:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skj1042hj4dakjc962&w=sa3hk9832d972caj8&e=sq5ha76d10843ck1043&s=s9876hq105dq65cq75]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

This is a pretty normal hand all around, yet 2S, against good defense, goes down 2 for -200 while 2H will either make or go down 1 depending on the club guess. So 2H is where you want to be. Against good players, they won't take the push to 3H and will take their chances against 2S.

[glen]

I doubt anyone - with the possible exception of hand 1 - would not balance after 1H-1S-2H-P-P

As I noted in a posting above, one could very well not see 1H-1S-2H-P-P.

[000002]

to Gentleman winstonm:)

 

OPPS can't attack ♣ anytime,so we not need guess ♣.

 

 

regards 000002

[the hog]

to Gentleman winstonm:)

 

OPPS can't attack ♣ anytime,so we not need guess ♣.

 

 

regards 000002

He's got a point you know - make Ds 4-2

[glen]

to Gentleman winstonm:) OPPS can't attack ♣ anytime,so we not need guess ♣. regards 000002

He's got a point you know - make Ds 4-2

Can't make the ♦s 4-2 in the NS without changing the South hand in question. So on the normal hand given, we might go -200 instead of -110 if we pass. If we bid we might get a game swing. Imo, what really helps here is a LOTT-at-the-3-level respecting partner, so if it goes 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠-3♥, s/he does not bid 3♠ just because they have 5♠s and short ♥s - if they would tend to bid 3♠ with those hands on that auction then the risk of bidding 2♠ increases dramatically.

[inquiry]

to Gentleman winstonm:)

 

OPPS can't attack ♣ anytime,so we not need guess ♣.

 

 

regards 000002

He's got a point you know - make Ds 4-2

-110 versus -200... which would you choose?

[Winstonm]

I doubt anyone - with the possible exception of hand 1 - would not balance after 1H-1S-2H-P-P

As I noted in a posting above, one could very well not see 1H-1S-2H-P-P.

That is true and I see your point; however, if the opps have those kinds of hands they will be based on distrubution, meaning your suits aren't breaking and you won't make game anyway.

 

Note the difference in making games if the advancer held: xxxx, xxx, Qxx, Axx.

[Guest Jlall]

I would prefer defending 3H personally. And I am quite confident that the guy with 9 points and 2 spades is going to bid it. I don't agree that good players will always sell to 2S when it's right, no players are that good. Good players tend to bid over 2S when their opps have 9 trumps.

[Halo]

It used to be argued that raising on hands like this just helped opponents to envisage their shape and bid close games.

 

Nowadays we attach much more importance to competing, but this hand is still marginal and I think I would just pass and let it go.

[Winstonm]

I would prefer defending 3H personally. And I am quite confident that the guy with 9 points and 2 spades is going to bid it. I don't agree that good players will always sell to 2S when it's right, no players are that good. Good players tend to bid over 2S when their opps have 9 trumps.

I agree totally. In isolation, looking at this hand only, I'd want to defend 3H.

But how can you assume a 9-card fit for opponents? It could as easily be an 8-card fit - and if they have good discipline, they won't bid 3 over 2 with only an 8-card fit. If they have a 9-card fit, someone will most likely have a stiff spade and then they will probably make 3H.

 

So once again, to me it seems all I accomplish by bidding is giving the opponents more winning options than they would have by me passing.

[glen]

But how can you assume a 9-card fit for opponents?  It could as easily be an 8-card fit - and if they have good discipline, they won't bid 3 over 2 with only an 8-card fit.

I believe you are wrong about them not bidding above 2♠ with just an 8-card fit. To quote Larry:

Try not to let the opponents play at a level equal to their number of trumps.  If they have an eight-card fit, and are at the two level, they are in very good shape - the LAW tells them that.  We want to try very hard to never sell out on the two level, if we believe that they have eight trumps. ... If we have eight trumps, and they have eight, and the points are relatively "evenly" distributed, we can't afford to let them play at the two level.

Note that "never sell out". Thus I suggest it is quite likely that we will see further bidding over 2♠.