To Bid or Not to Bid

[pclayton]

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♠.

Right! There's a bidding big difference between 3♥ over 2♠ and bidding 3♠ move 3♥.

[Winstonm]

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♠.

I believe you are misinterpreting the message - Cohen was talking about defensive bidding, about pushing on to the 3 level in order to take a slighter minus than the -110 or to go +50 if the opps pushed on - also, Cohen's book was highly slanted to matchpoints, as that was the Cohen/Bergen specialty - winning major matchpointed events.

 

In the following book, Adjustments, he said about imps (I must paraphase):

 

"Erik Kokish was the coach. One auction started, 1S-2H-2S-3H-P-P-P. I thought to myself, These guys are well coached, not bidding three over three with only eight trumps."

 

My point being that Cohen was emphasizing the defensive bidding aspect, and how good players, well-coached, would behave to this "push".

 

My simple point is that with a 9-card fit the oppenents will bid to the 3-level and will most likely make; however, with only an 8-card fit they will not necessarily do so unless there are compensating values, such as distribution or extra high cards.

Good players at imps don't automatically take this push - they judge from their cards what action is best. My problem is with such a poor hand, whatever they decide to do will be right - only on rare instances would I think that I would go plus when the opps got it wrong and bid 3H and didn't make. So why give them the option?

 

If they have extra distribution, they will problably make - if they have extra high cards, they have two good options: setting your 2-level contract or bidding and making their own contract.

 

I think all of us would agree that Queens are overvalued in the HCP concept while Kings and Aces are undervalued - in isolation, without an auction, this hand with its poor shape and poor texture is probably worth 4 1/2 to 5 points. In the context of the auction, with the heart Q of dubious value, it may be worth less.

 

I appreciate differing opinions ard my opinion may be wrong, but to my thinking partner will not be happy about me putting down in dummy a hand that in essence is not much more than: xxxx, xxx, Qxx, Qxxx. Just my opinion, though.

[glen]

I believe you are misinterpreting the message - Cohen here was talking about defensive bidding

If by "defensive bidding" you mean the other side opened, the example on page 121 is clear - after 1♦-1♠-Double-2♠-?, Larry says "But you can't leave your opponents in their eight-card fit on the two level", and has opener competing to 3♥ via a good-bad 2NT with xx KJTx AKxxx xx.

 

not bidding three over three with only eight trumps

Your 3-over-3 comment relates to whether overcaller will bid 3♠ over 3♥, but not a 3♥ bid over 2♠.

[Winstonm]

I believe you are misinterpreting the message - Cohen here was talking about defensive bidding

If by "defensive bidding" you mean the other side opened, the example on page 121 is clear - after 1♦-1♠-Double-2♠-?, Larry says "But you can't leave your opponents in their eight-card fit on the two level", and has opener competing to 3♥ via a good-bad 2NT with xx KJTx AKxxx xx.

Yes, that is right. But notice what Cohen is doing here - he is opening and competing on an 11-count and surely does not believe his side has the balance of power. Again, his thrust is matchpoints. Part of Bergen/Cohen philosophy was - in my view - almost a defensive type of offensive opening, if that makes any sense whatsoever. :) Stealing was a big part of their arsenal, so often, although they opened the bidding, had no reason to believe they held the balance of power or that it was "their" hand. And if you look at the hand shown, it is highly offensive in nature. Had the hand been: K10x, xxxx, AJxxx, Kxx - well, that would have been in the next book on "adjustments". B)

 

Perhaps that is part of the problem - if the opponents do open light there may be more reason to raise the overcall as it makes it harder on them to judge if they have a substantial balance of power: however, if opener is known to be of the more "sound" type and his partner holds something like: QJx, Kxx, Kxx, xxxx he is much more apt to pass and take his plus in 2S?

[glen]

however, if opener is known to be of the more "sound" type and his partner holds something like: QJx, Kxx, Kxx, xxxx he is much more apt to pass and take his plus in 2S?

Which person is passing: the person with the sound opening, a ♥ fit, a singleton ♠, and that does not know responder is a 3-3-3-4?

[Winstonm]

however, if opener is known to be of the more "sound" type and his partner holds something like: QJx, Kxx, Kxx, xxxx he is much more apt to pass and take his plus in 2S?

Which person is passing: the person with the sound opening, a ♥ fit, a singleton ♠, and that does not know responder is a 3-3-3-4?

All I am saying is that better players have reasons to bid - we can all create hands, but give opener a basic hand like: Jx, AQxxx, Q10x, KJx and he will pass 2S back to his partner. If he has, x, AQxxx, Q10xxx, Ax, he will bid. Either way he has done just fine.

 

We might as well talk about responder - reponder will bid 3H when he has reason - something like xx, Kxxx, AQxx, xxx but would pass with QJx, xxx, Kxx, Kxxx.

 

Just because we elect to compete doesn't mean the opponents are brain dead. B) They get to use their eyes and ears and judge what is best for their side, as well.

 

Like I said, the best argument in my mind for bidding 2S is that on some occasions this would goad opps into 3H which goes set; however, in my views this will not happen often enough to offset the increased minuses the bid will cause.

 

However, this is my opinion only, as some awfully good players (Justin and MikeH) are bidders, so there is an infentesimal chance I may be wrong. :)

[glen]

Like I said, the best argument in my mind for bidding 2S is that on some occasions this would goad opps into 3H which goes set

As I've stated above, this is not just as infrequent as your "some occasions" (birthdays etc.) sounds. We have a (likely) 9-card+ ♠ fit - that is going to leave somebody with a doubleton or shorter ♠s and the known ♥ fit, and if a only a doubleton, then both opener and responder will have doubleton ♠s.

[Winstonm]

Like I said, the best argument in my mind for bidding 2S is that on some occasions this would goad opps into 3H which goes set

As I've stated above, this is not just as infrequent as your "some occasions" (birthdays etc.) sounds. We have a (likely) 9-card+ ♠ fit - that is going to leave somebody with a doubleton or shorter ♠s and the known ♥ fit, and if a only a doubleton, then both opener and responder will have doubleton ♠s.

Good point, well taken.