Determine the blame

[Echognome]

I just want to add that when you open, you must have a bidding plan. If you open your 4333 with scattered values (which I think can be as risky as passing), then surely your plan was to pass partner's response wasn't it? What's to say that you wouldn't have got to 2♠ by passing. Maybe responder opens in 4th seat, partner overcalls 1♠ and you get to 2♠ anyway. Look, I'm certainly all for opening light in 3rd seat, but not without a plan.

 

If you open a crappy 1=3=5=4 hand, then surely your bidding plan was to pass 1♥ (or if you are frisky, raise to 2♥). Your plan over 1♠ or 1NT must be to bid 2♣ and hope you end in a good contract. Else why did you open it? I think it's silly with a marginal hand to open and then after partner bids what you expected he might bid say "Oh. Now I have a bidding problem."

[kenrexford]

Gotta agree with PClayton. I've seen too many of these three-small passes result in -50/-100 when 1NT makes, I suppose.

 

I'm not all that upset with possible auctions after 1NT, either. Often, partner will pass, and it will be right. Often, partner will convert us to 2♦, and if so that will be right.

 

With a style that opens any balanced hand that would invite opposite a third-seat 1bid...1NT, I fear no raise to 2NT.

 

So, any hand worth of another call will feature long spades OR a spade-club canape OR a spade-diamond two-suiter. I only might worry about long spades.

 

But, I have spade support for any "long spades" hand. So, again no problem.

 

Except, perhaps the 6421 player (the actual hand). Opposite that, I'll expect that partner will bid 2♣ (like he did), and I can bid 2♠ (like I did). Now, if that one bad situation occurs, I'll expect partner to explain himself by bidding 3♥, or possibly 3♣ (3♦ being out -- would fit-jump). This will induce a sign-off at 3♠.

 

The question is not whether I want to play 1♠ or 3♠. The question is whether I am willing to play 3♠ on occasion and gain by occasionally playing a superior 1NT, 2♦, or even 3♣.

 

HUGE BTW:

 

I assume that P-P-1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-P-2♠ is to play, and that ...2♥ shows 5-4. Does P-P-1♦-P-1♠-P-1NT-P-2♣ show Game Invitational values, or can it show simply 5♠/4♦ or 5♠/4♥ and weak? If it must be Game Invitational, or at least constructive, then shouldn't Opener bid 3♠ with a maximum? Is 3♠ possible with a fitting maximum? It seems that the partnership agreement might be such that Opener's 2♠ call showed a weak hand, something like the hand described. This would "solve" the problem, it seems.

[Guest Jlall]

Just because this hand is a jack short of a 'full' opener doesn't mean that 1N is wrong, it if its correct that to rebid 1N on a 12 count. I think in practice, many that advocate a pass with the flat 11 would also pass many flat 12 and 13 point hands over 1♠.

I would never rebid 1N with a flat 12 count. I would be happy to play 1S. If I have a minimum or subminimum opener and 3 spades I will always pass. It's not close to me. When you have a minimum or non opener you should be happy to go plus opposite another non opener. Your logic is again faulty anyways, there has to be a cut off somewhere where you would pass 1S with X HCP but bid with Y HCP. This is true in all auctions. You may call it splitting hairs but thats what the game is about. At some point a bid goes from negative equity to positive equity.

 

2. Wouldnt you all agree that if 1N can me stretched to this hand type that this youd want to to rebid 1N?

 

No. If partner were barred from inviting ever then sure I'd like to rebid 1N, but I would be pretty unhappy if I had a 13 or 14 count and partner was barred from inviting.

 

On this auction, partner didn't invite, he blasted to game. If we stayed in 3♠, I wouldn't be posting this hand.

 

This wasn't your question. Your question was if 1N could be stretched on this hand type by agreement, would I want to rebid 1N. My point is that this agreement would be unplayable as partner could either never invite which would suck if I had a hand that would accept an invite, or he would invite anyways and we would get too high. This hand is irrelevant, you cannot make agreements based on one hand you must look at the big picture.

 

3. At matchpoints plus scores are better than minus scores. You've already done well not to pass the board out, don't go minus.

 

Agree; but higher plus scores are better yet. I'm not ready to throw this auction into the 'best result possible' bin, since we are in a non-competitive auction. I would venture to guess that 80% of the players in a national field open this hand in 3rd, so there isn't much sense in trying to beat the pairs at the pass-out tables, since they are few. Don't you want to beat the pairs that play in 1♠? I accept that a rebid of 1N has its risks, but so does passing 1♠.

 

OK, let me state it differently. In my experience, given all of the possible results from passing versus bidding on this hand type (1S makes more than NT, NT makes the same amount but you get too high if you bid again, NT makes more than spades and you don't get too high, etc), you will go minus much more often than you will increase the size of your plus. Add to this that if you do go minus, it's far more detrimental to your result than the gain you get from increasing your plus.

 

I think you start with a faulty premise; when you open this 1=3=5=4 (whereas I passed this creepshow  ). You want to 'gamble' to find a better fit over 1♠ and I want to 'gamble' over 1♠ to get to a better scoring contract. You accept getting to 2N / 3♣ / 3♦ is an acceptable risk, but why should my passing 1♠ on the 3343 be so automatic when the risk is the same; that partner will continue to play you for a full opener?

 

I guess you do not see the flaw. The risk is NOT the same. Sure, it's the same risk in principle, but you are risking far less matchpoints when you pull 1S with a stiff. When you are in a silly contract you have very little equity there, if you can pull to a better contract you will gain a lot. When you are in a contract that is reasonable or good, you have a lot of equity, and you stand to lose much more by trying for a better spot. You can call both a gamble, but I'm sure pulling 1S with a stiff is a +EV gamble, and I suspect bidding with your hand is a -EV gamble.

 

We can analyze this to death but common bridge sense (my hand is bad, my partner's hand is not that great, I should pass) is really enough.

[Halo]

I would always (100% of the time) bid 1NT on this hand, for all the reasons given by pclayton. Bad games are the soul of IMPs but not MP. The spade hand doesn't have to stretch so far.

[HeartA]

I am on Justin's side.

[Winstonm]

West gets my blame - if red at imps, there is something to be said for 4S, but a MPs it is a stretch.

 

The other problem is that an invitational raise (?) to 3S was available, and the hand cannot justify a game contract opposite the wrong minimum.

[Winstonm]

I am on Justin's side.

I am, too, because if you are not on his side he will wear your ass out until you can con him into re-directing his diatribes onto MikeH. :P