Bridge Seems simple, but is it?

[Winstonm]

... xx AJxxx, xx, AKxx ...

Are you saying the opponents are going to let you play 2♥ when partner holds this hand?

 

I am simply suggesting that no matter how the auction progresses, bidding 2H has little chance of getting you to game.

[glen]

Your hand example does not suggest this, as the opponents would be quite likely to bid over 2♥ with their 9 card ♠ fit, 18 HCP, and working ♦ values (or they are opponents that will repeatedly allow part score swings against them). So on example hands where opener has just 2♠s, responder, having simply bid 2♥ will usually have another chance to try for game, and this bid does not just have to be 3♥.

 

Using your example, we could have 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠--Pass*-Pass-3♣ as the next bid.

 

* assuming opener does not like to compete with the weak doubleton ♠

[Double !]

So on example hands where opener has just 2♠s, responder, having simply bid 2♥ will usually have another chance to try for game, and this bid does not just have to be 3♥. 

Using your example, we could have 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠--Pass*-Pass-3♣ as the next bid.

The logic behind this eludes me.

How can one make a bid that was initially not even invitational and could have been relatively weak with support, and then suddenly make a bid that says "hey, P. I'm interested in a possible game?" Is this a commonly agreed understanding that 3C at this point shows a game try in hearts, perhaps a help-needed or whatever you choose and says "thank you opps for competing with 2S so I might make this game try?" Maybe this bidding dinosaur is not only obsolete but virtually extinct.

 

dhl

[jdonn]

BTW, i think jdonn has it exactly wrong.  I think this is a relatively complex exercise in tactics and hand evaluation in a seemingly simple auction at a low level. [hence the title]  At matchpoints, I actually think it is a better problem as the IMP swing is likely to be small even if you guess wrong here.

I still don't get it. We have heart support we haven't shown, a hand that falls squarely into a particular range (perhaps debatable without interference, but 10000% clear after the overcall given our spade holding), and a bid that shows heart support and exactly that range. Meanwhile we are not so flat that we would consider bidding notrump instead of supporting partner. So what is the problem? Have we now reached the point where every bid in bridge becomes a torturously complex tactical dilemma in case partner has opened some 11 count? Even then the best 11 counts make 10 tricks (Axx JTxxx x AJxx oops sorry just a 10 count and maybe 11 tricks) and most make 9 tricks, and when they don't the opponents could likely make 2♠ anyway.

 

I completely agree that no matter how long you play, new and interesting problems will arrive in seemingly innocuous situations. This just does not seem like one of those times :P

[Winstonm]

Using your example, we could have 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠--Pass*-Pass-3♣ as the next bid.

 

 

Using your example, we could also have 1H-1S-2H-3S-P-P-? or 1H-1S-2H-2S-P-3S-? With a 9-card fit, it's doubtful opps will let you make any 3-level game try.

 

BTW, this is also the argument against negative double, as you have not shown the heart support and your next turn to call could be at the 4-level - either 2S or 2H is better than X, IMO.

[glen]

True, I was just saying your hand example was not likely to be a quiet passout of 2♥, which I gather you now agree.

 

Likewise, using another hand example offered up, I don't think the bidding is going to stop at 2♥ if opener had decided to open Axx JTxxx x AJxx

[jdonn]

I agree completely that the auction wouldn't die if you bid 2♥ opposite that. Which is all the more reason to bid your hand now while you still have a chance, rather than intentionally underbid it for reasons I still don't comprehend and then hope to show values you have already denied at some later point.

[Winstonm]

True, I was just saying your hand example was not likely to be a quiet passout of 2♥, which I gather you now agree.

 

Likewise, using another hand example offered up, I don't think the bidding is going to stop at 2♥ if opener had decided to open Axx JTxxx x AJxx

The only point I have been making is pretty self-evident - it's easier to get to game opposite a limit raise than a simple raise, regardless of how the auction starts or progresses.

 

Another advantage of making a 2S limit raise is it may shut our LHO's simple spade raise - he may not have the hand for 3S, whereas 2H allows 2S.

 

But everyone is entitled to their concepts of limit raises - mine is simply a hand with enough values to have a reasonable expectation of a plus score at the 3-level.

[glen]

The only point I have been making is pretty self-evident - it's easier to get to game opposite a limit raise than a simple raise, regardless of how the auction starts or progresses.

Sure, and it is even easier to get to game by just bidding it, so if the "only point" you are making is that some bids make it easier to get to game than others ("regardless of how the auction starts or progresses"), it is not developing much here.

[Winstonm]

The only point I have been making is pretty self-evident - it's easier to get to game opposite a limit raise than a simple raise, regardless of how the auction starts or progresses.

Sure, and it is even easier to get to game by just bidding it, so if the "only point" you are making is that some bids make it easier to get to game than others ("regardless of how the auction starts or progresses"), it is not developing much here.

O.K., then I am of the opinion that the nature of this hand is in the realm of hand evaluation, and that is why I chose 2S and reject 2H.

 

The auction suggests that the Kx of spades has risen in value, while the KQx of hearts in a minimum of an 8-card fit have also risen in value. The interiors of the hand are decent, with two 10-spots, and there is 3rd round control of the enemy suit. The hand is worth more than its 10 HCP.

 

When you compare to this hand: Kx, Kxx, Qxxx, Qxxx you can see that card positioning and interiors change the valuation considerably.

 

So it does get back to my original contention, that the basis to answering the question of what to bid is simply whether or not one evaluates the hand as worth a limit raise. My evaluation says the hand is worth a limit raise - the low end.

[glen]

Yes, excluding that "only point", you are making a number of good points, including:

 

- 2♠ is an accurate representation of the value of the ♥ raise (and thus should reach games when games should be reached);

- it leaves the partnership well positioned for the future bidding.

 

I wanted to focus on the 2♥ alternative and was trying to point out the major problem with it is not about partner passing when game will make. It is that since 2♥ is an underbid (or as I qualified it, "technically an underbid"), the question mark for the bid is how will the partnership cope with further competitive bidding, as you question in an example that had a 3♠ jump over 2♥. I believe that this can be done, but didn't want to discuss this until we were off the 2♥ getting passed out is the problem.

[jdonn]

What is the difference between "an underbid" and "technically an underbid"? I called you a bridge lawyer in the past, I apologize for that and do not believe it is true. But I would certainly believe you could be a regular lawyer :P

 

I think you might shift the focus off partner passing 2♥ when game will make, and adjust it to game not being reached when game will make.

[jtfanclub]

Using your example, we could also have 1H-1S-2H-3S-P-P-? or 1H-1S-2H-2S-P-3S-? With a 9-card fit, it's doubtful opps will let you make any 3-level game try.

I dunno, this just seems silly to me.

 

Why am I so worried about them bidding 3S? Why should I concentrate on whether we should stretch for 420 when they're handing us a 500? They're vulnerable, we're not. If they want to jump to 3S, they're doing the 'suicide squad' attack from Monty Python and the Life of Brian. I suppose it's possible that there's 18 trumps here (though it seems very unlikely), but I seriously doubt that there's 18 tricks. No purity, no double-double (if partner can't find a 4m response to my X), no ruffing value in dummy....looks like most likely, we'll get 5 hearts + defensive tricks. If we can make 4, we'll set them 2.

 

If I bid 2S, I'm worried that partner will end up turning a +500 into a -50 because he doesn't realize how defensive my hand is. This is not a hand where I'm worried about a race with the opponents...if they want the contract, they're welcome to it.

[Double !]

I am clearly not grasping something here. It sounds like part of the discussion involves how to bid the hand so that we might buy the hand in some heart contract when the opps can theoretically out-bid us in spades. To me, the idea of initially underbidding and then trying to catch up is specious at best. If one wishes to play psychological tactics here, one might also try bidding one's values and then confidently bid one's game contract, especially at unfavorable where the opps might be more likely to take a save to avoid a double-game swing. This has been known as "bumping". Partner might just confidently bid the game with the expectation and hope that the opps take a save.

 

I was taught early on, during the Jurassic period i believe, to try to describe one's hand in as few bids, as quickly as possible in order that the partnership can judge approximately how high to go and in what strain to go. Two Spades describes this type of hand (decent 3-card limit raise), and permits for more co-ordinated partnership discovery and decision-making. Granted, I do not play unusually light initial action (although, Glen, I must admit that I am still fascinated by your ETM TOPS system), so I usually have something close to my initial bids. The sooner I am able to draw my partner into the joint decision-making process, IMO, the better. (He's a much better player than I, and he will assume that I do NOT have this hand if I make any bid other than 2S.)

 

dhl

[Winstonm]

Using your example, we could also have 1H-1S-2H-3S-P-P-? or 1H-1S-2H-2S-P-3S-?  With a 9-card fit, it's doubtful opps will let you make any 3-level game try.

I dunno, this just seems silly to me.

 

Why am I so worried about them bidding 3S? Why should I concentrate on whether we should stretch for 420 when they're handing us a 500? They're vulnerable, we're not. If they want to jump to 3S, they're doing the 'suicide squad' attack from Monty Python and the Life of Brian. I suppose it's possible that there's 18 trumps here (though it seems very unlikely), but I seriously doubt that there's 18 tricks. No purity, no double-double (if partner can't find a 4m response to my X), no ruffing value in dummy....looks like most likely, we'll get 5 hearts + defensive tricks. If we can make 4, we'll set them 2.

 

If I bid 2S, I'm worried that partner will end up turning a +500 into a -50 because he doesn't realize how defensive my hand is. This is not a hand where I'm worried about a race with the opponents...if they want the contract, they're welcome to it.

This is a good point and I admit I didn't even look at the vulnerability when considering my response.

 

Having done so, I still prefer 2S (although I think it a closer call now) for a couple of reasons: it takes the 2S raise away from LHO, and it gets my values off my chest in one bid, which is always preferable.

 

I don't buy your arguement, though, that partner will turn a plus into a minus; I would think just the opposite, that he is in a better position to judge what to do knowing my hand value is 10-12 rather than 5-10. I do not see where you find this hand all that defensive, either, as the Kx can be either, the KQx of hearts are more likely offensive, while the Q10xx of the minor are neutralish. I view this hand as more offensive than defensive, although I certainly wouldn't mind playing 3S X'd, I've seen this kind of hand blow up in my face, too.

 

Strong opponents are not crazy, and when they bid 3S vulnerable against NV they have compensating values with their 16-18 HCP. A9xx, x, Kxxxxx, xx is the kind of hand I see. And overcaller holds QJ10xx, xxx, AQ, xxx.

 

But you are certainly correct that this vul makes it less likely to have to deal with a 3S bid.

[jtfanclub]

 

If one wishes to play psychological tactics here, one might also try bidding one's values and then confidently bid one's game contract, especially at unfavorable where the opps might be more likely to take a save to avoid a double-game swing.

 

Good God. We're at the one level, you have an 11 count defensive hand, and you're trying to decide how to prevent them from bidding a double-game swing. If they bid 4♠. you just got 800. Try not to spend it all in one place.

 

I was taught early on, during the Jurassic period i believe, to try to describe one's hand in as few bids, as quickly as possible in order that the partnership can judge approximately how high to go and in what strain to go.

 

I was tought to do it at as low a level as possible, not as quickly as possible. If there's no more interference, it should be clear that X will allow you to describe this hand far more fully than 2♠. X followed by 2♥ (if partner responds 1NT) or 3♥ should show this hand.

 

 

Edited to add- After seeing Winston's point, against good opponents, what partner is going to do after 3♠ is moot. You can figure out the probability that the opponents are going to say 3♠, and it's so close to 0 I wouldn't worry about it.

 

2♠ may be 'accurate', but only because it's impossibly vague. Tell your partner about 8 cards you have in your hand, not 3.

[jdonn]

He cares a lot more about those 3 cards than the other 10 combined. Do you also double when 0544? Why do you want to emphasize your minor suits to partner anyway with 2 points in them combined, it will end up making his decision less accurate when he decides something like Qx of diamonds has real value. There is so much to be said for quickly telling your partner what he wants to know.

 

I do agree with you that all this talk of double game swings and such seems quite presumptuous.

[Winstonm]

2♠ may be 'accurate', but only because it's impossibly vague. Tell your partner about 8 cards you have in your hand, not 3.

 

You make a good case, but I don't believe the description of "impossibly vague" is accurate. I may be wrong, here, but it seems you value the concept of the 9-card fit as of utmost importance. Where I would judge Axxx, xxxx, Axxx, x to be a limit raise, I would also judge Kx, KQx, 10xxx, K10xx to be one also, basing my opinion on the concept that as the fit worsens the high-card strength improves and vice versa. In either case, your partner should know you hold a hand that justifies a raise to the 3-level, which is more than is known in a 1-2 auction.

 

I agree that 9-card fits are highly prized, but sometimes overly so. A 9-card fit in a hand with no shape is not worth any more than an 8-card fit in a hand with shape. To my knowledge, there is no other card that can so affect the percentages of a making a contract as that little fourth x in a suit: Axxxx verses Kxxx as opposed to Axxxx verses Kxx. What was hopeless for zero losers jumps to a 40% chance.

 

The problem I have with your argument is - unless playing specialized bids - the wide range of the 2H bid verses the narrow range of a 2S limit raise. I'm not certain you can make the case for showing 3-card support when a hand such as Kx, xxxx, xxx, Kxxx would bid 2H in the given auction.

 

I agree with your assessment that given the vul, it is a close call between 2H and 2S, actually closer in a non-contested auction where the value of the spade K is more suspect. This is the kind of 2 1/2 to 2 3/4 raise that I like to use Bergen "mixed" raise on even without a 4-card fit. IMO, it is more important to be able to seperate raises into bad, average, goodish, and limit than to simply show 4-card verses 3-card support.

 

So my response to the initial question should have been: 3D, Bergen mixed raise over 1S.

[jtfanclub]

Where I would judge Axxx, xxxx, Axxx, x to be a limit raise, I would also judge Kx, KQx, 10xxx, K10xx to be one also, basing my opinion on the concept that as the fit worsens the high-card strength improves and vice versa.

 

But that was my point. If both of those were limit raises, how can your partner possibly know what to do in a contested auction, particularly with this vulnerability?

 

The problem I have with your argument is - unless playing specialized bids - the wide range of the 2H bid verses the narrow range of a 2S limit raise.

 

This is not a 2♥ hand. I'm not going to lie about my hand, not when I have two honest bids that describe it. X followed by hearts will show this shape and this hcp, although unfortunately, as jdonn points out, it makes it sound like my hcp are concentrated in the minors.

[Winstonm]

 

Where I would judge Axxx, xxxx, Axxx, x to be a limit raise, I would also judge Kx, KQx, 10xxx, K10xx to be one also, basing my opinion on the concept that as the fit worsens the high-card strength improves and vice versa.

 

But that was my point. If both of those were limit raises, how can your partner possibly know what to do in a contested auction, particularly with this vulnerability?

 

The problem I have with your argument is - unless playing specialized bids - the wide range of the 2H bid verses the narrow range of a 2S limit raise.

 

This is not a 2♥ hand. I'm not going to lie about my hand, not when I have two honest bids that describe it. X followed by hearts will show this shape and this hcp, although unfortunately, as jdonn points out, it makes it sound like my hcp are concentrated in the minors.

What I am saying in the first case is that these are eqivalent hands - where one lacks in high card strength it makes it up in playing strength and vice versa. Both hands have the same amount of quick tricks, AA verses K, KQ, K. I don't follow your reasoning as to how partner will have a hard time knowing what to do in a contested auction - 1H-1S-2S the opps have to bid 3 to contest. I really don't see the problem - if your range is 10-12 for a limit raise, partner knows you hold on average a hand valued at 11, either AA and shape or better HCP with worse shape and less trumps. Knowing an 8 or 9-card fit is held, and partner holding an average of 11, that seems quite a lot of knowledge to make a decision. Once you have shown the range of your hand, partner's further bidding will be based on his offensive/defensive potential, not on what your hand shows.

 

I have sympathy for your second point, although this is why I prefer the "mixed" Bergen raise over double; if you are going to double and then support hearts it seems better to me to support hearts first and leave the double as being minors only. With support, I always have some bid that shows a reasonable approximation of my strength, but with no support I have nothing but a negative double.

 

Or it may be that I only prefer the easy memory work of consistency, as what you suggest seems to have to change based on vulnerability - Red vs White brings into account the very real prospect of having to describe your hand after X-3S-P-P.

[jtfanclub]

He cares a lot more about those 3 cards than the other 10 combined.

Here's what I don't understand about that argument. Playing something close to standard, were you not going to bid 1NT forcing, followed by 3♥? So unless you're expecting a double game swing auction to pop out of nowhere, why is it suddenly of a higher priority?

 

To me, an X followed by 3♥ and a 2♠ bid forcing to 3♥ both show the same range, the same hcp, and 3 card support. Unless you like Splintering in your partner's suit, what else could X followed by 3♥ mean? In my mind, the obvious division is 'limit raise and defensive' for X followed by 3♥, vs. 'limit raise and offensive' for an immediate 2♠ cue. You could use something else- hcp, defensive tricks, balanced vs. unbalanced. But X followed by 3♥ should have some specified meaning here, and 2♠ should explicitly exclude that meaning.

[hotShot]

This is all way to complicated for me. Trump KQ8 is much better than some 4 card supports i have had. So I simply bid 3♥.

Can anybody point out what useful informations I could get from partner, over my 2♠ bid?

I want him to bid 4♥ with extra values, which I know will be outside ♥.

[Winstonm]

He cares a lot more about those 3 cards than the other 10 combined.

Here's what I don't understand about that argument. Playing something close to standard, were you not going to bid 1NT forcing, followed by 3♥? So unless you're expecting a double game swing auction to pop out of nowhere, why is it suddenly of a higher priority?

 

To me, an X followed by 3♥ and a 2♠ bid forcing to 3♥ both show the same range, the same hcp, and 3 card support. Unless you like Splintering in your partner's suit, what else could X followed by 3♥ mean? In my mind, the obvious division is 'limit raise and defensive' for X followed by 3♥, vs. 'limit raise and offensive' for an immediate 2♠ cue. You could use something else- hcp, defensive tricks, balanced vs. unbalanced. But X followed by 3♥ should have some specified meaning here, and 2♠ should explicitly exclude that meaning.

Your point is valid in that there could be this type of seperation used - it is a matter of what you believe most important.

 

But you may want to consider this: xxx, Kx, AQxx, Axxx

1H-1S-X-2S

3C- P- ?

 

Might it not be more important to use 3H as a forcing false preference than to seperate weaker hands? If you play that negative double denies 3-card support for opener's major, this becomes possible; without this agreement, you are basically stuck with an all-purpose 3S or some type of club raise - and the best game might be 4H.

 

I think one thing you will find in bidding at the highest levels of the game is the flexibility to find a playable 5/2 or 4/3 fit when that is the better contract.

[the hog]

This is all way to complicated for me. Trump KQ8 is much better than some 4 card supports i have had. So I simply bid 3♥.

Can anybody point out what useful informations I could get from partner, over my 2♠ bid?

I want him to bid 4♥ with extra values, which I know will be outside ♥.

Mnay people play that 3H is pre emptive and 2S is a cue raise. You don't have a pre emptive raise.

[gwnn]

KQ8 is a BAD 3-card support. I'd have xxxx (and 5 hcp elsewhere) any day instead of KQ8 in trumps. (yea I know, partner will be reluctant to bid with his axxxx - the point is, most of the time I have xxxx pard doesn't have axxxx). Or am I tragically missing something here?