Bridge Seems simple, but is it?

[Winstonm]

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?

Depends on partner's holding, which we can't know.

 

KQ8 opposite Jxxxx, played properly and assuming no opposing ruffs, will play for 1 loser about 75% of the time.

 

Kxxx opposite Jxxxx will be one loser when the suit breaks 2/2 with the A onside, some 20%.

 

Without ruffing values, the 4-card support is only extremely valuable when it is precisely Axxxx opposite Kxxx, as this raises the prospects of no losers from 0% to 40%.

 

It really depends on the type of hand it is - if you have sources of tricks via outside suits it is important to have a good 8-card trump suit than hold a 9-card fit.

 

If ruffs are critical then 9 and 10 card fits are critical.

 

So to say KQ8 is not as good of support as xxxx depends entirely on the type of hand and shouldn't be considered a blanket statement of fact.

[jdonn]

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?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think you are essentially asking why I am interested in showing my limit raise in one bid here when without interference it would have taken me two bids? The auction is already competitive, which gives a far far higher priority to supporting partner quickly. It doesn't have to be based on a double game swing, why can't it just go 3♠ p p or similar back to me, now I have to guess whether to overbid 4♥ in case partner has a little something, or pass and partner had some decent hand with no bid. In any case, if there were two ways available (playing basic 2/1) without interference to show the hand and one takes 1 bid and one takes 2 bids, of course I'll take the first, but there is only one way without switching everything around so what choice is there?

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.

I do not like starting with a negative double ever when I have support, maybe there is some exception but I haven't come across it. When the auction is competitive you are correct about my view, support first ask questions later. Also I don't see why there must be a definition for that bidding sequence (or any in particular) when there is already a way to show the hand, and even if there were I don't see why it would have to be that definition. Another thing is partners occasionally pass negative doubles for penalty anyway (extremely unlikely at the 1 level I admit, but say he is 4513 with a good hand) which is another reason not to do it with support.

[glen]

One aspect of the trump support is what is it going to be used for - that is, for example, to take ruffs in the short hand, or to allow for the drawing of trumps and then use a source of tricks. If KQ8 has to handle two ♠ ruffs, partner's ♥ suit is going to need to be decent.

[cherdano]

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?

It is ALWAYS more important to show fits early when you are in a competitive auction. The other difference is that now you CAN show a limit raise with 3-cards immediately. It is more of a drawbacks of 2/1 that you can't do this without competition.

 

The other problem is obviously that you don't know that the auction will play out so that you can make a free bid of 3♥. Someone might have bid 3♠ before you. Say it goes 1H 1S X 3S 4D P, are you sure 4H is still a limit raise in hearts, or is it a suggestion to play based on Hx, or is it a cue for diamonds?

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.

Whatever meaning you associate to X-then-3♥, it can only be hands that know what to do over 3♠ (or 4♠), and so they won't help clarifying the immediate 2♠ much.

 

Anyway, back to the original question: This is a 2♠ bid, and I was really surprised to see such a long thread about it.

 

Arend

[glen]

What is the difference between "an underbid" and "technically an underbid"? ...

To answer your question (the difference...):

 

As to why I qualified it "technically an underbid" is because I think I will get another bid on most hands where opener has fewer than four spades and not enough points to try for game. So I bid 2♥ now expecting to be able to bid again, and this two-step approach thus is more than it might appear. Effectively, I’m trying to play a four person game here, or at least protect us when opener has 4♠s.

[jtfanclub]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think you are essentially asking why I am interested in showing my limit raise in one bid here when without interference it would have taken me two bids?

 

No, the question is, is 2♠ so specific that partner can actually do something useful over it? Or is the bid so vague that more often than not will end up using a coin to make is decision?

 

I think the odds of a 3♠ call on your left, combined with 3♠ X being a bad board for you are so low that you can discount it. I cannot recall ever, with this auction (which is not uncommon) and this vulnerability, bidding 3♠. When was the last time you took that kind of position in a non-fit auction, where down 1 doubled is looking an awful lot like a 0? Add in those cases where you raised partner to 4 of a minor, vul. vs. not, when the opponents haven't shown a fit.

 

I don't think 'limit raise' is going to tell partner enough for him to determine the contract if they keep bidding. For example, if I bid 2♠ and they were to bid 3♠ (much safer in a fit auction), would partner go with a 2-6-3-2 12 count? I would expect so. Would we make it? I seriously doubt it. It would be awful nice to be able to tell partner that I need him to have a little extra and six cards, not a little extra or six cards.

 

Another thing is partners occasionally pass negative doubles for penalty anyway (extremely unlikely at the 1 level I admit, but say he is 4513 with a good hand) which is another reason not to do it with support.

 

Ok. Partner has, I dunno...

 

QJTx

ATxxx

AK9

x

 

looks like we just missed game. And they're going to get what, five tricks, tops? 1♠X scores better than 4♥. And that's a darn iffy conversion at the 1 level. A more typical leave-in would net us 800.

 

How about I phrased it as, instead of saying that X followed by 3♥ is a defensive-minded limit raise, that it showed a hand that didn't mind a leave-in of the X at the one level? To me, that's the same hand.

[mikeh]

There has been a surprising (to me) lot of dscussion about this hand: with all kinds of splitting-the-hair analysis about whether to bid 2♥ or 2♠.

 

Had RHO passed, I'd have made a constructive 2♥ bid happily. After the 1♠ overcall, two things have happened.

 

The first is that I have lost the ability to distinguish ranges for my 2♥ raise: the low end of my range is now very low, while in a silent auction it is at least a Q higher.

 

The second is that my Kx of ♠ is now worth more than it would be had RHO passed.

 

While 2♠ is aggressive, and I hold a minimum for the bid, it is, to me, clear. All this stuff about partner trying for game over 2♥: give me a break. I could/would/should bid 2♥ with Jxx Kxx xx Qxxxx....or even a tad less... and partner will judge his game try accordingly. That example is not in the same family as the hand I hold and so should not be bid in the same manner.

 

As for the negative double, count me out unless LHO has sworn a vow of silence. I have support: I have great support... it is the central feature of my hand: my mior suits are not. I can afford one agressive call, not two. Support with support, unless strong enough to do a two-step.

[cherdano]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think you are essentially asking why I am interested in showing my limit raise in one bid here when without interference it would have taken me two bids?

 

No, the question is, is 2♠ so specific that partner can actually do something useful over it? Or is the bid so vague that more often than not will end up using a coin to make is decision?

 

I think the odds of a 3♠ call on your left, combined with 3♠ X being a bad board for you are so low that you can discount it. I cannot recall ever, with this auction (which is not uncommon) and this vulnerability, bidding 3♠. When was the last time you took that kind of position in a non-fit auction, where down 1 doubled is looking an awful lot like a 0? Add in those cases where you raised partner to 4 of a minor, vul. vs. not, when the opponents haven't shown a fit.

 

I don't think 'limit raise' is going to tell partner enough for him to determine the contract if they keep bidding. For example, if I bid 2♠ and they were to bid 3♠ (much safer in a fit auction), would partner go with a 2-6-3-2 12 count? I would expect so. Would we make it? I seriously doubt it. It would be awful nice to be able to tell partner that I need him to have a little extra and six cards, not a little extra or six cards.

1. Over 2♠, partner doesn't have to decide immediately whether to accept game, he can make a game try. So he has definitely more room to explore than after double-and-3♥.

 

2. I can't remember the last time the auction (1H)-1S-(X) came up, but of course I would bid 3♠ with 4 trumps, shape, and some strength. Your point about non-fit auction is completely backwards, it is way more useful to preempt opponents when opponents haven't found their fit yet (which you know they have, given your own 9-card fit).

 

3. If they bid 3♠ over 2♠, then they would do the same over double (see above), and OF COURSE you are better placed than after a double. I am assuming you will double 3♠ again, and partner will be very badly placed to make a decision when you haven't shown him 3-card support AND that half your points are in his suit.

 

4. So, if partner has a 2632-shape (you carefully picked his worst possible shape with a 6-card suit) with a 12-count, I would still prefer him to bid 4♥ than to pass 3♠X. 4♥ will have some play, and 3♠X, too (as LHO's 3♠ bid will have some shape). If opponents can't bid 3♠, he can make a game try of 3♦ over our 2♠, whereas X-(2♠)-P-(P)-3♥ will leave him no room to do that.

 

Arend

[whereagles]

Ok. Partner has, I dunno...

 

QJTx

ATxxx

AK9

x

 

looks like we just missed game.

The spade ten happens to help a lot here. Without it, you'd have a bit of work to do....

[gwnn]

yea. I was a bit categorical in my last post. of course it depends on the hand.

 

btw, bridge has never seemed simple to me. and reading posts by light years' better players than me leads me to think this will remain so for a long, long time.

[mike777]

Why are we bidding 2H on very poor hands after 1s by RHO? Why not keep 2H as the same constructive bid? It seems we are not taking space away from the opp. and are not helping partner compete higher. I can only assume there are no good arguments for playing 2H as still constructive. Trying to see both sides of the discussion here, not just one.

 

Just asking.

[brianshark]

Double is silly:

 

Show support immediately in competitive auctions. In this example, if LHO jumps in ♠s your in trouble, because partner may have extra ♥s but can't show them because he doesn't know of your 3, so neither of you can judge whether it's more profitable to dbl for penalties or bid your game.

 

In reality though, you've a flat hand, your NV, opps are vul, they are highly unlikely to bid 3♠ in this auction.

 

So reason number 2 why double is silly:

 

The only reason to delay support, or use game-tries is either because systemically you have to to show invite hands (which doesn't apply here because of the friendly overcall) or because your partner's acceptance of your game try is reliant on him soft honour values (Ks, Qs, Js, Ts... not As) in certain key suits.

 

In this deal however, you have an easy systemic invite bid, no need to dilly dally. And you have feck all in the minors worth showing. You have a balanced hand with a decent 10 count. This is the hand for a generic invite, and 2♠ is that generic invite.

 

I see no tactical merit and a certain amount of danger in bidding something other than 2♥ or 2♠ or whetever gadget you use to show 3 card support.

 

As for whether it's an invite or constructive, I'm fairly neutral. I guess I'd take into account on how good my opps are, hope light my partner opens, etc, the form of scoring, etc. I don't think it's that clear at all.

[kenberg]

I am one of the pessimists who bid only 2H. Sort of a "This looks like a trap" choice but here are some thoughts that might partially justify this. E holds AQ and some cards in spades and scattered values elsewhere (so I assume). Against 1H-1S-2S-pass-4H he is likely to select a trump lead. A likely spade holding for partner is three small. Heart opening lead, won in hand. Spade to ace. Another heart. Now declarer has to play a spade to the K, get to his hand, ruff a spade, get back to his hand, draw trump, cope with his (original) five minor suit cards. This could be tough, even when he holds significant values. Eg: xxx/AJxxx/AQx/Ax. This is a 4H bid over 2S, is it not? If this hand is opened 1N then 2S must invite partner to bid 4H on less. I see five heart tricks, two aces, the king of spades, the rest to be developed. Of course maybe he will play this as win the trump, then A of clubs, club towards the Q. Maybe this will be right. Maybe not. I see the point of 2S but I wouldn't be surprised to see this lead to 4H down 1.

 

Maybe consult a Horoscope to see if your stars are in alignment. If so, 2S. If not, 2H. In a team game, 2S. Keeps the team happy. Everyone will understand 4H down 1. 170 produces depression. Or violence.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I do not know about bidding 2H on 'very poor' hands, however, if you do not raise with a hand worth a single raise, what happens after 1H-(1S)-p-(2S or even 3S?)

 

Constructive raises are nice, however, when they overcall you lose the forcing NT followed by a 2H bid. You also gain a cuebid so that the 2H raise is limited by your 'failure' to cuebid. The bottom range of a single raise drops a bit and the high end of a single raise 'bumps' up against the use of a cuebid raise.

 

Regards,

Robert

[pclayton]

I'm just amazed at this thread.

 

This is a very simple limit raise with all these cover cards. Trying to weave a negative double to showing different limit raises makes little sense to me.

 

Bridge isn't simple, but it hands like this that get weaker players tied up in knots.

[whereagles]

1. This is a very simple limit raise with all these cover cards.

 

2. Trying to weave a negative double to showing different limit raises makes little sense to me.

1. Well, if you're going to trot out losing trick count, it's even a GAME-FORCING hand :P (7 losers.. lol)

 

2. There are some bidding schools that dump some support bids into the neg dbl. However, this is clearly the wrong hand to do it.

[jdonn]

I don't think 'limit raise' is going to tell partner enough for him to determine the contract if they keep bidding.  For example, if I bid 2♠ and they were to bid 3♠ (much safer in a fit auction), would partner go with a 2-6-3-2 12 count?  I would expect so.  Would we make it?  I seriously doubt it.  It would be awful nice to be able to tell partner that I need him to have a little extra and six cards, not a little extra or six cards.

1) Why would partner bid game with a certain hand after one limit raise but not after a different limit raise? Now you are just making up the message your bid sends to suit the message you want it to send.

2) xx Axxxxx KQx Kx

Axx Jxxxxx Kx Ax

xx AJxxxx Ax Kxx

None cold, all more than playable. I'll take my chances.

 

Ok.  Partner has, I dunno...

 

QJTx

ATxxx

AK9

x

 

looks like we just missed game.  And they're going to get what, five tricks, tops?  1♠X scores better than 4♥.  And that's a darn iffy conversion at the 1 level.  A more typical leave-in would net us 800.

Try reversing partner's minors and see what you get to compensate for that missed game. Try removing the spade ten and see what you get. Are you saying you are comfortable defending on the 1 level when you have support partner doesn't know about? He could easily even pass with 4-6 in the majors, expecting you not to have support and thinking with his shortness in the minors the deal was a misfit.

 

Anyway I think I'm done with this thread. Recent posts suggest the light has been shown.

[jtfanclub]

Anyway I think I'm done with this thread. Recent posts suggest the light has been shown.

Yeah, sorry for making it go on for so long. It wasn't a great example hand for the X to begin with, but I wanted to point out why X could be an option (I was rather hoping somebody else would do it, but no such luck).

 

Anyhow, thanks for putting up with it.