Two interesting hands

[the hog]

Hand 1

7

876

1032

KQJ876

 

1D (1S) ?

 

Hand 2

xx

xxx

AJ109xx

xx

 

1C (1S) ?

 

These are two hands posted on the OzOne web site; as you can see, they both have a common theme. Do you bid, pass or ??

[Impact]

Contrary to standard mantra of new suit at next level showing 10+ HCP and forcing, whenever you hold a decent 6 card suit and partial support for opener's suit, your failure to show the suit at the first opportunity will put your side behind the 8-ball.

 

I t is much less dangerous to make the bid now than hope to get teh chance later (when it has either gone all pass or comes back to you at a relatively stratospheric level and both opponents have had the opportunity to exchange information both as to strength and degree of fit).

 

THe only other point to make is that partner should be on the same wavelength, so that he understands that you may have this handtype. If his double of their intervention of a new suit is penalty he should be prepared for you to pull with this type of minimum and partial fit for his presumed long suit.

 

Ideally bid as a transfer which may include these sorts of hands (yes I like a transfer double to show C on the first hand - hardly a mainstream treatment).

 

If that is not available, make the (2minor) bid anyway on the good understanding that these sorts of offensive values are included as one description of the alternative natural meanings of the bid.

 

regards,

 

fred

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 playing neg. free bids, the hand would

be no problem, playing standard, I make

a neg. X, since I am not afraid of bidding

3C

 

#2 pass, even playing neg. free bids, one could

argue, that 2D shows more, depending on style.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Echognome]

Pass on both playing standard methods. I play a couple of systems where I play transfers here, in which case I'd transfer on both, but then you have to give up a natural 1NT. So to each his own.

[Edmunte1]

I use the jump to three level in other minor as a good 6 card suit and a limited hand, something like 6-8(9) hcp. So 3♣ on first and probably 3♦ on second will be my choices

[Fluffy]

Do we play NFB?

[the hog]

Do we play NFB?

Don't know - not discussed. You can answer assuming that "Yes" you do play nfb, "No" you don't, or whatever your favourite methods are cf Fred's, (Impact's), post above.

[the hog]

Pass on both playing standard methods. I play a couple of systems where I play transfers here, in which case I'd transfer on both, but then you have to give up a natural 1NT. So to each his own.

OK. Pass playing Standard methods, but what do you THINK is the correct action, ie what would you LIKE to do on these hands?

[Codo]

I would like to bid my suit in both cases. I play constructive NFBs, which tend to hold a little more HCPs but these very pure and solids suits are surely enough to bid.

[MickyB]

I certainly want to be able to compete, and would xfer on both hands if available, but partner has the right to play me for more.

 

I don't see that it can be right to bid a natural, forcing 2m on this hand.

[Echognome]

Pass on both playing standard methods.  I play a couple of systems where I play transfers here, in which case I'd transfer on both, but then you have to give up a natural 1NT.  So to each his own.

OK. Pass playing Standard methods, but what do you THINK is the correct action, ie what would you LIKE to do on these hands?

I don't think that's a fair question. Let's put it another way. Would you like to open these hands with a 1 bid or 2 bid if partner expects these hands? For example, on hand 2, I'm sure most would be delighted to be able to open a natural weak 2♦ if that was available. However, on the first hand, most everyone would pass not having a natural weak 2♣. So obviously we trade off what bids we want to reserve for hands that can take immediate action and the rest of the hands must pass and maybe get a chance later (even though likely not in these cases). Thus I do like playing transfers in my most regular p'ships because of the space saving aspect of them (and lead directing advantages). However, that is not to say they come without cost. If I use 1NT to show clubs, then what do I do with a balanced hand with 1-2 stoppers and around 8-9 pts (some play 1N is 6-9 others 8-10 etc). If I play NFB, what do I do with a good hand with a minor? If I start with double and it goes 3S next, I might be sick over my next decision.

[helene_t]

1: I'd like to bid with this hand but I don't think it's good system design to allocate one of the cheapest bids to a non-forcing hand with clubs. 3♣, however, would be reasonable whether it promises diamond tollerance or it's a natural weak jump.

 

2: I can barely imagine an agreement I would like to play that would allow me to bid with this hand. Maybe a natural 3♦ at favorite, after all opps could belong in hearts and I could make it difficult for them to find out.

 

I'm assuming that we play some SA-like system. Playing Acol it would be different as it would make sense to emphasize minor suits in our freebid structure.

[whereagles]

Pass both. Is this an advertisement for NFBs? :rolleyes:

[Fluffy]

I play NFB and I would bid 2♣ only on first one, second is too weak but I might try 3♦ if not vulnerable.

[Echognome]

I play NFB and I would bid 2♣ only on first one, second is too weak but I might try 3♦ if not vulnerable.

I agree with you the 2nd hand is weaker than the first. In part because of the 6322 as opposed to 6331 shape and in part because the first suit is stronger. However the difference between the two suit strengths is not very great. I ran it through suitplay and this is what I found:

 

KQJ876

 

Opposite x

5 tricks 39%

4 tricks 92%

 

Opposite xx

5 tricks 71%

4 tricks 98%

 

AJT9xx

 

Opposite x

5 tricks 23%

4 tricks 88%

 

Opposite xx

5 tricks 68%

4 tricks 98%

 

If the 2nd hand were 6331 shape (with 3 card support) would that sway you?

[david_c]

On the first hand I want to raise to 2♦.

 

On the second hand I want to bid 2♦ ("to play opposite a weak NT").

 

OK, I can do neither of those things playing standard methods. But the question was asked, "what would you like to do?" And these hands are a good example of why I like to play methods where 1♦ promises a good suit and 1♣ "promises" a balanced hand (as in Polish Club - there may be unbalanced hands possible but these will have extra strength to compensate).

[jtfanclub]

3♣ and 3♦, NV. If you play weak jump shift in competition, and these aren't WJS hands, then why do you play it?

[Apollo81]

I would bid 3♣ on the first hand if that is systemically weak.

 

I would pass on the second hand hoping to show my suit later.

 

They are guaranteed to have at least an 8-card fit on the first hand, so this gives me some degree of safety.

[pbleighton]

Pass on both.

 

Peter

[mikeh]

Pass on both playing standard methods.  I play a couple of systems where I play transfers here, in which case I'd transfer on both, but then you have to give up a natural 1NT.  So to each his own.

Agreed.

 

Giving up the natural 1N over 1♠ proved to be too much of a cost when I played transfers in this sequence... so we only play transfers over a 1♥ overcall, where 1♠ transfers to 1N. Without transfers, these hands are advertisements for negative free bids.

 

Playing these as unlimited: ie could be weak or could be standard leaves you in no-man's land way too often, especially if 4th seat bids... and would that surprise anyone?

 

You need your attennae very finely tuned if you are going to land on your feet when you can bid 2♣ on the first one on this hand and on x AJx xxx AQJxxx.

 

I'd rather risk getting shut out early than have to start playing mind games with partner at a high level.... when he has NO idea of my strength if I bid and the opps compete.

[bid_em_up]

Hand 1, assuming WJS, 3♣, at equal or favorable, pass if unfavorable.

If partner bids 3D, I am content. If partner bids 3N, I am content. If partner passes, I am content. If opps bid on, and partner is on lead, at least he is leading a club which will give nothing up, so I am content.

 

Hand 2, assuming WJS, 3♦ sometimes at equal or favorable, pass if unfavorable. Not as content with it though. Why? Partner cannot convert to 3C, he has to go to 4C. The doubleton spade makes it less attractive also. The sometimes part has to do with quality of opposition, and other various factors.

[the hog]

Perhaps the question was unfair. The reason I posted it was a comment from Peter Gill - sometime poster here, member of OzOne and a very fine player:

 

"The reward from bidding clubs is huge. You might bid and make game or slam, find a good save, get partner off to the right lead if LHO ends up in hearts or NT, or you might push them overboard in spades.

 

It's a bidder's game. The risk and reward of bidding massively favours light entry to the auction when you have a singleton in their suit. When you are void in their suit, the gain from bidding on light values becomes even huger. Occasionally you even gain when partner with short clubs knows to penalise the opponents. Telling partnert what you have is much better than keeping partner on the dark.

 

Nowadays you expect spades to be raised, proably to the three or four level.

In the olden days before preemptive raises of overcalls, people used to be taught to pass these hands. Such thinking does not make sense in the modern era. snipped It's possible to be overtaught bridge, especially wrt point count in competitive auctions. thje case for bidding is even stronger if you are not vul or if it's match-point scoring or both.

 

>Anyway, on the same theme there was a another hand today

>xx

>xxx

>AJ109xx

>xx

>

>1C (1S) ?

>2D was a massive winning bid, getting to a making 5D instead of defending >4S down 1.

>

>Points Schmoints ! Shape rules

 

Ultra cool. xx in spades is short enough to make 2D work. In the old days, people used to regard Michael Courtney as mad for making bids like 2C on the first hand and 2D on the second hand. Luckily he let me read his six or so unpublished books about this sort of stuff about 5 years ago and my results have improved immensely since then.

 

In a way, it's simply an extension of Marston's oft-espoused principle that it's the player with the shortage in the opponent's suit who acts."

[pclayton]

Pass on both. Jump is fitted for me.

[Foxx]

This problem looks like a blaring advertisement for weak jump shifts in competition.