showing preference for Opener's suit(s)

[nickf]

What's the general consensus on suit length disparity where responder should automatically revert back to giving preference to opener's first bid suit?

 

Let's say parter opens 1S and rebids 2D over your NF 1NT response.

 

With which of the following hands would you show false preference to 2S or simply pass 2D.

 

1) Kx, Axxx, xxxx, xxx

 

2) xx, Axxx, Kxxx, xxx

 

3) x, Axxx, xxx, Kxxxx

 

4) K, Axxx, xxx, xxxxx

 

5) xx, Axxx, Kxx, xxxx

 

 

The theme I'm alluding too is I think that even with a two-card discrepency it's almost always right to revert back to opener's first bid suit. Is this general expert opinion?

 

nickf

sydney

[mike777]

I have been told by my partners that with only 4 card support for second suit and honorX(HX) in first suit, go back to the first suit.

 

Your example may get even tougher if the bidding goes:

1h=1nt

2d...now 2d may only be a 3 card suit.

[awm]

The hands given are all pretty weak (7 counts, ace+king). While it's possible to make a game opposite a non-jump-shift with such a hand, I don't think it's all that likely. Most of the time we are just angling to get to the best partial. I'd correct to spades with a one-card discrepancy because 5-2 often plays better than 4-3 anyway, but otherwise would pass.

 

With a slightly stronger hand (say a 9-count) the "false preference" bids start to become more necessary. Avoiding this is one of the positives of playing methods like Gazilli, since you will often end up in an inferior partial but cannot realistically pass because you can miss a game. So I'd correct to diamonds to spades (in a non-Gazilli system) with, for example:

 

Kx Axxx Qxxx xxx

 

K Axxx Qxx xxxxx

[Guest Jlall]

The theme I'm alluding too is I think that even with a two-card discrepency it's almost always right to revert back to opener's first bid suit. Is this general expert opinion?

In my view if you're not going to accept any game tries you just pass with 2-4 (ie a crappy hand). You will have a better fit more often in the 2nd suit and you won't have to hear from partner again. The only reason to false preference is to give partner a chance to bid again.

 

With hands 1 and 2 a lot of bids would make me bid game after I bid 2S (such as 3S, 3H, and 3D) so I would bid, but usually with a 7 count I would pass. An ace and a king are much better than a 7 count though, especially with the king in one of partners suits and 4 card support.

 

With hands 3 and 4 I would pass. I'm not interested in game as much as getting the hell out of this auction. Also 2S is much more likely to go down where 2D can make when we're 1-3 and partner is passing, whereas when I was 2-4 2S will often make as well as 2D. On the 1-3s I will follow the rule with a misfit pass. Especially with a minimum where I don't have any interest in game.

 

With hand 5 I would preference.

[Guest Jlall]

The hands given are all pretty weak (7 counts, ace+king). While it's possible to make a game opposite a non-jump-shift with such a hand, I don't think it's all that likely.

Opposite a mundane 6-4 like AKxxxx xx AQTx x hand 3 produces game. This hand is a 2D bid even if you add a king to the hand, so it is not some extraordinary hand that would bid 1S then 2D then raise a preference to 3S. In fact this hand is pretty minimum for that.

 

Partner can have something like AKxxx KQx AJxx x and about to be bidding 3H which makes 5D quite good (3-2 trumps and its almost cold). This hand is on the good side but not really a perfecta.

 

Partner can have something like KQxxx x AQJxx Kx which gives 5D pretty decent play where he is about to bid 3D. This is again a minimumish 3D bid, if you make a black king the ace or reverse the pointed suits game is very good.

 

I tried not to construct "perfect" hands or I might have given AKxxx KQx Axxxx --- as an example :) I think that of the hands partner is going to bid either 3S, 3H, or 3D on game rates to be pretty good. Of the hands where he passes 2S many of those hands will make 2S as well as 2D, and the loss isn't that great if you are going down in 2S as opposed to making 2D. You have to suffer a LOT of those losses to make up for missed games and I think thats too pessimistic of a view.

[nickf]

Your example may get even tougher if the bidding goes:

1h=1nt

2d...now 2d may only be a 3 card suit.

you might be right but give me a hand shape where opener bids 2D with a 3 card suit over a non-forcing 1NT response.

 

nickf

sydney

[Guest Jlall]

Your example may get even tougher if the bidding goes:

1h=1nt

2d...now 2d may only be a 3 card suit.

you might be right but give me a hand shape where opener bids 2D with a 3 card suit over a non-forcing 1NT response.

 

nickf

sydney

I think he's implying 4531 that might choose to bid. For instance KQxx AJxxx KQx x

[pclayton]

1, 2 and 5 I think.

 

#3 and #4 I pass

[awm]

While it's true that a minimum 6-4 or 5-5 might produce a game, are you really getting to game opposite these hands by correcting? Say you are opener holding:

 

AKxxxx xx AQTx x

 

You open 1♠, hear 1NT from partner, rebid 2♦ and get corrected to 2♠. Do you bid on? It seems like for every good (but not cold) game you reach by bidding on opposite xx Axxx Kxxx xxx there are going to be several times that you get too high in 3♠ opposite xx Axxx xxx Kxxx.

 

By correcting on hands like #2, you will reach a good game when opener has extra points and extra shape (win a bunch). You will still miss game when opener has good shape but minimum values. You will play the wrong partscore when opener has a flattish minimum (anywhere from lose 1 to lose 4 or 5 if your partial goes down and the other was making). You will get a bit higher (but not bid the failing game) when opener has a flattish hand with extras like KQxxx Kx AJxx Ax.

 

The hands where opener is "flattish with extras" and where opener is "minimum with shape" aren't likely to effect your results much, because in the first case you don't have a game and in the second case you won't get to a game even if you correct. The cases that really matter are the ones where opener has extra shape and strength and you get to game, and the ones where opener is flat and minimum where you play the wrong partial. The second hand type is going to significantly outnumber the first to the degree that I'm not convinced you come out ahead by correcting even though the reward for bidding game is so much larger than the penalty for playing the wrong partial. Of course at matchpoints this isn't even close.

 

Another possibility that hasn't been mentioned is raising diamonds. Some of these really nice fitting hands do well to raise. After all, the original post specified a non-forcing notrump so a raise has to show a "nice" hand in the 6-9 range, not some 11 pointer that would start with a 2/1 bid.

[pclayton]

Hand #2 (xx Axxx Kxxx xxx) seems to be the most controversial.

 

This is an easier problem playing Gazilli or a NF NT response. Playing Gazilli, 2D is limited to 15-16 or so and pass is easier.

 

Not playing this, I think I need to take a false preference. With something like: xx Axxx Jxxx Id gladly pass since I have improved the contract and showed a sign of life. But I'm concerned about pard holding Adam's 6-4 hand as well as types like:

 

AKxxx, Kxx AQxx, x where 5D is good,

AQJxx KQx Axxx x where game is decent in 3 strains

AQxxx Kx AQJxx x where 5D is good.

[awm]

AKxxx, Kxx AQxx, x where 5D is good,

AQJxx KQx Axxx x where game is decent in 3 strains

AQxxx Kx AQJxx x where 5D is good.

On the first hand, why is 5♦ good? Say diamonds are 3-2 and spades are the expected 4-2. If we pull trumps we have five diamond tricks (four plus a ruff), two hearts, and three spades which is only ten. We can try to ruff two spades, but this could easily backfire (we don't have the ♦J after all). And we don't really have chances if diamonds are 4-1. We could go for a dummy reversal and score six diamond tricks, but then we only get two spades and two hearts (we can't both ruff two clubs and ruff out the spades). A crossruff might be the best chance, but there are a lot of opportunities to be overruffed on the way. I don't think this game is even good vulnerable at IMPs.

 

On the second hand, how is game decent in three strains? Do we want to play 3NT with no club stopper (and only five between us) having only six top tricks even if we get in? Or are we angling for 5♦, which seems to require 3-2 diamonds plus a spade finesse? 4♠ might make if spades are 3-3 with the king on, but otherwise an early tap seems to create trouble. And I'm not impressed by the chances for the moysian heart game either.

 

On the third hand I'll agree that game is good, but this is the example where opener has extra shape and extra points. These have gotta be outnumbered by the 5-3-4-1 and 5-1-4-3 11-14 point hands by a significant factor.

[Guest Jlall]

While it's true that a minimum 6-4 or 5-5 might produce a game, are you really getting to game opposite these hands by correcting? Say you are opener holding:

 

AKxxxx xx AQTx x

 

You open 1♠, hear 1NT from partner, rebid 2♦ and get corrected to 2♠.

Yes for sure. I'll let you run the simulation but I am 100 % sure I would bid on with this hand.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point. You can't find game even if you preference? I gave minimum hands as examples to point out you dont even need perfect maximums to make game. Even if you judge to pass with this hand surely you would bid on with more stuff which you have plenty of room to have. Add a jack in your suit if you want, whatever.

 

"minimum with shape" aren't likely to effect your results much,

 

I agree, do you really think any of the examples I gave were minimum with shape? One was a concentrated 6-4 13, one was a 5-5 15 and one was a 5431 17. These are all non minimums, but not stone maximums.

 

The cases that really matter are the ones where opener has extra shape and strength and you get to game, and the ones where opener is flat and minimum where you play the wrong partial. The second hand type is going to significantly outnumber the first

 

Yes but often if partner has the minimum correcting wont matter since you make 2S. Do you really think that hands on which you make 2D and go down in 2S outnumber the times where you miss a game so much that it makes up for the large downside of missing game? Again, I would be surprised.

[helene_t]

In principle I agree with Justin. I might pass all of the example hands, since in principle 7 points is not enough to hope for game. It's borderline, though.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1), 2), 5) is clear, give preference to spade

3) pass

4) pass, unless 2D could be bid on a 3 carder,

but this scenario is only relevant in case 1NT

was forcing

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

I think all of those hands should bid 2♠, at least at imps. You intend to accept an eventual 2NT invite by opener, something you cannot do if you pass 2♦ <_<

[pclayton]

Adam - I agree those aren't great games to be in. But they are close. Add some random 9's 10's and J's and they become good games to bid, especially vul. at IMPs. There's plenty of room for those cards and still stay with the tolerances of a 2♦ rebid.