123

[glen]

I like to play new suits by opener much like Fred has detailed here (thanks Fred for providing that additional detail, and so early in Vegas time too!). Also my (non-standard) preferences are:

 

3NT: we may belong in 3NT - you pick

2NT: general try or better, forcing to at least 3M - we could even belong in 3NT - either bid 3M if minimum, or, if non-minimum, bid 4M, or bid 3NT to offer choice, or describe hand - avoid the last option if possible as the opponents are listening in

3M: bid game if both a maximum and a shapely hand

 

So 1M-2M-3M can be bid on shapely minimum hands where it might pay to block the opponents, since responder will pass on the majority of hands, or, when responder bids game, then the game will have a good shot or be a cheap sacrifice.

[pclayton]

Justin: lets agree that reraising has its pluses and minuses.

 

When we hold the hearts, and they hold the spades; I want to shut out the imminent balancing double by LHO who is sitting behind me with a 4-1-4-4 9 count.

And how do you know all of this? Even if you have a stiff spade that doesn't mean they hold the spades. Partner can hold them.

 

Sure, Pard might hold the spades, but chances are that he has ♦, or ♣, or is balanced. Even if pard has 4 spades, 3♠ may be a playable strain when the ♥ opener has a s/v.

 

We may not buy it at the 3 level if we pass.

 

It's right to bid 3H only if they can bid and make 3S and you can make 3H. This is a very narrow window to shoot at.

 

Not really. I get:

 

1. A small gain when I go down in 3♥ versus their making 3♠.

2. I break even when they would have bid 2♠ and you compete to 3♥.

3. I get a gain when they can make 4 of a minor, and I get a small gain when I go down in 3♥, but they make 3/4 minor.

3. I break even when they compete to 3 minor and you compete back to 3♥.

5. The biggest gain is when I shut out their game with my reraise.

 

OTOH, not reraising is only right when:

 

1. We make exactly 8 tricks in hearts, and they can't make anything.

2. When they are able to profitably double us at 3, but not 2.

3. You get the information about how to play 3♥ as Fred suggests.

 

When we hold 9 trumps, either of these seems unlikely.

[pclayton]

Answer for PClayton:

 

Most of the people I play against:

 

1) Do not believe in the concept of the "prebalance"

2) Do not religously balance when the opponents stop in 2H with a known 8-card fit

3) Rarely if ever compete above the 3H level after the opponents stop in 2H and they balance

4) Sometimes go for a number when they  balance

5) Sometimes end up in the wrong suit when they balance

6) Tend to make pretty good opening leads even if they don't know what their partner's longest suit is

7) Tend to take fewer tricks on defense against 3H if they tell me about their distribution before we reach that contract

8) Tend to be able to win 5 tricks on defense when they are available

 

Hope this helps. I agree with most of your posts too by the way ;)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred:

 

All of this is good to know. I don't disagree with your 2-8, these seem to be common sense to me. The concept of 'letting' them balance does seem like a double edged sword with the information given and obtained, however.

 

1) Do not believe in the concept of the "prebalance"

 

I've always hated pre-balancing, and I am on record many times on here opposing it. I think its poor bridge because:

 

--frequently the opponents aren't limited and pre-balancing invites a disaster.

--when we don't win it, we have just told declarer how to play the hand.

 

Personally, I think pre-balancing was a fad of the early 90's that might have made its way into the expert community, but was discounted quickly. It is part of the way the vox populi thinks, however.

 

Hope this helps. I agree with most of your posts too by the way :)

 

Thanks :)

[jdonn]

It's right to bid 3H only if they can bid and make 3S and you can make 3H. This is a very narrow window to shoot at.

 

Not really. I get:

 

1. A small gain when I go down in 3♥ versus their making 3♠.

Only if they were bidding it. If not your small gain would have been either the same, or a bigger gain (if they don't balance at all.)

2. I break even when they would have bid 2♠ and you compete to 3♥.

You lose the information. It is of more use to you than to the defenders.

3. I get a gain when they can make 4 of a minor, and I get a small gain when I go down in 3♥, but they make 3/4 minor.

1: Again, only if they were bidding it.

2: Why are people worried that opponents with half the deck who have both passed already are about to make 4 of something?

3. I break even when they compete to 3 minor and you compete back to 3♥.

Again, you lost the info.

5. The biggest gain is when I shut out their game with my reraise.

As I said, what are the odds of this? Both opponents could have overcalled already, not even showing as much as an opening bid. You know they have just half the deck. Even when they balance and can make a lot, they don't know how much of a chance partner was taking and probably won't even bid 3.

 

Just think of it in terms of general principles. How can it be sound to preempt two players who have already passed, in the middle of your own constructive auction to boot?

 

OTOH, not reraising is only right when:

 

1. We make exactly 8 tricks in hearts, and they can't make anything.

Or less than 8. Or when they can make something but weren't going to bid at all.

2. When they are able to profitably double us at 3, but not 2.

3. You lost a bid that has value for constructive purposes.

 

(I should say sorry if I seem blunt, it's usually since I'm at work and rushing a bit hehe)

[foo]

As far as I am concerned, "best" is whatever makes you and your partner the most comfortable.

=EXACTLY= my point.

 

You also reinforced the rest of my point about expert bidding structures very nicely. thank you very much! :)

 

...as well as showing why 1M-2M;3M just may be more useful for purposes other than a "barrage" sequence.

 

In short, you and I are actually saying the same thing different ways and are in agreement here ;)

[awm]

There's an alternative treatment to 123 stop that I've used in some partnerships. Basically:

 

3M shows game interest with a weak trump suit. It asks partner to bid game with help in trumps. You're also safe to make this bid with very good trumps (usually the case for a 123 stop hand) since partner will not accept the try.

 

It's also important to notice that the style in these auctions often depends on your opening and raise style. If you play very wide ranging raises you need game tries a lot more than if you play "constructive" raises or make limit raises very aggressively. If you open and raise very aggressively, then it's more likely opponents can actually make a game after your single raise auction (hey they could have 27 hcp and a pair of balanced hands) in which case 123 stop looks a lot better than it would if 1M-2M pretty much guarantees 18 hcp between you. In any case 123 stop (and bergen raises for that matter) make a lot more sense when your suit is hearts than when your suit is spades. Nonetheless I don't see a lot of people playing substantially different methods over the two major suit openings.

[Fluffy]

and...

 

how ofen do you play in 2NT after 1M-2M-2NT?