2N, 3H, 3N, 4H?

[skjaeran]

Clear 4♥ IMO. I'd never consider 3♥, and 3NT with slow tricks only is not an issue for me.

[pclayton]

Art; there's plenty of situations where you can legitimately upgrade once you discover there's a fit. Here's how the conversation would go here:

 

Opener: "I have a balanced 15-17"

 

Responder: "I have at least 5 hearts"

 

Opener: "Ok (super accepts may or may not apply)"

 

Responder: "I have 5 only hearts but I have a great 7 to a bad 9 count. I may or may not have a balanced hand"

 

Opener: "I have a heart fit you didn't previously know about but I am on the lower half of my 1N opening"

 

Responder (4♥): "That's all I needed to know. TYP".

[drinbrasil]

Art; there's plenty of situations where you can legitimately upgrade once you discover there's a fit. Here's how the conversation would go here:

 

Opener: "I have a balanced 15-17"

 

Responder: "I have at least 5 hearts"

 

Opener: "Ok (super accepts may or may not apply)"

 

Responder: "I have 5 only hearts but I have a great 7 to a bad 9 count. I may or may not have a balanced hand"

 

Opener: "I have a heart fit you didn't previously know about but I am on the lower half of my 1N opening"

 

Responder (4♥): "That's all I needed to know. TYP".

looks very nice on paper, all who like bid 4H over 3H can please show some hands where you did it? (remember, hands you have invitional values and 5 hearts, with 6+ the invite is in 3H).

We can make then some random tests and see how effective this bids are...

 

I play bridge few time (7 years), but at good level (2-3 years), and i never saw one good player bid 4H over 3H in this auction (my club has 6 world champions and i play often against...), but i am open mind and want learn from posters.

[ArtK78]

Enough arguing in the abstract.

 

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

[skjaeran]

Enough arguing in the abstract.

 

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

[pclayton]

Enough arguing in the abstract.

 

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

I agree. Some prime 5422's might qualify too. Opposite the OP's hand I'm thinking about something like: xx Axxxx, Axxx, xx for instance.

[drinbrasil]

Enough arguing in the abstract.

 

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

How many times you did and saw this bidding with sucess/no sucess?

So with KJxxx Q10xxx xx x you big game always, right? You never invite.

Knowing partner minimum, whats expected number of games made you can estimate here?

[bid_em_up]

x AJxxx QJxx xxx would be a good choice.

 

Kxxx AJxxx x xxx (although one could argue this hand would start with stayman first) could be another.

 

xx Axxxx AJx xxx You might have bid 3N initially, but chose to only invite because it is likely dependent on a heart fit or partner being max if 3N/4H is going to make. Now that you have determined a heart fit is available, the hand certainly warrants being in game.

 

I'm sure there are others.

[ArtK78]

Enough arguing in the abstract.

 

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

I agree. Some prime 5422's might qualify too. Opposite the OP's hand I'm thinking about something like: xx Axxxx, Axxx, xx for instance.

I trust that you will at least agree that bidding game opposite a simple preference to hearts is no more than a shot. You cannot say that you are bidding game in confidence on this hand, or the two other example hands that you presented in a later posting.

[jdonn]

If you want to argue that responder's hand is only worth an invite if there is no heart fit but is worth a game bid if there is a heart fit, fine. You can make your argument. I don't think it will fly.

Art I don't know where you are getting this from. Why would it be so hard to believe that a hand could become more valuable after a fit is located? Pretty much responder will pass 3♥ if he is 5332, and with almost any other shape will tend to bid 4♥ (unless his short suits contain honors.) It is just about 100% responder will bid on to 4 with a singleton, which is very common since you don't have that many options in standard bidding for invitational hands.

 

You could make a much better case that 4♥ is more common than pass on this auction than you could that 4♥ is impossible. I think, with all due respect, that this is simply a hole in your knowledge that is far below what your skill level is otherwise.

[hrothgar]

I trust that you will at least agree that bidding game opposite a simple preference to hearts is no more than a shot. You cannot say that you are bidding game in confidence on this hand, or the two other example hands that you presented in a later posting.

If you only bid games when you are completely confident that they will make then you aren't bidding nearly enough games.

[cherdano]

Enough arguing in the abstract.

 

I would like to see some examples of responder's hands that are consistent with the auction 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♥.

x KJxxx xx QTxxx or similar. Partner's third trump increases the chances for setting up and reaching the side suit a lot.

I agree. Some prime 5422's might qualify too. Opposite the OP's hand I'm thinking about something like: xx Axxxx, Axxx, xx for instance.

I trust that you will at least agree that bidding game opposite a simple preference to hearts is no more than a shot. You cannot say that you are bidding game in confidence on this hand, or the two other example hands that you presented in a later posting.

So what? Passing 3♥ with a fit, a shapely hand and two aces is just a shot, you cannot say you are passing 3♥ with confidence. You can never know what is the right bid in close decision, but you have to make a bet, and if you give me x KJxxx KJ9xx xx then I would put a lot of money on 4♥ being the right bet.

[mikeh]

I cannot recall the precise hands on which I have raised a 3-level major preference to 4major, since it is a relatively uncommon sequence, and especially in recent years, I often play 2 way stayman rather than transfers, so I have even less occasion to have this auction than most.

 

However, there are some factors that are often present:

 

1. We have a thin trump suit... say Axxxx is typical, where knowledge of a 3+ fit is critical. Axxxx opposite Kx will usually lose 2 tricks. Axxxx opposite Kxx will usually lose 2 tricks... this is a full trick swing in playing expectation (I know, the percentages don't translate precisely) with no change in high card strength. Similar factors apply to virtually all 3 card holdings you can give opener. The presence of the extra card(s) has to work out to be worth more than a full trick on average: Axxxx opposite Jx or Axxxx opposite Jxxx... I'd expect 3 losers on the 1st layout and have an excellent play for only 1 on the second. A109xx opposite Jx or Jxx... which do you prefer? and so on.

 

2. We have a side suit. In standard methods, responder cannot show the side suit without creating a force. Once opener shows a genuine fit for the major, we are more likely to be able to control our side shortness without getting tapped; we may well have a double-fit (altho we have to guess at this); and when we lack a double fit, we have the prospect of scoring a ruff in partner's hand.

 

My impression, which may be faulty, is that I don't think I have raised a 3 level preference to game on any 5332 hand.

 

I am frankly astounded that any serious player would take issue with this approach. I admit I have never actually discussed it with anyone, but that is because it is so obvious that I think I'd just assume that an expert partner would know this.

 

As for the notion that we must be (almost) sure of game when we raise the preference: that might be nice but it doesn't resemble winning imp bridge imo.

[drinbrasil]

To be sincere, this sequence (1nt-2d;2h-2nt;3h-4h) is very very very unusual, i really cant remember good players doing this. But from what posters says are hands in wich you need double fit with partner and almsot all cant handle with 4-1 trumphs, so you is a bad shot. You must have some fit for your lateral suit or will not win the game.

Can be bid? of course, its your right.

When you invite partner and hi has 3 cards and he says NO, i want play only 3H, he probabily has his own reasons. If i bid 4 and go down my partner will not like...

[hrothgar]

Where is Ben when you need him?

 

This is one of those occasions where BRBR would really come in handy...

[keylime]

If memory serves, the late Al Roth I believe played second suits as invites or better. I might be very wrong tho on this.

[mikeh]

Where is Ben when you need him?

 

This is one of those occasions where BRBR would really come in handy...

I have never understood the relevance of bridgebrowser, altho I have always respected the effort made by Ben and others who use it.

 

It represents the cumulative results of a group of players who are, on average, appallingly bad.. at least by the standards of BBF. So using those data to modify the consensus of a more highly skilled set of players seems self-defeating.

 

Put another way, the 'fact' that, say, there were 11,351 hands on which players raised the 3♥ preference and that the imp expectation on those boards was -2.78 would be meaningless to me. Even if I were making the same call that the average BBO player made, I'd expect to score better than they would, because I play the hands better than they do. So it would be remarkably stupid of me to decide to change my bidding because of their results.

 

And I suspect that the majority of posters here play their hands better than the BBF average :P

[ArtK78]

As for the notion that we must be (almost) sure of game when we raise the preference: that might be nice but it doesn't resemble winning imp bridge imo.

I never said (or even meant to imply) that one needed to be sure of making in order to bid a game. This is so obvious that to even raise it in the argument borders on insulting (no offense intended).

 

What I do mean to say is that when you bid game on this sequence you should expect it to have marginal play at best. It is a virtual certainty that you will be playing in an 8 card fit with less than the usual combined high card strength for game. If either of these facts were not true, then the opening no trump bidder would have bid game himself.

 

One may take whatever positions one wants to take on any hand. But I would not expect that bidding game over the 3♥ call would be a long-term winner if the 2NT bid was correct to begin with.

 

By the way, some of the example hands are very questionable 2NT bids.

 

If nothing else, at least it is generally acknowledged that bidding 4♥ on this sequence is extremely rare.

[Guest Jlall]

Here is the best explanation I can give you Art, hopefully you will see where your thought process is faulty (though you seem too stubborn for that).

 

You keep saying things like 2N asks pard to assess where to play the hand. It doesn't though. I read something from I think Fred where he says bids are either statements (most bids), or questions (blackwood, stayman etc). This is a really good way to look at bridge. Here 2N is a statement. It says simply that you have 5 hearts and an invitational hand, and partner can pass with a misfitting minimum. Returning to 3H is also a statement. It says I have a minimum 1N opener with a fit. It is NOT inconsistent, after these 2 statements, that you decide to play in 4H. I would consider it routine to raise to 4H on a hand like x KJxxx Axxx xxx. With a hand like this once you have a fit the value of your hand goes up dramatically, and you are worth a game force.

[SoTired]

I think Art and others are confusing the subject auction 1N 2D 2H 2N 3H 4H with auctions where one partner has offered game, got refused, and carried on anyway. The proverbial, "Accepting your own invitation" auction which is usually the trait of poor players.

 

This auction is not quite the same. When responder determined that the hand was invitational, it was without the knowledge of the heart fit. A common hand is x AJxxx Kxxx xxx. (Note the singleton). Opposite a 15-17 HCP 1NT opener, this 8HCP hand with a 5-card suit is only worth an invitational 2N for a 3N game without a heart fit. Once the heart fit is verified, the hand is worth 4H even opposite a min 1NT.

 

Although the 4H bid is not common, it is not that unusual. I would bid it on most 5431, but not with 5422 or 5332.

[jtfanclub]

It's a THREE POINT FREAKIN' NO TRUMP.

 

The difference between partner accepting and declining is 1 hcp, since he'll bid 3♥ with most 15 counts and a fit, and 4♥ with most 16 counts and a fit.

 

If I was the director, and I got called because they got to 4♥ when opener had 15 when everybody on the planet would be there when opener had 16, I'd honestly have to ask why they were wasting my time.

 

And that's my two cents.

[ArtK78]

It took me awhile before I decided to participate in this Forum. From some of the responses to my argument in this thread, I wonder why I bothered.

 

Several posters seem to take offense if the responses to their posts are not "Yes, you are right!" or "interesting post, well thought out." The post immediately prior to this one is going out of his way to shout about the small distinction between bidding game and not bidding game.

 

And a recent poster accused me of being stubborn. I prefer to think of it as determined.

 

:)

 

In any event, I agree that it is true that 2NT is a statement as Jlall mentioned in a recent post (Parenthetically, most bids in a Standard system are statements). It describes a hand with a 5 card heart suit and invitational values. Opener is entitled to evaluate his hand to determine where the hand should be played. Responder should be aware that opener is in a good position to make this decision - probably a better position to make a decision regarding the final contract than responder.

 

Yes, it is tempting to reevaluate the resonding hand once there is a known "fit." But the fit is not overwhelming. It is an 8 card fit most of the time. Futhermore, opener has that information and can evaluate the usefulness his high cards fairly accurately. So, responder should defer to opener - opener is the "captain" on this auction - responder is the "slave."

 

In my opinion, a 4♥ bid by responder is a breach of partnership dicipline. Is it possible that 4♥ will make? Sure, it is possible. But not likely (in my opinion) if responder described his hand accurately with his transfer and 2NT bid.

 

I will not argue that it may be a close decision. The prior post indicated that the difference between bidding game and not bidding game is likely to be 1 or 2 HCPs. Isn't that always the case? And, quite frankly, it is not just a question of HCPs. It is a question of how well opener's values match responder's hand. That is often hard to evaluate after a no trump opening bid (there is a reason why some players refer to a 2NT opening bid as a "slam killer").

 

So, do what you like. But we aware that bidding 4♥ in this situation is an alarm to the opponents. It is a very unusual call - after the 3♥ bid, everyone expects that the auction is over. If there is any table action other than the bidding which might influence or be perceived to have influenced the final call, expect a director call. And, believe me, from years of experience serving on committees, the protest will not be treated as frivious.

 

By the way, JT, I hope you are not the director. I expect TDs to treat players with respect just as I expect the players to treat the TDs and the other players with respect. And, as the TD, you are paid to respond to problems that arise at the table. So, I prefer to think of your responding to my call as using your time, not wasting your time.

[cherdano]

Responder should be aware that opener is in a good position to make this decision - probably a better position to make a decision regarding the final contract than responder.

This is exactly the point where we disagree. All opener knows is that responder has 5 hearts and invitational values. He could have Qxx KQJTx xxx xx or - Axxxx Kxxxx xxx. He doen'st know whether responder is balanced or nott, he doesn't know whether his 5-card suit gets upgraded opposite a fit, etc. However, after the 3♥ bid responder knows opener has 3 hearts and a minimum for hearts given he has a balanced hand worth 15-17 hcp. Who knows more about the other's hand? This really isn't close.

 

Anyway, I am not sure you have the rights to complain about being called stubborn when you upfront told us that we shouldn't be surprised to end up in front of a committee for an action that we consider entirely normal, and then be treated with very little sympathy by you who has been serving in committees for 30 years...

[jdonn]

Actually in one of the NABC casebooks from maybe 8 years ago or so (can't remember which) this very appeal came up. And the player lost as you said, and as he should have. However he had a 2533 9 count with great spot cards, one that was surely worth a game force to begin with. He essentially argued that he had to bid game with these great spot cards, but made no argument along the lines of this hand being worth more in a suit than in notrump (it really wasn't anyway) so he had no chance.

 

If you decide not to participate purely because of something JT said.... then you have to learn who to take seriously and who to ignore :)

 

Edit: And excellent post Arend, you have pinpointed the issue exactly.

[han]

I think continuing this argument is pointless, you are too determined Art. :)