rebid over a NT

[han]

That's not what I meant. Wayne was calculating the odds that we can make 5C with this hand given that partner bid 1D and 1NT. I think his parameters might have been to strict regarding the heart honors.

[Cascade]

That's not what I meant. Wayne was calculating the odds that we can make 5C with this hand given that partner bid 1D and 1NT. I think his parameters might have been to strict regarding the heart honors.

I will redo including Qx, Jxx, 10xxx and maybe 10xx etc.

 

Ideally I'd like to exclude hands with club support with these dubious holdings.

 

I'll see how I go later on. I am away from home at the moment and will not be back home for about 5-6 hrs.

[han]

I guess it also depends on whether 1S showed an unbalanced hand or not. If it does then responder would more often bid 2C.

 

Another factor is how often responder would pass 1S with a poor 6-count.

[the hog]

Well 1NT shows 6-9. The chances of pd having the "right stuff" to make either 5C or, even more distant, 3NT a playable contract are extremely remote. Far more likely is that responder will look at her 9 count and bid 3NT as happened here. I think 3C is poor for that reason. Wayne's simulations support that.

[han]

25-30% is extremely remote? At IMPs? And that's the percentage of making 3C, we are 2 levels lower.

[the hog]

25-30% is extremely remote? At IMPs? And that's the percentage of making 3C, we are 2 levels lower.

If you read Wayne's post, 5C is more likely to make than 3NT. 25% games at Imps are not a good proposition, and you are discounting the possible, (though somewhat unlikey with this C holding), penalty double.

[han]

Yes I did read Wayne's post, that's why I quoted from it. You said the chance that 5C or (even more distant) 3NT is a reasonable contract is extremely remote. Well, according to Wayne that chance is 25-30% which is not at all extremely remote. And of course, partner will pass with about the worst half of those hands, so when we actually get to game then the chance of making will be considerably higher.

 

 

(I made a typo in my post, I wrote 3C instead of 5C but I'm sure you knew what I meant)

[Cascade]

The numbers stayed roughly the same when i added in more tenuous stoppers. I didn't allow those stoppers when there was an alternative bid with a likely club fit or a six-card diamond suit.

[whereagles]

Well 1NT shows 6-9. The chances of pd having the "right stuff" to make either 5C or, even more distant, 3NT a playable contract are extremely remote. Far more likely is that responder will look at her 9 count and bid 3NT as happened here. I think 3C is poor for that reason. Wayne's simulations support that.

While you are very, very right in this respect, I think it's still important to find out whether our hands fit into cascade's 20-25% category, so this is what one can do:

 

Bid 3♣ anyway and pull pard's 3NT (which we know to be ill-judged 'cos we're pretty weakish) to 4♣ and leave the final word to him.

[Cascade]

25-30% is extremely remote? At IMPs? And that's the percentage of making 3C, we are 2 levels lower.

If you read Wayne's post, 5C is more likely to make than 3NT. 25% games at Imps are not a good proposition, and you are discounting the possible, (though somewhat unlikey with this C holding), penalty double.

We are not in game yet.

 

25-30% game means blasting game now would be wrong but it easily could be right to make another move and have partner bid game with a suitable hand.

[mikeh]

Well 1NT shows 6-9. The chances of pd having the "right stuff" to make either 5C or, even more distant, 3NT a playable contract are extremely remote. Far more likely is that responder will look at her 9 count and bid 3NT as happened here. I think 3C is poor for that reason. Wayne's simulations support that.

While you are very, very right in this respect, I think it's still important to find out whether our hands fit into cascade's 20-25% category, so this is what one can do:

 

Bid 3♣ anyway and pull pard's 3NT (which we know to be ill-judged 'cos we're pretty weakish) to 4♣ and leave the final word to him.

That approach is truly idiotic. If we don't trust our partner to evaluate correctly over 3♣, don't bid 3♣. If partner bids 3N on the hand she held, that was a mistake. But imagine how she would feel if she bid 3N on xx J10xx KJxxx Ax and you pulled to 4♣. Yes, 3N MAY go down, but it is a contract you need to be in at imps.

[Cascade]

Exactly 3♣ said we need a club card.

 

If partner bids 3NT I expect Ax opposite. Maybe stiff A occasionally.

[aisha759]

I PASS 3♣Try and play at 3am!!! Alex is right, you are all right, my bid is wrong..... so clear now, it took me 2 days to realise this........ and now Alex won't talk to me nor play with me......... ty all

[slothy]

I PASS 3♣Try and play at 3am!!! Alex is right, you are all right, my bid is wrong..... so clear now, it took me 2 days to realise this........ and now Alex won't talk to me nor play with me......... ty all

:)

 

 

lol trying to make me out to be some retributive, sulky, bad guy???

 

i have talked to her and i will play with her...but maybe not at 3am in the morning :D

 

chill, hon. Have a cig and a lemonade. sana optum

 

Yalla

 

IMHO Aisha was 60% right and Alex 40%. Of course I do not encourage Alex to quit bridge for that reason. Bridge is a lot more fun than gynecology and sword swallowing.

 

Bridge is fun, yes. Sword swallowing was never a past-time i pursued....i value my uvula too highly.

 

As for gynaecology :) As a man, i tend to disagree that it is not as fun as bridge. There are certain mysteries in the female form that i still strive to understand.

[pork rind]

;) just a curious question for the 2c bidders. if part had responded 1s, what would you bid?? its all hand evaluation i think

fwiw it is always a 3c bid for me and a pass from south.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakjxhxdxckqt9xxx&s=sxxxha98xdkqxxxcx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1. Playing Acol,

1♣ (_P) 1♦ (_P)

1♠ (_P) 1N (_P)

??

 

 

2. For those who bid 3♣, or assume that N did,

what is South's bid over 3♣?

[/hv]

 

 

1. IMO 2♣ = 10, 3♣ = 8. P = 3

3 ♣ is a slight overbid. Also, I intend to bid 3♣ over 2N.

Usually, in Acol, my 1♠ rebid would already show 5 ♣ and 4 ♠.

 

2. IMO 3N = 10, 4♠ = 7, 3♠ = 5, _P=3.

Over partner's 3♣ I would bid 3N.

[Cascade]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakjxhxdxckqt9xxx&s=sxxxha98xdkqxxxcx]133|200|Scoring: IMP

1. Playing Acol,

1♣ (_P) 1♦ (_P)

1♠ (_P) 1N (_P)

??

 

 

2. For those who bid 3♣, or assume that N did,

what is South's bid over 3♣?

[/hv]

 

 

1. IMO 2♣ = 10, 3♣ = 8. P = 3

3 ♣ is a slight overbid. Also, I intend to bid 3♣ over 2N.

Usually, in Acol, my 1♠ rebid would already show 5 ♣ and 4 ♠.

 

2. IMO 3N = 10, 4♠ = 7, 3♠ = 5, _P=3.

Over partner's 3♣ I would bid 3N.

1. I too leaned towards 2♣ rather than 3♣ although I am not completely convinced that it is right. I would have given 3♣ more and Pass less than you suggest.

 

2. Here I am completely unconvinced about bidding 3NT. Partner had two ways of inviting game - 2NT or 3♣. There seems no point to this distinction if we are going to bid game with any maximum.

[helene_t]

I am completely unconvinced about bidding 3NT. Partner had two ways of inviting game - 2NT or 3♣. There seems no point to this distinction if we are going to bid game with any maximum.

My first though was that you could define 3♣ as inviting game opposite any maximum and opposite a minimum with help in clubs. Thinking more about it, a minimum with help in clubs would probably have taken preference with 2♣ rather than bidding 1NT. Especially in Standard English Acol in which 1♠ implies 5+ clubs.

[whereagles]

That approach is truly idiotic. If we don't trust our partner to evaluate correctly over 3♣, don't bid 3♣. If partner bids 3N on the hand she held, that was a mistake. But imagine how she would feel if she bid 3N on xx J10xx KJxxx Ax and you pulled to 4♣. Yes, 3N MAY go down, but it is a contract you need to be in at imps.

Can we leave the insults aside? That's really childish. Why do you keep doing that?

 

Now to the technical stuff. I think you may have misunderstood what I said.

 

Cascade's simulation showed 5♣ was better than 3NT. When you bid 3♣, you're not inviting to 3NT, but to FIVE CLUBS. Pard of course doesn't know this, so, when he bids 3NT and you pull to 4♣, the message is "I don't wanna play 3NT. My invite was to 5♣. How do you fancy that?". Note that by bidding this way, you avoid having to play 4♣ if pard passes 3♣.

 

Of course, what I said is backed by simulations that show 5♣ is, in general, better than 3NT. At table, having no simulations, I would have to trust my judgement to know whether 5♣ is better than 3NT. And if I were to judge 5♣ more likely, it would be consistent to pull 3NT. If I were to judge otherwise, it would be inconsistent to pull 3NT. Yes, 3NT is better if pard has the hand you gave, but simulations show 5♣ is the long run winner and that justifies pulling 3NT.

[nige1]

1. I too leaned towards 2♣ rather than 3♣ although I am not completely convinced that it is right.  I would have given 3♣ more and Pass less than you suggest.

 

2.  Here I am completely unconvinced about bidding 3NT.  Partner had two ways of inviting game - 2NT or 3♣.  There seems no point to this distinction if we are going to bid game with any maximum.

On reflection, I think Cascade, Helene_T and Co are right and I was wrong. 3♣ is OK and may be better than 2♣.

 

Also, I concede that 3N over 3♣ is bullish on this misfit

• I dare say that 3N might have been right, had opener's 3♣ been stronger or his ♣ suit better
  e.g. ♠A9xx ♥- ♦Jx ♣AKQTxxx
  
• With opener's actual hand, on the likely ♥ lead, 3N is almost hopeless, whereas 5♣ retains remote chances (♠ 3-3 with ♠Q well-placed, and ♣J singleton or doubleton) :)
  
• Opener's ♠ are so good that 4♠ has slightly better prospects than 5♣, but it doesn't degrade so gracefully on unfavourable breaks :P
  
• ♥s are more likely to be led against 3N than against a suit contract. On a non ♥ lead, suit contracts have better prospects. :)
  

[mikeh]

That approach is truly idiotic. If we don't trust our partner to evaluate correctly over 3♣, don't bid 3♣. If partner bids 3N on the hand she held, that was a mistake. But imagine how she would feel if she bid 3N on xx J10xx KJxxx Ax and you pulled to 4♣. Yes, 3N MAY go down, but it is a contract you need to be in at imps.

Can we leave the insults aside? That's really childish. Why do you keep doing that?

 

Now to the technical stuff. I think you may have misunderstood what I said.

 

Cascade's simulation showed 5♣ was better than 3NT. When you bid 3♣, you're not inviting to 3NT, but to FIVE CLUBS. Pard of course doesn't know this, so, when he bids 3NT and you pull to 4♣, the message is "I don't wanna play 3NT. My invite was to 5♣. How do you fancy that?". Note that by bidding this way, you avoid having to play 4♣ if pard passes 3♣.

 

Of course, what I said is backed by simulations that show 5♣ is, in general, better than 3NT. At table, having no simulations, I would have to trust my judgement to know whether 5♣ is better than 3NT. And if I were to judge 5♣ more likely, it would be consistent to pull 3NT. If I were to judge otherwise, it would be inconsistent to pull 3NT. Yes, 3NT is better if pard has the hand you gave, but simulations show 5♣ is the long run winner and that justifies pulling 3NT.

You are the one misunderstanding matters B)

 

Wayne's simulation did not support the conclusion that 3N was never right. As I understood his post, he claimed that, based on the constraints he used, 5♣ would make on more hands than would 3N. But 3N will make sometimes. In particular, it will make whenever responder holds the ♣A and the opps can't run 5 tricks. It will also make if partner has both reds well stopped.. which may require some degree of luck: xxx QJ9x KQ10xx Jx is a construction on which 3N is far superior to the hopeless 5♣.. it is not cold, but the odds are it will make.

 

3♣, as the majority of the better players posting so far seem to think, is an invitation to GAME, not an invitation only to 5♣. When you invite partner to consider bidding game, and partner says.. I think 3N is better than 5♣.... it is truly idiotic to pull 3N.

 

Returning for a moment to simulations of the situation when one bids 3♣. If asked, before responder calls, which game is more likely, I can accept that Wayne's simulations show that the answer is 5♣. However, if we then change the constraints to be consistent with a 3N rebid by responder, and NOW re-run the simulation, I strongly suspect that the answer would suggest passing 3N. The point is that partner's 3N call shifts the probabilities. Failing to understand that point is suggestive either of haste in posting, ignorance of the use of simulations, or idiocy.

[aisha759]

I am convinced that 3nt by me was wrong with the kind of hand I held....Most of you or I should say ALL of you who answered this post are seasoned bridge players..... If I asked anyone who plays bridge at my level, they would bid a quick 3NT and live to regret it..... 3♣ is not forcing, never thought it was..... Everything looks different in the morning B) This was a great discussion, but I was convinced I was wrong before all the posts..... In a few days I may agree with the 3♣ bid, who knows..... I would have prefered it, if Alex posted only his hand and then posted mine.... it's easy to judge when all hands are shown..... or post only mine and his bid..... I think that would have been extremely interesting..... When I look at the hands now, I kick myself for having bid 3NT.....i have a clear pass..... I did not judge his hand properly..... I just assumed.... and that is why I will never be a good bridge player, or at least a consistent one...

I don't want to give names to protect the innocent, but the few intermediate players wo read this post disagreed with the 3♣ bid, and now it was my turn to convince them it was correct!!!!!

[mikeh]

[*]I dare say that 3N might have been right, had opener's 3♣ been stronger or his ♣ suit better

e.g. ♠A9xx ♥- ♦Jx ♣AKQTxxx

I very much doubt that 3♣ would attract many votes in a serious bidding contest with 8 tricks in hand and a partner promising red suit stops. Yes, 3N may fail opposite some hands, and 5♣ might be better, but I cannot imagine merely inviting game. I think, as some of us posted earlier, that responder should NOT include solid clubs as one of opener's hand-types.. solid clubs bid 3N.

[mikeh]

When I look at the hands now, I kick myself for having bid 3NT.....i have a clear pass..... I did not judge his hand properly..... I just assumed.... and that is why I will never be a good bridge player, or at least a consistent one...

Don't beat up on yourself :)

 

You display all the traits of a player who can improve... and so long as you are improving, there is no limit to how strong you can become.

 

And this forum is a wonderful resource to players who recognize that they have a lot to learn. When I started, the only comparable resource was the bar after the game, where I hung on every word by players better than myself, which, to start with, was just about everybody B)

 

Here, in this forum, we have access to some truly knowledgable players, so it is even better than the old 'bar after the game' scenario.

 

Show me a player who thinks he or she never errs, and I will show you a player who will never get better. Show me a player who admits to error and is open to rethinking his or her approach, and I will show you a player who is going to get better and better. Well, I hope so, since I make more than my share of mistakes so I hope that means I'm going to get better :P

[whereagles]

look, michael hargreaves, whatever. I'm not going to debate anymore with you having that assine attitude of yours. have a nice day