2S or 1N?

[bruceboje]

There are some valid reasons why the responders hand looks suited to notrump. But to bid 1NT is violating the standard 2/1 response.

 

The trouble will start when partner rebids 2 of minor. Now there's no good bid to describe this hand.

[fred]

Again the only conclusion that can be drawn from this simulation is that the results from GIB playing its version of 2/1 do not support the hypothesis that there is an IMP advantage to responding 2♠ rather than 1NT to 1♠.

Hi Wayne,

 

Thanks for your interesting work on this problem, but this conclusion seems wrong to me (sorry!).

 

I believe that in order to draw this conclusion you would also have to simulate auctions in which the bidding starts 1S-1NT and 1S-2S and the responder has a wide variety of other hands that would be bid the same way as this one.

 

Suppose for example that the auction starts 1S-1N-2x-2S and opener has to decide whether or not to take another call. Whether or not the partnership bids 2S on hands "like this one" will have an impact on that decision.

 

I think it is reasonable to conclude that the partnership will do less well in these auctions if it is normal to bid hands "like this one" that way (because the responder's sequence will then have a wider range than it would if you bid 2S on such hands so one would expect that subsequent bidding will be less accurate).

 

Same goes for the direct raise to 2S of course - if you take hands like this one out of the mix and partner knows that, 2S will have a narrower range and one would expect subsequent bidding to be more accurate.

 

My sense is that it would be very difficult (impossible?) to really solve this problem by way of simulation.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[glen]

... Suppose for example that the auction starts 1S-1N-2x-2S and opener has to decide whether or not to take another call. Whether or not the partnership bids 2S on hands "like this one" will have an impact on that decision. ...

There is another way of looking at your example. Suppose we assume that opener will always bid the same way after 1S-1NT;-2x-2S regardless of whether or not one would bid 2S directly, or 1NT, with a flat 9 count, 3 card support and soft values - that is opener treats the 2S rebid solely as 6 to 10 with a doubleton spade. Then simulations are very useful in determining if this approach results in better or worse results for the 9count/3support/soft hand - if the results are better without opener having to change anything, then the simulations can help solve this problem.

[Cascade]

Again the only conclusion that can be drawn from this simulation is that the results from GIB playing its version of 2/1 do not support the hypothesis that there is an IMP advantage to responding 2♠ rather than 1NT to 1♠.

Hi Wayne,

...

I believe that in order to draw this conclusion you would also have to simulate auctions in which the bidding starts 1S-1NT and 1S-2S and the responder has a wide variety of other hands that would be bid the same way as this one.

Maybe I left something out.

 

What I meant is that there was no measureable advantage in the simulation to responding 2♠ rather than 1NT with the given 3=3=4=3 9 hcp hand.

 

Suppose for example that the auction starts 1S-1N-2x-2S and opener has to decide whether or not to take another call. Whether or not the partnership bids 2S on hands "like this one" will have an impact on that decision.

 

Absolutely. Well at least for a partner that knows that you might respond 1NT with this sort of hand.

 

With hands like this as far as I can tell GIB responds 2♠. I have checked this out by observing GIBs actions with this hand opposite a 1♠ opening. Although I have to confess I have not done very many trials. However I have not seen GIB respond 1NT (or anything other than 2♠) with this hand. I assume that GIB is simply making the book bid with this hand and not doing a simulation to make the choice at this point in the auction.

 

Nevertheless when I forced GIB to respond 1NT with this hand it did marginally better than when I forced it to respond 2♠ with the same hand. This means that even though GIB did not "know" that a 1NT bid could be made on a hand like this it did about the same as if it made the book bid of 2♠.

 

GIB is not going to do worse on more standard 1NT response hands because I force it to bid 1NT with this hand because GIB does not know that it would respond 1NT with this hand. Presumably it does its simulations for later judgement calls based on a more normal 1NT response and any additional information it has acquired in the bidding.

 

If we reprogrammed GIB to know about these 1NT responses then it would likely make a difference to GIB when considering partner's 1NT responses. But this is a secondary affect and I think it would be an order of magnitude smaller than the direct affect from responding 1NT with this hand rather than 2♠.

 

Basically the GIB single dummy simulation suggests that we are no worse off bidding 1NT with this particular hand even when partner does not know that we might respond 1NT with this hand. This suggests to me that given the GIB 2/1 system this hand is equally well described by a 1NT response as by a 2♠ response.

 

My sense is that it would be very difficult (impossible?) to really solve this problem by way of simulation.

 

I think that simulation is invaluable in helping to decide decisions of this kind. None of us has the experience of responding to a 1♠ opening with this hand anything like 1000 times. A simulation gives us many examples where we can see the consequences of different actions.

 

Simulations aren't perfect. This sort of simulation is single dummy so does not have the problems associated with double dummy simulations (although I think even double dummy simulations have value). It is limited by the bidding system and judgement (in both bidding and play) of GIB. Nevertheless I think looking at the results of this sort of simulation often will give a better feel for a situation because it is looking at 100s of similar hands than just engaging in a thought experiment.

[Lobowolf]

I'm in with the "clear-cut 2♠" group, and the reasons have been stated, but I think that this thread can be beneficial beyond the given hand, which is why I've chosen to chime in when everything's been said in triplicate.

 

The original post stated:

 

"I choose 1N due to the balanced hand with Queen and 8,9,"

 

In other words, he apparently chose to bid NT in the first place because the hand looked kind of notrumpy.

 

If you look at most of replies, though, you see a recurring theme -- that before making the first bid, the possible continuations and auction as a whole have to be considered, e.g. "If I bid 1NT now, over a 2-level response, I'll have to bid either 3♠, showing a limit raise, or 2♠, showing either a doubleton or a super-minimum (or sub-minimum) response, and neither of those bids is appropriate." Or, I suppose, 2NT, which is a big overbid and continues to hide the fit. To the extent that the responses that show the "thinking ahead in the auction" thought process, I think the discussion can be much more useful to the B/I player reading the thread than the pedestrian "What do you do with a 4333 9-count?" question.

 

Hopefully, this won't be taken to imply that CASCADE'S responses aren't thought out! I really do get the impression from the original post, though, that when the hand came up, the first bid was considered in isolation, whereas the expert responses virtually all indicate the importance of being aware of what the later bids will suggest.

[skjaeran]

I might want to make a 1NT reply to 1♠ on occasion with this hand, playing a NF 1NT (which I do play), but not with a forcing 1NT. But normally I'd raise with support.

 

I'm used to having two raises available, 1M-2M as a CR (good 8 to 11/bad 12) and 2 under as a 2-way bid (week 3-card raise or natural), which is used by many 2/1 players in Norway (some have changed and play 2♦ as the 2-way bid also over 1♠ - I do with one partner)).

[glen]

...some have changed and play 2♦ as the 2-way bid also over 1♠ - I do with one partner)).

I've been tempted to modified it so it is ACBL legal - that is 1M-2♦ is

a.) GF with ♦s

b.) weak raise in M with 3+♦s

[Cascade]

Hopefully, this won't be taken to imply that CASCADE'S responses aren't thought out!

My initial response was that either bid was ok but that I would probably respond 2♠ in the given 5-card major system.

 

However my experience in playing a 4-card major (but nearly 5-card major system) is that we often respond 1NT with this sort of hand - very balanced and honours in all side suits. These seem to work out well or rather the direct raise sometimes (often enough to matter) seems to work out poorly. I thought that in a five-card major context 2♠ may well work out better. I gave the hand as a problem to my bridge partner and she thought even playing a five-card major system she would respond 1NT.

 

In this context I was surprised by the responses and lack of flexibility of some others that the 1NT was 100% wrong. I was further surprised by the response to Roland Wald by the American experts that 2♠ was unanimous. Although I note that some at least suggested some flexibility.

 

This one-sided response of most others in a situation where I thought more flexibility was reasonable prompted me to look at a way of testing these responses.

 

I was mildly surprised by the first 100 hand single dummy simulation that actually came out as a tie 169-169*. After some criticism and having a desire to get a better result I did a larger simulation which came out as a small but statistically insignificant win for a 1NT response.

 

I appreciate that the GIB system may not correspond precisely with the system that real players actually play. However it does play a 2/1 system with a forcing 1NT. My gut feeling from experience with other simulations is that while the simulation results should be treated with some caution they are unlikely to be wildly wrong.

 

Nevertheless I am not convinced that 1NT is better but neither am I convinced that 2♠ is far superior as others seem to be.

[skjaeran]

...some have changed and play 2♦ as the 2-way bid also over 1♠ - I do with one partner)).

I've been tempted to modified it so it is ACBL legal - that is 1M-2♦ is

a.) GF with ♦s

b.) weak raise in M with 3+♦s

I play it as INV+ with ♦ or weak raise of the major.

I've got no idea if that's ACBL legal, but that's no big deal where I play.

[keylime]

For me, regardless of system -> 1NT. This hand is a very slow playing hand.

 

With Larry and I, with our four card major system with canape, caters to all rebids including pass.

 

In standard around here on the club circuit -> caters to either playing 1NT, or hearing an opps' bid and revaluing one's hand according.

 

In 2/1 -> allows pard to find a jump bid. Additionally, it prevents the train wreck of being 5332 opposite 3334 and no values that are working in a game contract (Imagine AJTxx Axx AJx QJx, not playing 1NT as including a five card major, and you hear this auction - or change the hand to add a card to make it 5422 16 count).

[jdonn]

Raising does not preclude a 3NT contract!

 

Oh forget it, I can't take any more of this thread. Please everyone, no more, my poor heart...

[awm]

Several different things going on here.

 

(1-A ) Bidding 1NT might let the opponents get a two-level overcall in, when they would've passed throughout if we had raised to 2♠. Generally this will help opponents decide whether to compete the hand and also to find a better lead if they are defending.

 

(1-B ) Bidding 2♠ might cause the opponents to balance when they wouldn't balance over the slower auction to 2♠.

 

I think Cascade's simulation implies, at least for GIB, that the 1-A effect is more significant than the 1-B effect.

 

(2) Bidding 1NT followed by a 2♠ preference might cause you to miss a game that would be bid after a direct raise.

 

It is not clear whether, on this particular hand, missing these games is a good thing or a bad thing. From Cascade's smaller simulation, it seemed like pretty much a wash.

 

(3) Bidding 1NT vs. 2♠ might cause you to land in a different game.

 

I think for GIB this is a factor, but for a strong pair it really should not be. Most of the time opener with game interest will bid 2NT or 3NT or 3m if fairly flat and responder can offer 3NT and opener accept. I don't think these hands where you play 3NT after a 1NT bid but you play 4♠ after a 2♠ bid are really all that frequent assuming you're not in the habit of blasting 4♠ on any hand where game is remotely feasible after 1♠-2♠. For example, on Keylime's hand for opener of AJTxx Ax AJx QJx (okay I took away a heart so only 13 cards) it seems clear to bid 2NT over a 2♠ raise after which partner will bid 3NT. Moving a diamond to clubs I would still bid 2NT, and even if I bid 3♣ partner would offer 3NT and I could pass.

 

(4) Raising spades might somehow cause opener to lead or defend differently than bidding 1NT.

 

I think for human players this is a very small factor. But it seemed to make a huge difference in Cascade's small simulation, in a way that substantially favored bidding 1NT. I'm not sure how big a factor it was in the bigger simulation. But perhaps the upshot is just "if you open a suit and partner raises, and opponents end up declaring the hand, you should not automatically lead the suit that your side bid and raised."

 

(5) Bidding 1NT might let you play the hand in 1NT.

 

This has been mentioned by a couple of people (including Cascade and Keylime) and it would be a valid point playing a non-forcing 1NT response. But a lot of people don't play a NF 1NT response, and even if they did opener will bid over 1NT more often than not.

[fred]

In this context I was surprised by the responses and lack of flexibility of some others that the 1NT was 100% wrong. I was further surprised by the response to Roland Wald by the American experts that 2♠ was unanimous.

I suspect that if you asked the same group of people this question:

 

Would it surprise you if bidding 1NT instead of 2S worked out about as well in the long run?

 

that many would answer "no".

 

Tactical considerations aside, your decision is not likely to matter that much unless your partner is going to bid over 1S-2S but will Pass over 1S-1NT-2x-2S. That won't happen very often and it is easy to see how either call might work out best when it does. I suspect that most of the experts on Roland's panel who would be open-minded enough to take the above question seriously would realize this (and thus answer "no").

 

But I suspect that none of these people, even if they could be convinced that 1NT will work just as well as 2S, would seriously consider bidding 1NT. That is because, for most USA experts at least (including me), bidding anything other than 2S would amount to "masterminding", "trying too hard to be a genius", "not playing down the middle", "trying to hit a home run", or "putting yourself in an unnecessary top or bottom position". Such actions are frowned upon these days in USA expert circles (rightly so in my opinion).

 

Of course all experts worthy of that ranking are familiar with the concepts of "upgrading" and "downgrading" and it is far from unusual for USA experts to upgrade and/or downgrade in various situations (including how high to raise).

 

But if your range for a single raise is roughly 7-9 HCP, failing to raise right away with this 9 HCP hand would amount to a massive 3 HCP downgrade. That smacks of "masterminding" in my view.

 

For me 2S is such a COMPLETELY normal bid that I would not seriously considering bidding anything else, even if I could be convinced that something else rated to work out approximately as well.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Cascade]

(5) Bidding 1NT might let you play the hand in 1NT.

 

This has been mentioned by a couple of people (including Cascade and Keylime) and it would be a valid point playing a non-forcing 1NT response. But a lot of people don't play a NF 1NT response, and even if they did opener will bid over 1NT more often than not.

As far as I recall I have never said anything like this.

 

I have skimmed through the entire thread looking at my posts and I cannot find what you are referring to.

 

The closest I have come is same that in my normal system I would bid 1NT with this sort of hand. I happen to play a NF 1NT but I don't think I explicitly said that. Nevertheless this far from carries an implication that we might play 1NT after a forcing 1NT in the 2/1 system.

[mikeh]

In this context I was surprised by the responses and lack of flexibility of some others that the 1NT was 100% wrong. I was further surprised by the response to Roland Wald by the American experts that 2♠ was unanimous.

I suspect that if you asked the same group of people this question:

 

Would it surprise you if bidding 1NT instead of 2S worked out about as well in the long run?

 

that many would answer "no".

 

Tactical considerations aside, your decision is not likely to matter that much unless your partner is going to bid over 1S-2S but will Pass over 1S-1NT-2x-2S. That won't happen very often and it is easy to see how either call might work out best when it does. I suspect that most of the experts on Roland's panel who would be open-minded enough to take the above question seriously would realize this (and thus answer "no").

 

But I suspect that none of these people, even if they could be convinced that 1NT will work just as well as 2S, would seriously consider bidding 1NT. That is because, for most USA experts at least (including me), bidding anything other than 2S would amount to "masterminding", "trying too hard to be a genius", "not playing down the middle", "trying to hit a home run", or "putting yourself in an unnecessary top or bottom position". Such actions are frowned upon these days in USA expert circles (rightly so in my opinion).

 

Of course all experts worthy of that ranking are familiar with the concepts of "upgrading" and "downgrading" and it is far from unusual for USA experts to upgrade and/or downgrade in various situations (including how high to raise).

 

But if your range for a single raise is roughly 7-9 HCP, failing to raise right away with this 9 HCP hand would amount to a massive 3 HCP downgrade. That smacks of "masterminding" in my view.

 

For me 2S is such a COMPLETELY normal bid that I would not seriously considering bidding anything else, even if I could be convinced that something else rated to work out approximately as well.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

perfectly said