Supporting responder with tripleton

[1eyedjack]

I operate under a general principle that with a distributional hand and 3 card support for partner's 1-Suit response, raise immediately with a minimum and give delayed support with extras.

 

This is the simplest example:

 

You have 3-1-5-4 shape and open 1D. Partner responds 1S.

With minimum, raise to 2S.

With extras (but not enough to GF) rebid 2C. If partner passes then you are going to be in a reasonable spot. Spades may be at least as good (conceivably superior) but Clubs is tolerable. Possibly bad at Matchpoints. However partner will likely bid (some systems insist on it), and then opener backs in with Spade support to show extras as well as pinpointing the Heart shortage.

 

On, then, to a slightly less comfortable example:

 

You have 3-4-5-1 shape and open 1D. Partner responds 1S.

With minimum, raise to 2S.

With extras, reverse into 2H??? Your next bid in Spades is going to be at the 3 level. Is this forcing? If it is, then you need GF values to reverse into 2H. Some play this but I am not that keen. Play Lebensohl in response to reverse and you are perhaps OK by bidding NF 3S over Lebensohl 2N. But it may be only 4-3 fit. If responder rebids 2S then what do you need to raise to 3S? 2S is a NF bid. To justify NF following a reverse it has to be pretty weak. If it is that weak is there any point raising with a minimum reverse? Who knows whether partner has wasted values opposite the shortage. Probably should raise, but like I say, not that comfortable.

 

Finally, what about this situation:

 

You have 4-3-5-1 shape and open 1D. Partner responds 1H this time.

With extras it is a no-brainer: Rebid 1S and hope to support H next time. Excellent prospects for this happening at the 2 level. But the problem with this hand is what to do with minimum. Do you rebid 1S or follow the above principles of direct raise? I can think of examples for either treatment.

 

Thoughts?

[Free]

First example, I wonder why you rebid 2♣ with extra's. Imo with extra's you should bid 3♣.

 

2nd example could be right, and with extra's we reverse from 15 HCP and higher ;) So we won't get into trouble

 

3rd example I always bid 1♠, don't see why we should try to play in a possible 4-3 ♥ fit while a possible 4-4 fit works as well. You can also show your major suit distribution by supporting partner afterwards. 1♠ has to be forcing ofcourse in that situation...

[1eyedjack]

First example, I wonder why you rebid 2♣ with extra's.  Imo with extra's you should bid 3♣.

It depends how much extras. With GF I agree. With 16 count you just don't have enough. To raise to 2♠ with that shape and a hand with anything from a minimum opener to anything short of GF is a very wide range raise, and you really need a 4th ♠ to make an invitational 3♠ raise. So the solution is to split the 2♠ raise into a delayed raise and a direct raise. It seems to make more sense for the delayed raise to be stronger.

3rd example I always bid 1♠, don't see why we should try to play in a possible 4-3 ♥ fit while a possible 4-4 fit works as well.  You can also show your major suit distribution by supporting partner afterwards.  1♠ has to be forcing ofcourse in that situation...

If you always start with 1♠ then are you showing extras if you remove partner's NF 1N or 2♦ rebid to 2♥? I would not expect responder to rebid a mere 5 card ♥ suit unless under duress. If responder is weak with 4x♠ then 1♠ works best. If responder is weak without 4x♠ then raise to 2♥ works best (if opener is only worth one bid here unless forced). If responder is strong it doesn't matter as long as you agree. The ♠ fit should not be lost as long as both sides of the table are aware that a direct raise can conceal this shape. So far, I am unconvinced.

[hrothgar]

4351

 

Auction starts 1D - 1H - ???

 

I would make a direct raise with minimum

I would not show spades without extra values

[luke warm]

First example, I wonder why you rebid 2♣ with extra's.  Imo with extra's you should bid 3♣.

 

2nd example could be right, and with extra's we reverse from 15 HCP and higher  ;)  So we won't get into trouble

 

3rd example I always bid 1♠, don't see why we should try to play in a possible 4-3 ♥ fit while a possible 4-4 fit works as well.  You can also show your major suit distribution by supporting partner afterwards.  1♠ has to be forcing ofcourse in that situation...

we've had this discussion before, but i don't remember the general consensus... i agree with richard about bidding 2♥ immediately if minimum, however i'm not sure where minimum ends and 'more values' begins, and i'm not sure whether or not partner with a 6 count should be forced to speak again if i have a 14, 15 count

 

3154 1♦ : 1♠

2♣ seems right, what would pard do over 3♣ with a minimum, balanced hand?

 

3451 1♦ : 1♠

to bid 2♥ here as showing 'extras' doesn't mean much to me... what's 'extra'? a reverse is forcing for at least 1 round, so i guess 2♠ on a 4/3 fit won't be too bad

 

4351 1♦ : 1♥

as stated above, i'd be tempted to bid 2♥ (unless 1♠ IS forcing), but i'm not dogmatic about it

[PriorKnowledge]

I think the problem is your "general principle" is flawed. You'll end up in too many 4-3 fits when better alternatives are available.

 

I do not raise with just 3 card support when there is a better alternative.

 

Case 1: 3-1-5-4 after 1D - 1S. Rebid 2C with any non-GF (up to about 17HCP). 3C is a GF.

 

Case 2: 3-4-5-1 after 1D - 1S. Without strength to reverse (less than about 15HCP), rebid 2S. With reverse strength (15+) rebid 2H. Responder will show 5, if responder has it.

 

Case 3: 4-3-5-1 after 1D - 1H, raising hearts on 3 when you have 4s is terrible. If responder is 44 in majors, you will lose the spade suit.

[Fluffy]

I operate under a general principle that with a distributional hand and 3 card support for partner's 1-Suit response, raise immediately with a minimum and give delayed support with extras.

I don´t agree, you aren´t actually raising partner´s suit, you are answering a simple question: do you have 4 cards in the suit I bid?

-Yes: raise at the level you wish or use any convention.

-No: bid something else.

 

You have 3-1-5-4 shape and open 1D.  Partner responds 1S.

Do I have 4 card support? no

Do I have balanced hand? no

So you can bid either 2♣ with 11-17 or 3♣ showing game forcing values.

 

You have 3-4-5-1 shape and open 1D.  Partner responds 1S.

Do I have 4 card support? no

Do I have balanced hand? no

So you can bid either 2♦ with 12-15 or 2♥ showing reverse values

 

You have 4-3-5-1 shape and open 1D.  Partner responds 1H this time.

This is easiest, you can always bid 1♠, or 2♠ with game forcing values if you like, even 2NT may be right sometimes if bare ♣K or ♣A.

 

 

Oh, and if someone didn´t notice, you NEED 4 cards to raise partner´s suit!

[hrothgar]

Oh, and if someone didn´t notice, you NEED 4 cards to raise partner´s suit!

Snort!

 

Bridge is a simple game. Give partner the information that he needs.

If you have support, show support. The significant exception is if you are

sufficently strong that you can afford to show support later in the auction.

 

There are certainly bidding styles that suggest otherwise...

Most notably, the Poles seem wedded to the idea that a raise promises four trump.

However, this is ne of those cases where I think that Poles have it wrong.

 

I will frequently raise on three card trump support if I can't find another bid.

I'm happy to miss the occassional 4-4 spade fit to maximize pressure on the opponents.

[luke warm]

to never raise with 3 card support goes pretty much against everything i've read by the various 'theorists'... and rebidding a minor usually shows a 6 card suit (or so i've been taught)

 

the question on the 4351 hand, bidding 1♦ : 1♥, centered around whether or not 1♠ is forcing... free says yes, i'm not sure it is... IF it is, it only is over a 1♥ response

 

on the 3451 hand, 1♦ : 1♠ bidding, it seems fairly obvious to me to bid 2♠ unless i'm strong enough to reverse into hearts.. 2♦, as i said above, shows 6 (again, the way i was taught)

[Free]

I don't like missing 4-4 fits, since they are the best in most situations! If I have no real rebid I'll support p on some occasions on a 3 card, but usually I try to avoid it.

[1eyedjack]

I think the problem is your "general principle" is flawed. You'll end up in too many 4-3 fits when better alternatives are available.

I am unconvinced by this. If responder has a full-blooded game try or better (ie committed to a game try opposite a "minimum" rebid by opener) then there is no problem whichever method you play, as long as you and partner are in agreement. The problems therefore arise when responder is weaker.

 

One of the calculations that you need to evaluate is: if you decide to conceal your 3 card support, how likely is it that your best fit will be in that suit and will be missed?

 

You paint a bleak picture that you end up in a 4-3 fit when there is a better spot. I think that this is protected by the Law of Total Tricks. If we have an 8 card fit and a 7 card fit, then the opponents must also have (at least) an 8 card fit. If I am allowed to play in my 7 card fit at the 2 level I am happy enough in this situation.

 

The flip side is that you could have an 8 card fit in responder's suit and you end up not playing in it if you conceal the 3 card support. I would be interested in a statistical view of the following question: Given that responder must have at least 4 in his first bid suit and you have precisely 3 support, what is the likelihood of his having a 5th card in the suit? Instinct tells me that this is quite high.

 

If he has precisely 5 in the suit he will not rebid it unless under duress. With a 6 card suit he may well rebid it, and in that event he will want you to pass with a singleton. If he also does it with a 5 card suit he will want you to pull with a singleton. On balance I would rather be able to pass with a singleton confident that we are in a playable misfit.

 

Responder can even have a 6 card suit and not rebid it: what if he has a weak hand with 6 Hearts and 3 Diamonds after 1D-1H-1S (the 1S rebid confirms an unbalanced 2/3-suiter). I would be tempted to give preference to 2D in the sure knowledge of a D fit (at least 7 cards but highly probably 8 cards). In that event a 9 card (6-3) Heart fit may be missed

 

I do not raise with just 3 card support when there is a better alternative.

I agree with this. So the question then arises, when is there a better altenative. Simply having an alternative does not make it better. Personally I will rebid 1NT with a balanced hand and tripleton support, even with a side suit doubleton. Even that can be wrong. I will also rebid a 6 card suit or bid a new suit when 5-5. Again, I recognise that either of these may miss a 5-3 fit in responder's suit. But with 3 card support and a side suit singleton I will stretch to give immediate support if I reckon that this may be my last chance to do so.

 

Case 3: 4-3-5-1 after 1D - 1H, raising hearts on 3 when you have 4s is terrible. If responder is 44 in majors, you will lose the spade suit.

I will repeat just one more time, as this has been mentioned in my other posts: you will lose a 4-4 Spade fit if and only if responder lacks the values to make another move over 2H. As against that, bidding 1S risks losing the Heart fit when responder does NOT have 4 Spades with you, UNLESS you (opener) are committed to showing your secondary Heart support next time. If you are committed to "patterning out" with a Heart bid later, regardless of the strength of your opener, then I think that you are creating problems with the wide range of your subsequent 2H bid that would have been alleviated by using an immediate 2H raise on a minimum. If you have precisely 4 Spades and 3 Hearts, and your partner has at least 4 Hearts and an unknown number of Spades (not longer than Hearts and generally only of equal length if 4-4), then which is the greater likelihood: that responder has 4 card Spade support with you or that responder has a 5th Heart? I am not a statistician but I vote for the latter.

 

Case 3 is without doubt the most controversial of the 3 illustrated situations, and the principal reason for my original post. I think that a direct raise would not be contemplated by a large number of players, but I also think that it may well be right.

[mikestar]

I raise responder's major freely on three if I have a singleton or a void, or even a doubleton if my hand is particularly good for suit play or particularly bad for NT.

 

I make an exception in the case of raising 1H with four spades--I like 4-3 major fits at the two level but not at the risk of missing a 4-4 major fit. Note that the converse case has no such risk--if responder has 4 hearts having responded 1S, he also has 5 spades. While 4-4 tends to be superior to 5-3, the superiority is nowhere near as great as it is vs. 4-3.

[the hog]

Raising on 3 is automatic with a weaker hand. A sequence like

1C 1H

1S 1N

2H

 

Shows better values. This is just Bridge. A typical hand for the immediate raise would be:

Axxx

Kxx

x

KQxxx

 

Bidding 1S on this is to play "the 2 handed game", forgetting that you have opponents at the table- something US players seem to have a great propensity for doing . Richard's "snort" has hit the nail on the head, (to mix my metaphors.)

[dogsbreath]

Hi ..

..doesnt the same apply when rebidding on 4-4-3-2 hands also?

 

eg: (strong NT) you open 1C on S:xxxx H: AQx D: Ax C: Qxxx

 

..arent you going to rebid 2H over a 1H response or is this a partnership agreement

thing?

 

Rgds Dog ;)

 

 

furnulum pani nolo

[Free]

Never say "never", never say "always" as well ;)

[luke warm]

Hi ..

..doesnt the same apply when rebidding on 4-4-3-2 hands also?

 

eg: (strong NT) you open 1C on S:xxxx H: AQx D: Ax C: Qxxx

 

..arent you going to rebid 2H over a 1H response or is this a partnership agreement

thing?

 

Rgds Dog ;)

 

 

furnulum pani nolo

for what it's worth, i'd bid 2♥ and feel fine about it

[1eyedjack]

Hi ..

..doesnt the same apply when rebidding on 4-4-3-2 hands also?

 

eg: (strong NT)  you open 1C on   S:xxxx H: AQx D: Ax C: Qxxx

 

..arent you going to rebid 2H over a 1H response or is this a partnership agreement

thing?

 

Rgds Dog   ;)

 

 

furnulum pani nolo

When playing strong 1N opener I would raise 1H response to 2H on this hand. But I would hate doing so. My earlier comment (preference for 1N rebid) was in context of playing weak 1N opener (OK, I didn't say so, but am now).

 

Slight thread drift, but swap the red suits in your example (so raise of H is not an option). One of the things I don't like about strong 1N is that neither 1S nor 1N rebids is particularly attractive. There is a much higher risk of missing a 4-4 S fit if you rebid 1N (than if the 1N rebid shows 15-17), and yet if you rebid 1S you are not promising a 2-suited hand.

 

With the stated 4=3=2=4 shape and playing weak 1N opener (so now you have 15+ to open 1C), I prefer 1N rebid over either 2H or 1S (after 1H response). The main reason for this policy (and I know it is not a very good reason) is that while we may be in the wrong spot if it gets passed, my methods of continuation if it does NOT get passed are rather stronger and better defined than my methods after the other rebids. Part of the reason for that COULD Be that the 1N rebid intrinsically lends itself to stronger continuation methods (being narrowly limited by shape and strength) and to that extent the reason is sound. But I have to accept that also my continuations after new suit rebid are probably not yet optimised, which is just down to laziness.

[Dwayne]

Fluffy wrote:

I don´t agree, you aren´t actually raising partner´s suit, you are answering a simple question: do you have 4 cards in the suit I bid?

-Yes: raise at the level you wish or use any convention.

-No: bid something else.

 

I think it's a poor bidding philosophy to assume partner is asking "do you have 4 cards in the suit I bid" when they respond to your opening bid. On the contrary, they are making a statement "I have at least 4-cards in the suit I have just bid".

 

The question the response should pose is "Now that you know a bit about my hand, what do you think?".

 

Dwanyo-mite.

[kgr]

Ex.1:

4=3=5=1

1D-1H

 

Ex.2:

3=4=1=5

1C-1S

 

In example 2 probability that partner bids on 5card is much higher then in example 1. In the first example I would bid 1S. In the second example I will bid 2S (support partner with 3 card).

Reasons I support with 3 card in second example and not in first:

1. No other good bid in second example. (Maybe I bid 1NT anyway, but sure 2S if H and D are reversed).

2. Probability that partner has a 5 card is higher in second example. (certainly in SAYC, less true in 2/1 where partner can still have a 4/5 D)

3. Good probability that partner has 4 card S or 3 card D in first example.

 

 

Suppose partner has following patern:

xx-xxxx-xxx-xxxx

with a limit hand (around 11/12 HCP), but upgraded to GF with H-fit.

After 1D-1H-2H he will bid 3NT or 4H and you will be too high.

 

Somebody mentioned that you are protected by LOTT to bid 2H in the first example:

With a mimimum hand and 5 card H:

If the Opps balance with 3 Club then your p will suppose that we have 9 card H and he will compete with 3H.

I would even avoid asap that the Opps compete. With 6HCP, 5 card H and short S after 1D-1H-2H; I will preempt 3H to avoid that opps find their S fit.

[nikos59]

Well, where I play (France) it is considered almost an

aberration to raise with three cards only. Very seldom

I have done it myself.

 

What I find really weird is the suggestion to raise pard to

2H with a tripleton (after 1C-1H) even when holding four spades.

You risk missing a 4-4 in spades this way, which in my

opinion is unacceptable even if the odds are not so high.

 

n.

[Free]

Suppose partner has following patern:

xx-xxxx-xxx-xxxx

with a limit hand (around 11/12 HCP), but upgraded to GF with H-fit.

After 1D-1H-2H he will bid 3NT or 4H and you will be too high.

I think you're wrong here. If you make frequent support on 3-card, partner won't upgrade his hand until he's sure he has a 4-4 fit. And he can examine that by bidding 2NT, invitational with exactly 4 ♥s. Opener will pass or bid 3NT with 3 card support, bid 3♥ or 4♥ with 4 card support.

[kgr]

Suppose partner has following patern:

xx-xxxx-xxx-xxxx

with a limit hand (around 11/12 HCP), but upgraded to GF with H-fit.

After 1D-1H-2H he will bid 3NT or 4H and you will be too high.

I think you're wrong here. If you make frequent support on 3-card, partner won't upgrade his hand until he's sure he has a 4-4 fit. And he can examine that by bidding 2NT, invitational with exactly 4 ♥s. Opener will pass or bid 3NT with 3 card support, bid 3♥ or 4♥ with 4 card support.

 

Suppose you agreed with your partner that you can sometimes (even regurarly) support with a 3 card.

Can you imagine that after bidding 1D-1H-2H your parnter has only a 3 card?

Why didn't he bid 1S, 2C, 2D, 1NT?

I think after 1D-1H-2H you should be sure that he has a 4 card.

Otherwise that will give you too much bidding problems:

Axxx-Kxxx-QJxx-x

a) after 1D-1H-2H: you want to bid 4H, 3NT is not a good alternative

B) after 1D-1H-1S: no problem, 4S

 

<void>-AJxxx-xxx-Jxxxx

a) after 1D-1H-2H: according to LOTT you want to preempt with 3H to avoid that opps find their S fit

B) after 1D-1H-1S: you bid 2C

 

Jxx-Axxx-xx-Jxxx:

a) after 1D-1H-2H: pass

B) after 1D-1H-1S: pass (still 4/3 fit, but played by strong hand).

 

With 10+points and 5 card H responder will be able to ask for 3 card H support on the next round.

 

...I don't like to support with 3 card, certainly not after:

1C-1D

1D-1H

1H-1S

..sometimes after 1C-1S or 1D-1S.

[hrothgar]

...I don't like to support with 3 card, certainly not after:

1C-1D

1D-1H

1H-1S

..sometimes after 1C-1S or 1D-1S.

There are advantages and disadvantages to raising parter with 3 card support. However, there are advantages and disavantages to any method. The important question is whether the relative gains outweight the losses.

 

The most important gain for making an aggressive raise style based on 3 card support is related to the same LTT that you are trying to use to bolster your own arguments. It is vital to realize that the opponents are every bit as capable of counting trump as we are. If your raise promises that you are playing in an eight card suit at the two, the opponents have all the information that they need to scramble. Its FAR more useful to have the direct raise leave some degree of ambiguity regarding the trump fit.

 

As Free has pointed out, there are any number of good checkback schemes available after 1m - 1M - 2M that allow pairs to investigate strain and level.

[luke warm]

usually, after 1m : 1M : 2M responder passes with an average hand and only bids on with invitational+, so i'd expect a 2NT bid with a balanced hand holding four cards in his M, else 3m/M..

[PriorKnowledge]

Instead of writing flowing prose with ideas on general principles and philosophy, how about listing hands and bidding and see what happens? Philosophy is fine for some things, but bidding is more science and mathematical than art.

 

First: Give responder 8 possible hands:

4s - weak

4s - inv

4s - GF

5s - weak

5s - inv

5s - GF

4s - slam possibility (will we find best fit for slam in major or minor?)

5s - slam possibility

 

(I can say one thing, immediately, for the last two hand types: If we show 5-4, then raise responder for our 3rd bid, we will show our 5-4-3-1 perfectly and have the best chance for slam. If we don't do that in our first 2 bids, we can never show it.)

 

Second: our strength - give us 3 possible hands: min (13hcp), intermediate (16hcp), and strong (18 HCP)

 

Can we find the right game, chance for slam, or reasonable partial in the majority of cases?

 

Repeating my recommendations:

 

Case 1: 3-1-5-4 after 1D - 1S. Rebid 2C with any non-GF (up to about 17HCP). 3C is a GF.

 

Case 2: 3-4-5-1 after 1D - 1S. Without strength to reverse (less than about 15HCP), rebid 2S. With reverse strength (15+) rebid 2H. Responder will show 5, if responder has it.

 

Case 3: 4-3-5-1 after 1D - 1H, raising hearts on 3 when you have 4s is terrible. If responder is 44 in majors, you will lose the spade suit.

 

Sorry... too involved, have to go back to work now... I'll have to work out the details later. If someone else wants to try, go ahead.

 

I think you'll find that the methodology I recommend (which is used by most experts) will get you to the best contract most often.