Supporting responder with tripleton

[1eyedjack]

I may come back to PriorKnowledge's latest post in more detail later ... certainly I applaud his methodology, if you have the time, although it is quite complicated to be thorough, because (a) you must not treat each possible hand as of equal value, since (i) the likely swing at stake will not be equal and (ii) their frequencies are not equal, and (b) you have to take into account the possibility (and consequences) of a contested auction. This is probably why we try to distil theoretical principles, in addition to number crunching.

 

In this post I will simply point out one logical consequence that PK probably did not intend from his post, as it points to a contrary conclusion:

 

Specifically, compare the following comment:

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.)

with the subsequent comment in the same post:

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.

The suggested treatment in Case 3 is to raise Hearts directly with a weak hand and to give delayed support (via 1S) with extra values. Now I ask you: on which of these two hand types (if either) are you going to be making slam? That is a rhetorical question, by the way. Anyway, under the suggested method your slam bidding will be more accurate because not only will you have shown accurate shape on the slam hands but you will also have more narrowly defined your values - the latter factor absent if you routinely rebid 1S.

 

Indeed, as a general principle (sorry) we can disregard most hands in which responder has at least a game try. There is plenty of room to clarify whether opener has 4 card support or 4 cards in an unbid major, and either method is playable. This is one of the advantages of talking philosophy before you waste a lot of time number-crunching irrelevant hand types.

[1eyedjack]

I think that we need to be wary of too much reliance on LOTT as a justification for any action here.

 

The best time for "mixing" it based on LOTT theory is when one of your side (partner "A") has shown precise length and the other (partner "B") has undisclosed support. Provided that "A" leaves competive decisions up to "B" you have the edge. "B" knows precisely the level of the fit, and opponents have no clue. So you might raise on 7, 8, or 9 card fit to any level an leave the opponents guessing. If they act then you know whether to leave them in it or continue.

 

But it is rather different if both partners on your side have variable suit length. Then each partner (and the opponents) will assume that the other partner has the most likely length for the bidding to date. So, how does this apply to case 3?

 

If you agree to raise with tripleton on certain hands the fact remains that you are odds on favourite to have 4 card support. Responder will therefore assume 4 card support in any subsequent defensive action (NB no such assumption necessary if making or accepting a game try - room to enquire). Opponents will also assume that opener has 4 card support for responder.

 

So, opponents balance. Who is the winner?

 

If you only had a 4-3 fit then you win the exchange. The opponents have balanced at an inappropriate time. Responder, expecting an 8 card fit, will not generally take the push to the 3 level. He will expect a par result by defending, and below par by bidding. You (opener) will expect a better than par result by defending. You will therefore end up defending and responder will be pleasantly surprised with the result.

 

If however you had a 5-3 fit then you lose the exchange. The opponents accurately assess the size of the fit (although they may expect it to be 4-4 rather than 5-3). Responder however will assume (as is most likely) that you (opener) have 4 card support and he will accept the push to the 3 level, which in the long term will be a losing action (kgr mentioned this).

 

If you have a 6-3 fit then the position is probably fairly neutral, although I have not really thought that one through.

 

So, the question remains, if it goes 1D-1H-2H (uncontested) where you conventionally raise on a 3 card suit in the situations under discussion, which is more likely (and by how much), between a 4-3 fit and a 5-3 fit? I have repeatedly asked this question in this thread in a roundabout fashion but so far no takers.

[hrothgar]

Hi All

 

I wrote a quick and dirty dealer script to model the following:

 

North has a 1D opening and

South has a 1H response and

North has a hand where I would raise to 2H

 

(North has 3 card heart support and

North does not have 4333 shape)

 

Under these circumstances, we will miss a 4-4 spade fit ~ 1.8% of the time.

Low enough percentage that I really am not going to get worked up about it.

 

The 2H raise will place us in a 7 card fit ~ 55.7% of the time (4-3 fit)

The 2H raise will place us in an 8+ card fit ~ 44.3% of the time (5+ - 3 fit)

 

If I relax the conditions and cosnider cases where North is rasing on 3+ Hearts

 

The 2H raise will place us in a 7 card fit ~ 42.7% of the time

The 2H will place us in an 8+ card fit ~ 57.3% of the time

 

I'm attaching the script in case anyone cares

 

__________________________

no_trump =

 

hcp(north) >= 15 and

hcp(north) <= 17 and

shape(north, any 4432, any 5332, any 4333 - 5xxx - x5xx)

 

diamond_opening =

 

hcp(north) >= 11 and

not no_trump and

 

(

 

(

diamonds(north) >= clubs(north) and

diamonds(north) > hearts(north) and

diamonds(north) > spades(north) and

diamonds(north) > 3

)

 

or

 

(

shape(north, any 4432 - any xx2x)

)

 

)

 

one_heart =

 

hcp(south) >= 6

 

and

 

(

 

(

hearts(south) >= 4 and

hearts(south) > spades(south)

)

 

or

 

(

hearts(south) == 4 and

spades(south) == 4

)

 

)

 

two_hearts =

 

hearts(north) == 3 and

not shape(north, any 4333) and

hcp(north) <= 14 and

hcp(south) <= 10

 

trouble = spades(north) == 4 and spades(south) == 4

 

condition

 

diamond_opening and

one_heart and

two_hearts

 

action

 

average trouble

[mikestar]

I wrote a quick and dirty dealer script to model the following:

 

North has a 1D opening and

South has a 1H response and

North has a hand where I would raise to 2H

 

(North has 3 card heart support and

North does not have 4333 shape)

 

Under these circumstances, we will mis a 4-4 spade fit ~ 1.8% of the time.

 

The 2H raise will place us in a 7 card fit ~ 55.7% of the time (4-3 fit)

The 2H raise will place us in an 8+ card fit ~ 44.3% of the time (5+ - 3 fit)

 

...

This convinces me. The chance of missing 4-4 spades is too low to worry about vs. the chance of getting to the 5-3 heart fit we might well miss if I don't raise. Even if we'd only miss one 5-3 fit in ten (and I'm sure we'd miss more) this is a substantially greater risk than missing the spade fit.

 

As for LOTT decisions, responder assumes 3 1/2 card support--that is he assumes three if there are negative factors (minor honors in enemy suit, flat hand, being vulnerable) and assumoing four if there are positive factors (minor honors in our suits, good shape, being NV).

 

See Larry Cohen's LOTT books for more detail about the 1/2 trump concept.

[luke warm]

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.

 

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.

case 1, opener 3154:

1D : 1S - my point here is, either responder has a hand with which he'll bid again or he doesn't... if i bid 2S, most good players will find another bid with invitational+ hands and 4 spades, such as 2NT... he'll know i *might* not have 4 card support and will find out shortly.. so with less than 15, 16 points i'm raising his spades with 3... i honestly don't think we're missing anything, and richard's script seems to bear this out... with a stronger hand i'd bid my clubs

 

case 2, opener 3451:

1D : 1S - agreed

 

case 3, opener 4351:

1D : 1H - i can't bring myself to agree with you, even if free is correct that 1S is forcing (and i'm not sure it is, or that it should be)... the same reasoning as in case 1 applies, responder either does or does not have a hand with which to continue bidding... again, richard's script seems to back this up... *any* bid by responder shows at least invitational strength...

 

as for your last statement, there are quite a few experts who read and post in this forum... some even read this forum who have written books on this and other subjects... in the books i've read, i've never seen that raising with 3 card support, even with 4 spades, is wrong.. it depends on the hand, and the partnership

[Free]

~snip~

case 3, opener 4351:

1D : 1H - i can't bring myself to agree with you, even if free is correct that 1S is forcing (and i'm not sure it is, or that it should be)... the same reasoning as in case 1 applies, responder either does or does not have a hand with which to continue bidding... again, richard's script seems to back this up... *any* bid by responder shows at least invitational strength...

~snip~

I never said 1♠ is forcing, but if you always bid 1♠ with that, it should be forcing. We had already another thread about 1♠ being forcing or not, and it's also a matter of preference B)

[luke warm]

oops, sorry.. yeah i remember the other thread... seems like the opinions were divided on it

[PriorKnowledge]

good.... just the 1D 1H when opener has 4351

How easily you deceive your partner about your distribution and miss (the 1.8%) chance for a 44 spade fit. For what?

 

1D 1H 1S

If responder is weak with 5+ hearts, will bid 2H, or 2D or 1N. no game, no bid deal

If responder is weak with 4h and club stopper will bid 2D, 1N, or even pass (playing 2H on a weak 43 fit sucks, esp when staring at the missed 44 spade fit)

If responder is inv with 5+h can bid 2N, 3D, 3H. If we are max, we can make a delayed raise of 3H.

If responder is inv with 4h can bid 2N, 3D.

If responder is game forcing will bid 2C, 4SF, and our delayed raise of 2H shows our distribution and gives us best chance to find right game or slam. (Initial 2H distorts our hand and prevents us ever finding the correct contract. Plus we will miss our 1.8% chance of 44 spade fit)

 

Your misguided "rule" distorts your hand.

 

My last post on this subject.

[mikestar]

1D 1H 1S

If responder is weak with 5+ hearts, will bid 2H, or 2D or 1N. no game, no bid deal

If responder is weak with 4h and club stopper will bid 2D, 1N, or even pass (playing 2H on a weak 43 fit sucks, esp when staring at the missed 44 spade fit)

 

Admittedly 4-3 fits can suck. 5-1 fits suck worse and 5-0 fits suck worse yet. All leading authourities avoid rebidding five card suits like the plague in sequences where a pass is at all likely. Alan Truscott goes as far as calling it the Golden Rule of Bidding.

[1eyedjack]

good.... just the 1D 1H when opener has 4351

How easily you deceive your partner about your distribution and miss (the 1.8%) chance for a 44 spade fit. For what?

 

1D 1H 1S

If responder is weak with 5+ hearts, will bid 2H, or 2D or 1N. no game, no bid deal

If responder is weak with 4h and club stopper will bid 2D, 1N, or even pass (playing 2H on a weak 43 fit sucks, esp when staring at the missed 44 spade fit)

If responder is inv with 5+h can bid 2N, 3D, 3H. If we are max, we can make a delayed raise of 3H.

If responder is inv with 4h can bid 2N, 3D.

If responder is game forcing will bid 2C, 4SF, and our delayed raise of 2H shows our distribution and gives us best chance to find right game or slam. (Initial 2H distorts our hand and prevents us ever finding the correct contract. Plus we will miss our 1.8% chance of 44 spade fit)

 

Your misguided "rule" distorts your hand.

 

My last post on this subject.

This adds nothing but repetition. Unfortunately this response in the main does likewise. All - ignore this:

 

"good.... just the 1D 1H when opener has 4351

How easily you deceive your partner about your distribution"

 

No deception. You and your partner are expected to be playing the same system.

 

"and miss (the 1.8%) chance for a 44 spade fit."

 

Only if responder is too weak to bid again.

 

"For what?"

 

I thought this was clear ... in order to secure playing in Hearts on the rather higher frequency when this would otherwise be missed.

 

"1D 1H 1S

If responder is weak with 5+ hearts, will bid 2H, "

 

Make that 6+ Hearts. With 5 I regret that you miss the Heart contract, unless you bid them yourself later on weak and strong openers alike. You have repeatedly ignored the problems that this in turn can create, perhaps because they cannot be refuted.

 

Remainder of quoted post deals with invitational or stronger responders, wherein there is no problem whichever method you play.

 

I should point out that I think it is a fairly finely balanced problem, just based on experience, despite the rather compelling stats posted by Hrothgar. My posts have been heavily supportive of the direct raise mainly because I find the counter arguments posted so far less convincing, and I am only responding to those.

 

One aspect that others have not really addressed is the MP v IMP issue. At MP I think bidding 1S makes a lot more sense in case 3. At IMP, if I am allowed to play in 2H opposite a weak responder in a 4-3 fit having missed a 4-4 S fit (and opps having missed a 4-4 minor fit) then I am content in the long term. Not so content at MP.

[1eyedjack]

As for LOTT decisions, responder assumes 3 1/2 card support--that is he assumes three if there are negative factors (minor honors in enemy suit, flat hand, being vulnerable) and assumoing four if there are positive factors  (minor honors in our suits, good shape, being NV).

 

See Larry Cohen's LOTT books for more detail about the 1/2 trump concept.

 

If you were habitually to raise on all hands with 3+ card support then I would go along with that. As it is, partner would be wrong to assume 3.5 card support. If he is going to attribute you with fractions of a trump card then the fraction should reflect the frequency. In fact you would quite rarely raise on tripleton, even if you are in the "raising" camp, so he should assume more likely 3.9 card support (rough guess). Or 4, to all intents and purposes.

 

Additional points (unrelated to above quote):

 

It is not inconceivable that opps will balance into 2S if you raise H immediately. In the long term I welcome that action by the opps. But they would be rather less likely to take that action if I start by rebidding 1S.

 

I confess to considerable surprise at the 1.8% frequency. I am not a statistician but instinct based on experience tells me it should be higher. I wonder whether opponents' failure to bid Spades to date might be a reason.

[nikos59]

IMHO the 1,8% figure is totally misleading.

 

What I want to know is:

after 1D - 1H

if I hold four spades and three hearts and raise partner at 2H,

what chances do I have to miss a 4-4 spade fit?

Or, to put it plainly, what are the chances for pard to have

four spades?

The answer to this, unless I misread the script,

is *not* 1.8%

 

If I read well the dealer script, 1,8% is the percentage of the

"trouble with 4-4 spades" hands averaged on ALL North hands that open 1D,

but this is irrelevant because it includes all the North hands that

open 1D and raise to 2H but do not have four spades.

 

Or am I wrong?

 

n.

[hrothgar]

IMHO the 1,8% figure is totally misleading.

 

What I want to know is:

after 1D - 1H

if I hold four spades and three hearts and raise partner at 2H,

what chances do I have to miss a 4-4 spade fit?

Or, to put it plainly, what are the chances for pard to have

four spades?

The answer to this, unless I misread the script,

is *not* 1.8%

 

If I read well the dealer script, 1,8% is the percentage of the

"trouble with 4-4 spades" hands averaged on ALL North hands that open 1D,

but this is irrelevant because it includes all the North hands that

open 1D and raise to 2H but do not have four spades.

 

Or am I wrong?

 

n.

Nikos raises an important point that I should have made more explict.

 

As Nikos notes: The 1.8% figure assumes the following

 

(1) A 1D opening

(2) A 1H response

(3) A 2H raise on 3 cards by opener

(4) A pass by opener

 

If we are doig a 1:1 comparison, its probably best to also include the assumption that opener holds 4 Spades as well. This increase the percentage chance that we hold a "trouble" type by roughly an order of magnitude.

 

The percentage chance that we hold a 4-4 Spade fit is now ~17.4%

About 67% of of the time, we're in a state that I call "real trouble" in which

we are playing in a 4-3 heart fit rather than a 4-4 Spade fit.

 

17.4% still isn't enough for me to worry about.

IMHO, the gains from

 

(a) Immediately limiting my strength outweight the losses

(b) Promising greater strength with a delayed Heart raise

© Forcing the bidding to an acceptable contract ASAP

 

Outweigh occasionally missing a better contract.

[hrothgar]

good.... just the 1D 1H when opener has 4351

How easily you deceive your partner about your distribution and miss (the 1.8%) chance for a 44 spade fit. For what?

1. The direct raise to 2H immediately limits the strength of my hand.

Partner will be well positioned to determine whether to bid game, invite game,

or pass. In contrast, the style that you advocate in which responder

initially shows Spades and then shows Heart tolerance is necesarily much

more ambiguous with respect to strength.

 

2. The style that I advocate also has significant advantages if the auction starts

with a delayed heart raise. Here once again, accurately conveying range

information can be critical.

 

3. As The_Hog noted, bridge is a 4 hand game. Maximizing pressure on the

opponents often needs to take priority over perfecting constructive bidding.

From my perspective, expert bidding is moving to a style in which pairs

"blast" to acceptable contracts as quickly as possible, even at the expense of

occasionally missing an "optimal" contract.

[Free]

I'm used to play 1m-1♥-1NT with possible 4 card ♠, since the chance is indeed not thàt big to miss a ♠ fit, and NT range is more important to us! This also means 1m-1♥-1♠ is unbalanced! This way I can show my hand just perfect: when p rebids 1NT or so, I support his ♥s and it should be clear I have 5+m, 3♥s and 4♠s. Isn't that nice? Showed my hand at 2♥! If p bids 4th suit, I can also support his ♥ and my hand is again shown. And we use 1♠ as forcing, which balances the system.

 

Never gave me problems, we still play in ♥s when there's no ♠ fit, and we have time so why waste it?

[hrothgar]

I'm used to play 1m-1♥-1NT with possible 4 card ♠, since the chance is indeed not thàt big to miss a ♠ fit, and NT range is more important to us! This also means 1m-1♥-1♠ is unbalanced!

I was deliberately refraining from introducing the 1♦ - 1♥ - 1NT case.

it probably comes as now surprise that I agree with Free that opener should bypass Spades with a balanced hand.

[luke warm]

i bypass spades if balanced when i open 1C, and i used to do so when i opened 1D.. someone convinced me not to though, don't remember who and don't remember the reasons..

 

priorknowledge ignores the posts that show his partner bidding again with hands *worth* another bid.. if pard passes 2H, i doubt in the long run much is missed... and i think this is true at MPs or IMPs

 

if i understand the purpose of richard's script, the 17.4% shows how often responder has 4 spades AND 4 hearts at the same time opener holds the exact distribution catered to.. so, for example, responder hand shapes 4441, 4450, 4414, 4405, 4522, etc will occur 17.4% of the time opener is 4342 or 4351

 

to me the 17.4% seems high :blink:

[mikestar]

i bypass spades if balanced when i open 1C, and i used to do so when i opened 1D.. someone convinced me not to though, don't remember who and don't remember the reasons..

 

priorknowledge ignores the posts that show his partner bidding again with hands *worth* another bid.. if pard passes 2H, i doubt in the long run much is missed... and i think this is true at MPs or IMPs

 

if i understand the purpose of richard's script, the 17.4% shows how often responder has 4 spades AND 4 hearts at the same time opener holds the exact distribution catered to.. so, for example, responder hand shapes 4441, 4450, 4414, 4405, 4522, etc will occur 17.4% of the time opener is 4342 or 4351

 

to me the 17.4% seems high :blink:

About 2/3 of the 17.4% there will be a 4-4 spade fit and a 4-3 heat fit--the other 1/3 of the 17.4% there will be a 4-4-spade fit and a 5-3 heart fit, hwich may be inferior but the difference is slight.

[Free]

to me the 17.4% seems high :blink:

Perhaps, but from the moment my partner is invitational or better we WILL find our ♠ fit, so a new question here raises: "How many hands will opener have 4m-4♠ and minimum, while responder has less than invitational and 4♥-4♠?"...

 

I think that percentage will lay a lot lower (perhaps around 8-9%). And that's quite acceptable. Don't forget these days opps intervene a lot, so if they bid 1♥, p has a simple negative Dbl, and again our ♠ fit has been discovered. I actually can't remember when we played 1NT with a 4-4 ♠ fit...

[Fluffy]

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.

Hi mate, we spaniards have adopted most of your bidding theories, , and let me say I am quite happy with it.

[Fluffy]

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.

Think what you wish, the reason why responder only 'asks' and opener 'shows' is because you want the responder to make decisions when possible, Do you often see a 1NT opener to reopen after 1NT-2♦-2♥-4♥ (not playing texas)?, of course not, because NT opener has given exact info about his hand, the same philisophy is applied when opener opens anything else.

 

A quick example:

 

1♣-p-1♥-p

2♥*-X-p-3♦

 

2♥*= often 3 cards.

 

Now tell me who is to decide if pass/double or bid 3♥:

-opener bids 3♥ because he has 4th 'unbid' ♥, resulting on a poor level 3 contract with 8 trumps.

-responder bids 3♥ because he has 5th, again resulting on a poor level 3 contract with 8 trumps.

-responder bids 3♥ because he has 4♥+5♣ resulting on a stupid level 3 contract with 7 trumps.

[inquiry]

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 principle espoused by Robson/Segal in their outstanding book, partnership bidding. They give a general rule in the section on "uncontested auctions" that states:

 

"when you have a minimum unbalanced hand with three-card support for partner’s 1 ♥ or 1 ♠ response, show your support immediately"

 

This is a rule I live by -- especially at imps, since you will occassionally play in a 4-3 fit with a better 5-3 or 5-4 fit in the minor you opened (thus, the direct raise on those hands could lead to a bad matchpoint score on a partscore hand). On the ohter hand, in game and slam hands, the direct raise (which also limits your values and makes your partner the captain), can certainly simplify the auction. Misho and I play this, and after 1m-1M-2M. we use a raise of the minor by responder now as non-forcing, and 2NT as a forcing bid to find out the quality (legnth) of the support.

 

A second key here is if you fail to support your partners major, you will lack three card support and a minimum. This means, if you show support later, you have more than a minimum.

 

If you haven't read Robson/Segal's book, you owe it to yourself to read it now. If for no other reason than the discussion of the very issue oneeye raises here. You can find it free in PDF format on Dan Neill's webpage. Type Robson/Segal and notes into google and have a look.

 

Ben

[hrothgar]

Misho and I play this, and after 1m-1M-2M. we use a raise of the minor by responder now as non-forcing, and 2NT as a forcing bid to find out the quality (legnth) of the support.

Couple comments:

 

In the sequence

 

1m - 1H - 2H, you might want to use 2S rather than 2NT as your forcing inquiry.

 

Not sure whether I like playing

 

1m - 1M

2m - 3m

 

Is natural, non-forcing. Moysians at the 2 level often play quite well.

I prefer a style in which responder will pass with a 4 card suit and less than game interest. I'd like the 3m rebid to promise a 5+ card major and a secondary fit for partner.

[inquiry]

Couple comments:

 

In the sequence

 

1m - 1H - 2H, you might want to use 2S rather than 2NT as your forcing inquiry.

 

This 2♠ as forcing inquiry is exactly what is recommended by Robson/Segal. I too play this as forcing, seeking additional information. It is three of the minor that is not forcing.

 

Not sure whether I like playing

 

1m - 1M

2m - 3m

 

Is natural, non-forcing.  Moysians at the 2 level often play quite well.

I prefer a style in which responder will pass with a 4 card suit and less than game interest.  I'd like the 3m rebid to promise a 5+ card major and a secondary fit for partner.

 

Then don't play it. While three of a minor is "not forcing" , it is often not passed. This "three of a minor" is most definetly not A BID OF MISERY, and has very little to do with the possibility that partner might only have three card support. That is, we are not biddign 3 of minor to cater to not playing in a 4-3 fit, per se. To begin with, partner will often have FOUR CARD support for the initial raise, and will take another call over our three of a minor. Second, three of a minor is not a weak bid even though it is not forcing. With weak hands, responder can smuggly pass the 2-of-a-major and play in a 4-3 or 4-4 fit, no problem. Three of a minor here points the way to some very close games where double fit is the key.

 

Ben