Do I suck?

[gdawg01]

pretender,

with both those hands, he has 1 KC to show and I will know we are still missing one, so given our methods (or lack of them!) I cannot try for 7 anything as we might be off the A of spades. I meant the 7N bit with respect to his actual hand that I posted here.

[pretender]

So you think the way to better bridge is to do things incorrectly? I respectfully disagree. There is nothing wrong with getting in the routine of doing things correctly, even if it leads to uncertainty in the rest of the auction. How else will he learn how to bid the rest of the auction correctly?

 

Relevant info? Lol. I'm glad your inverted minor agreements are so good!

No, my point was that he should have visualized a plan. Perhaps he would come to the conclusion that after 1C-1D-1NT he would bid 2H. If he felt uncomfortable doing that, then he might come to the conclusion of the forcing club raise. Either way, it's just a good thing to do in general.

 

Instead of scoffing at my inverted minor agreements (which I actually believe in my partnerships are quite good), perhaps you can answer the question? What relevant info can you get in your auction that can't be gotten in the forcing minor raise auction? You have example hands? Example auctions? If you do, great, I'd be happy to see it.

[jjbrr]

Lol.

 

So you're suggesting that after a 1♣ opening, a good bridge player will visualize every possible auction that can result from every possible response? This is absolutely terrible advice.

 

Think about this quote for a little while and try to extrapolate what it means in the big picture:

 

we've identified one hand where it literally doesn't matter what we bid as long as it's forcing and our final bid is 7NT

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world, you honestly can't think of any bids that convey relevant information after the auction 1♣-1♦? Would 2NT convey any relevant information to you? Would 2♦ put us in a bad position? How about 2♣? And how is knowing partner is 12-14 and balanced not relevant? I know what he has and we're still at 1NT, whereas you would be at some level higher than 2♣ if you go the other route with some amount of information that is likely less than what a 1NT rebid shows, though it's possible you have really good inverted minor responses (which I'm very skeptical of). I don't see how you can possibly think my way is anything but objectively superior.

 

What if I have the same hand without the ♥A? Don't you think the familiarity with 1♣-1♦ auctions will be valuable? Surely you don't argue that 2♣ is the right bid with that hand.

[neilkaz]

We need to get A LOT of this "simple" stuff sorted out ;) Meanwhile, I seem to have missed a rare opportunity to bid 7N directly after 1N, sigh.

Re: your original question, you certainly don't suck, but your methods do :P

 

If you jump to 7NT w/out asking for aces you deserve to find PD missing the ♠ace that is cashed instantly in 7NTx.

 

Many have responded with good ideas allready but I'll toss in my 2 cents worth as this seems you were playing with a regular pd.

 

1) I feel that it is an absolute must to have some good method of continuing after opener rebids 1NT. Many play nmf after that, but here there is no new minor so you substitute an artifical 2♥ which should be GF here, IMO.

 

1a) Better than some nmf idea is to just play XYZ, XY-NT or two way checkback regardless of the two bids preceeding opener's 1NT rebid. Now 2♣ relays to 2♦ for invites or for getting out in 2♦ and 2♦ directly is GF. You give up playing 2♣ but gain much more on other sequences, IMO.

 

2) I prefer to use the jump from 1♣ to 2♦ as a strong JS since I think it is a more effective use of the bid. This is used with a slam invite or better and of course is 100% GF. You either have a great suit of your own, or great support for partner's suit as a decent suit of your own. If PD has any kind of fitting hand that is not sub-minimum you should have great play for slam, and there's still plenty of room to investigate and stop in 5m or perhaps 4NT at MP.

 

3) Many strong players who contribute often here think Gerber is basically useless.

It is easy to agree with them, but you can find times, like here where you just want to ask aces ASAP and once in a while where you prefer to ask aces rather than key carding since you may not care about the king. Anyhow, I don't mind playing Gerber directly over NT openings as I don't have another use for 4♣. With some pards we also use Gerber directly over opener's quantative NT rebids..ie 1NT showing 12-14 or even the jump to 2NT showing 18-19.

 

Anyhow, my advice is to make sure that you have firm methods of continuing after NT rebids and also establishing trumps and asking aces/key cards.

 

In closing, I'll state that you may find something below 4NT useful as RKCB for minor suits, either Redwood, Kickback, or even Minorwood as you can more likely stop at 5m.

 

Just my opinions .. neilkaz ..

[pretender]

Lol.

 

So you're suggesting that after a 1♣ opening, a good bridge player will visualize every possible auction that can result from every possible response? This is absolutely terrible advice.

 

Think about this quote for a little while and try to extrapolate what it means in the big picture:

 

we've identified one hand where it literally doesn't matter what we bid as long as it's forcing and our final bid is 7NT

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world, you honestly can't think of any bids that convey relevant information after the auction 1♣-1♦? Would 2NT convey any relevant information to you? Would 2♦ put us in a bad position? How about 2♣? And how is knowing partner is 12-14 and balanced not relevant? I know what he has and we're still at 1NT, whereas you would be at some level higher than 2♣ if you go the other route with some amount of information that is likely less than what a 1NT rebid shows, though it's possible you have really good inverted minor responses (which I'm very skeptical of). I don't see how you can possibly think my way is anything but objectively superior.

 

What if I have the same hand without the ♥A? Don't you think the familiarity with 1♣-1♦ auctions will be valuable? Surely you don't argue that 2♣ is the right bid with that hand.

Partner opens the bidding, which gives you some information at least. You look at your hand, you should at least have an idea of where the hand might take you. It's like thinking about possible rebid problems before deciding whether to open a marginal hand. Except with more information.

 

You still haven't given me specific hands from partner with specific auctions relating to this specific hand. The same hand without the HA is a different hand which would have different goals and possibilities. It would have a different problem over a 1NT rebid. And I believe in figuring each hand out individually instead of just having a blanket 1D response with anything "like" this hand.

 

I did not say 1D wasn't objectively superior to 2C. I said earlier that in my partnerships I would respond 1D also. But given the added problem of the 1NT rebid (which you or I would not have), the question is whether it generates enough negative expectation to make 2C a lesser of evils.

[jjbrr]

I never consider possible rebids when deciding whether or not to open, fwiw, and I think doing so is not a good practice. As a beginner I learned not to try to guess who holds what cards and how everyone will bid. You might be shocked to learn that sometimes people don't bid whatever it is you're worried about.

 

It seems to me that you're arguing "when you know where you're going, use the easiest path to get there."

 

My point is that you face this problem very infrequently at bridge, and it is much better to just do the normal thing even if you know where you're going. I think my argument has many more practical applications.

[ArtK78]

I don't know what agreements the original poster had, but it seems to me that a forcing club raise might get the information that he needs to have to properly place the contract.

 

So, while it seems obvious to bid 1♦ over 1♣, one might consider making a forcing club raise (whatever that might be). After that, you might be better placed.

[Fluffy]

I really don't see the problem here, if you don't know what 4♣ is don't bid it, bid 3♣ instead.

 

If 3♣ is not forcing or you suspect it to be non forcing, then try 2♣ if still unclear for you then you have 2 bids avaible wich must be forcing and allow you to bid RCKW at some point: 2♥ and 4♦, 4♦ is the direct route while 2♥ lets you brake when partner bids 2NT next.

 

I advice you not to bid 6NT on this kind of hand ever again, it is better to try some non forcing bids and train your biddings skills playing some partscores than to remind blind for the rest of your life. If you never try, you never learn.

[nigel_k]

How many matchpoints did you get for 6NT+1? The field may be such that you don't want to bid grand unless you are really certain of 13 tricks.

 

But normally, with few agreements, I would want to set clubs (via 2♥ is probably safest) and then bid grand any time we have two key cards. The biggest worry is missing a good grand when we are off the ♣K.

[gdawg01]

Fluffy -- Point well taken. Given all those bids were completely undiscussed, I chose to make a "practical" bid. I would not have posted this if I thought blasting 6N was a good idea. Also, I was quite clear what I would take 4C as, my partner was doubtful. :-)

 

Nigel -- it was a good field. We scored a grand 2 MPs out of a possible 8, beating two pairs who ended up in 6D+1. The more I think about 2H after Jeremy brought it up and several others (you included) suggested that route, the more I like it.

 

Neilkaz -- thanks for a very detailed reply. I looked very briefly (as I was at work!) into XYZ and XY-NT, and will study them more when I am home. They do seem like awfully good tools to game force at a low level and allow for further hand description without absurd jumps.

[ONEferBRID]

I apologize if I missed someone posting the obvious splinter for this hand:

 

♠ Q

♥ AQ

♦ AKQJ43

♣ AT85

 

AKx

Kxx

xxx

Kxxx

 

1C   - 1D

1NT - 3S! = self-splinter for Diam

?? Opener probably bids 3NT

 

3NT - 4C! ( cuebid )

4H! - 6D

[eyhung]

I never consider possible rebids when deciding whether or not to open, fwiw, and I think doing so is not a good practice.

You're kidding, right? I always know what my rebid is over each non-jump response, that way I can bid in tempo and not give UI when I have an unusual rebid. I also find that if a rebid is too difficult and opening is marginal, that influences me to pass rather than open.

[kenberg]

A few suggestions:

 

1. A convenient treatment of Gerber is to play that 4C is Gerber if it is a jump to 4C over a natural NT of defined range. Here, playing with a partner w/o discussion, I would bid 4C over 1NT. I don't think he will be passing. If he bids 4D, maybe no aces, maybe a diamond fit, who knows, I will bid 6D. If he raises 4C to 5C I will assume he did not understand and I will bid 6D. If he bids 4H I will assume he understood and is showing one ace. Or maybe he will bid 4S. Sounds like the ace of spades to me. Either way, I'll take my shot at 7D (in most online games a making grand in any strain is a good score).

 

2. You say SAYC. SAYC, as written, has strong jump shifts. This is because SAYC keeps things simple. You are not playing them, I know, but if you want to play a simple system such as SAYC why not go the whole hog?

 

3. In a way, you pose an impossible problem: How to carefully bid to a minor suit grand when you have no bidding agreements. Of course the answer is that you cannot. I often play online w/o extensive agreements. I do my best. Sometimes it's good enough. Sometimes it isn't. Eg, if you bid 4C over 1NT and partner passes, then you play 4C. If this thought is unbearable to you, then you have to play only with those who have discussed such auctions with you.

[jjbrr]

I never consider possible rebids when deciding whether or not to open, fwiw, and I think doing so is not a good practice.

You're kidding, right? I always know what my rebid is over each non-jump response, that way I can bid in tempo and not give UI when I have an unusual rebid. I also find that if a rebid is too difficult and opening is marginal, that influences me to pass rather than open.

Why would I be joking? Why do you waste everyone's time sitting there thinking about bids that haven't happened yet? I'm also a very fast player fwiw. And I've played enough hands that I know what the rebids are lol. That argument is a little ridiculous.

 

You really sit there and think "Well if the auction goes 1♣ (1♥) dbl I have an opening hand! But if it goes 1♣ (2♠) then I don't!"

[jukmoi]

Yes - 6NT is kind of practical. Even more practical is to ask partner something like "responders reverse gameforcing, partner?" after the hand is played.

[eyhung]

Why would I be joking? Why do you waste everyone's time sitting there thinking about bids that haven't happened yet? I'm also a very fast player fwiw. And I've played enough hands that I know what the rebids are lol. That argument is a little ridiculous.

 

You really sit there and think "Well if the auction goes 1♣ (1♥) dbl I have an opening hand! But if it goes 1♣ (2♠) then I don't!"

I wasn't talking about considering a complete set of rebids or a competitive auction. I was talking about common problem rebids in a constructive auction, like anticipating what to do when opening a 1345 11-count, or a 1156 10-count, or even a 2344 19-count (now the question is which minor). I've gotten good enough that I can streamline the process into identifying difficult rebids quickly, but it would be wrong for me to say "I don't consider rebids when deciding whether or not to open and I think it's good practice". If you aren't considering your rebid for partner's simple non-jump response, I think you may have room to improve your opening algorithm.

 

And FWIW I think I can be too fast at times, so anything that can help me even out my tempo is a good thing.

[jjbrr]

Why would I be joking? Why do you waste everyone's time sitting there thinking about bids that haven't happened yet? I'm also a very fast player fwiw. And I've played enough hands that I know what the rebids are lol. That argument is a little ridiculous.

 

You really sit there and think "Well if the auction goes 1♣ (1♥) dbl I have an opening hand! But if it goes 1♣ (2♠) then I don't!"

I wasn't talking about considering a complete set of rebids or a competitive auction. I was talking about common problem rebids in a constructive auction, like anticipating what to do when opening a 1345 11-count, or a 1156 10-count, or even a 2344 19-count (now the question is which minor). I've gotten good enough that I can streamline the process into identifying difficult rebids quickly, but it would be wrong for me to say "I don't consider rebids when deciding whether or not to open and I think it's good practice". If you aren't considering your rebid for partner's simple non-jump response, I think you may have room to improve your opening algorithm.

 

And FWIW I think I can be too fast at times, so anything that can help me even out my tempo is a good thing.

OK. This is sort of a silly discussion (and has been for a while, admittedly). My point is I've played enough hands that I know all the common rebids. I interpreted the problem as something along the lines of "I would open a 12 count with 1354 but not with 1345 because partner will bid 1♠ and I won't know what to do!"

 

To me, this is ridiculous.

 

As an aside, I prefer a precision system, and both the example patterns and strengths you provided are clear openers to me, regardless of what the hands are. (Looks like you ninja added 2344 19 count, again not a problem.) So that point is moot.

[PhantomSac]

Seems like eugene is saying that he considers rebids when opening, and jeremy is saying he doesn't simply because he has played enough to know what he will rebid on the common hands within a few seconds, which eugene agrees with.

 

The only disagreement seems to be whether or not the fact that you have a bad rebid in a common situation should dissuade you from opening. I think Jeremy is saying that that will never cause him to not open, whereas eyhung is saying on borderline hands it may cause him to not open.

 

I guess I kinda agree with them both, it's not really much of a consideration, but on the very borderline hands I would pass if I have some "bad" rebids, and open with "good rebids." For instance I might open with a 5422 that I would pass on 4522 on a very marginal hand (not playing flannery), or pass a 1453 and open a 1354 very marginal hand. Overall though it would be very rare that this would be the deciding factor for me.

[straube]

I was taught that strong jump shifts (Soloway jump shifts) are most useful on hands of maybe 5 losers in which you want partner (with a minimum hand) to be empowered to cooperate in bidding a slam. For instance, with a similar pattern, one might jump to 2D and then rebid 3C. With a stronger hand, one can't expect partner to do a whole lot and sometimes you can find other ways of handling things. With this particular hand, why not just ask for aces right away? 1C-4N? Or 1C-4D if that's your asking bid. You get to find out about the club king and queen and more particularly what you really want...the SA. Then you can ask for kings. I think you have 14 tricks here and you only need 13.