Scrambling with 4315 shape after 2D precision

[benlessard]

It was suggested that after 2D precision (34/44)-0/1-4/5 that over a 2H response opener should scramble to 2S with a 4315.

 

If responder is 3/3, 4/4 in the M or in the rounded you will improve the contract but every time is longest suit outside of D is H you will play a level higher or 3C. Plus the chance you ll end up doubled are way higher.

 

Comments ?

[inquiry]

It was suggested that after 2D precision (34/44)-0/1-4/5 that over a 2H response opener should scramble to 2S with a 4315.

 

If responder is 3/3, 4/4 in the M or in the rounded you will improve the contract but every time is longest suit outside of D is H you will play a level higher or 3C. Plus the chance you ll end up doubled are way higher.

 

Comments ?

Pass over 2♥, this is not a scramble situation. This 2♥ bid is not pass correct, it is to play. If your partner just happened to be 4♠ and 4♥, so what? That is a low frequency. If he if 4-4 he is much more likely to have 4♦ than 4♠ when he holds hearts. And any other distribution hearts will always be better. Yes, I once played in a 3-3 heart fit when partner was 2S-3H-5D-3C, but hey, 2♥ was about as good as the 4-2 spade fit.

[benlessard]

vs a 2353 you will play in 3C in a 5-3 because scrambling to 2S show exactly 4315.

[MickyB]

Definitely feels right to bid - you'll gain whenever pard has as many cards in spades or clubs as he does in hearts. It's only 2452 and 4H6D which will wish you had left it.

[wank]

also you end up a level higher opposite 5H.

 

more subtly, you define declarer's shape if responder floats 2S, whereas in hearts the closed hand is not defined.

[JLOGIC]

standard

[dake50]

If 2H promises no game (other bids if invite+), aren't we discussing much ado about maybe 3 IMP when 2S>2H?

[MarkDean]

Precision Today recommends this approach. My partner and I used it, and with a pretty small sample size, it was a net positive rule.

[mycroft]

I play it - from Berkowitz and Manley's suggestion, and:

- when 3C is a good fit, you're in good shape, even if 2H was good. When 2H would be bad, 3C is amazing.

- when 3C is bad, 2S is a massive zero; not only do they get to play the "lead trump" defence, they defend double-dummy, and they "know" - or figure out at trick 1 - you're in a weak misfit.

- when 2H is on the 3-3, being able to play in the better black suit, even 2S, is almost always good.

- 3C is a good place to land an awful lot more often than it isn't.

- in general, -100 in 3C is a good score more often than not, even if we have +110 in 2H.

 

That doesn't mean I don't wince every time I bid 2D-2H; 2S, hoping partner doesn't pass...

[jdonn]

I was sceptical when I first learned it but it has worked well every time (like 3) for me. It also makes it a lot easier as responder to have 3343 or 3352 or whatever and at least know you can bid 2♥ and won't be in a 3-3 fit.

[dake50]

When do you finally quit bidding with no hope of game?

Not surely 2S as 3C may be better (or 3H now forced).

Hope wild guess 2S is better than partner's 2H guess?

 

Hope they reopen over 2H, so they play misfit? Cannot happen when we bid up.

 

I'd guess the swings by pass 2H matches the roundabouts when 2S is bid.

 

Hate lotta bidding without stuff --that's my rant.

[benlessard]

Assuming imps the most probable shapes are

 

3343 here 3C will play 1.5 trick better then 2H but your 1 step higher.

3442 2H will play hlaf a trick better than 2S

2443 2H is sligthly better than 3C

3433 2H is slightly better than 3C

4432 2S is better

4441 2S is better

3352 2S is better

2353 3C is better

2434 3C is better

 

less probable shapes

 

2542 2H is better (then 3H)

3451 2H is better

1444 3C is better but this shape is powerful enough that im not worried being in 2H.

1462 2H is better

2461 2H is better

2452 2H is better

 

 

Unlikely hand

3424 3C is better

4423 2S is better

anyhand with 6H

 

 

 

I dont see any advantage for bidding 2S with 4315 but even if they were the downsde of revealing declarer hand + new doubling opportunity make it clear for me that its a pretty bad treatment. I saw this in an Reese book.

[jdonn]

3343 here 3C will play 1.5 trick better then 2H but your 1 step higher.

4432 2S is better

4441 2S is better

3352 2S is better

2353 3C is better

2434 3C is better

1444 3C is better but this shape is powerful enough that im not worried being in 2H.

3424 3C is better

4423 2S is better

 

...

 

I dont see any advantage for bidding 2S with 4315

uhhhhh....... it looks like you saw some advantages?

 

Also your downsides hardly exist. Defining declarer's shape doesn't really matter since they already know it within a card. And you let me know the first time it goes 2♦ p 2♥ p and then they double something next round, because that will probably be the first time for either of us.

[mycroft]

Defining declarer's shape does matter because in almost all 2D sequences, it's *dummy's* shape that is defined to within 1 card. The exceptions are 2D-p and 2D-2H; 2S-p, and some GI+ hands that get query-wrongsided (but those are less of a problem with double-dummy defence, at IMPs at least).

 

Not that I disagree with you in general, Josh - I have had one bad result from this, and 4 or 5 good ones (given that we're stuck with the 2D opener, I mean - at least once in our "good" results, 2H would have just been a rounder zero).

 

Some other things I disagree with benlessard over, though:

- 1444 opposite 4315 is only "powerful enough" if opener's spades are good - otherwise not only do you get the automatic trump leads, you also get the tap in the long hand in their 8-card major fit. And, they get to *see* how bad opener's spades are, and whether to attack them. I'd much rather play in the 7-card club fit than the 5-card heart fit.

- provided you don't worry about the wrongsiding, 3451 opposite 4315 is a wash in either 2M. Note that I do worry about the wrongsiding.

- bad 1462s and 2461s are worth thinking about passing, and playing the (almost always) 6-1 as opposed to the (less always) 4-4.