Either 0r?

[pirate22]

your partner opens 1spade -or 1 heart either = 5 card major.

 

You bid 2n/t or 3 of the major---[either describes what}

The 1 major opener,can he determine you have a distributional hand with ruffing factors in dummy---or that you have a flat hand.

If responder has 3 card support for major opener and a flat hand,is there another widget to describe the flat hand?

[jjbrr]

people rely too much on system and not enough on bidding judgment

[manudude03]

With a pickup, I'd assume 2NT natural forcing, 3M limit raise (3+ card support).

 

Playing with advanced+ players I know, 2NT= GF raise with 4 card support. 3M= 4 card limit raise.

 

3 card limit raises go via 1NT forcing (2/1 system). 4M is preemtive (implies shape). With stronger hands with 4 card support, you can splinter with a singleton or a void. That depends on what your agreements are with regards to ranges. With no shortage and 4 card support (or an out-of-range splinter), you can bid 2NT and let partner describe their hand.

 

With 3 card support, just bid something thats forcing, 1♠, 2m etc. There are various ways of showing support after.

[bd71]

people rely too much on system and not enough on bidding judgment

Ah, but what if you have poor/undeveloped bidding judgment and know it?!...then you better have a well-defined system.

 

Reminds me of comments to the effect that the Law of Total Tricks is a poor replacement for bidding judgement in competitive situations...perhaps true, unless you have poor judgement in which case it's an EXCELLENT replacement for the "random whim of the moment" decision tool.

[jjbrr]

people rely too much on system and not enough on bidding judgment

Ah, but what if you have poor/undeveloped bidding judgment and know it?!...then you better have a well-defined system.

No, I disagree. That's kind of like saying if you're a really bad driver and you know it, you better get a really big SUV so that you can get away safely with screwing up.

 

Bidding judgment is not some voodoo magic that only a lucky few can obtain. It's a learned skill just like everything else. If you want to be good at it, you have to work.

[manudude03]

I'm starting to think I'm misunderstanding the OP reading you two argue. I read the OP as "what would a pickup partner understand a 2NT or 3M response to 1M mean". I'm assuming he's experienced stuff like 1M-4M-P, and watching partner come down with a great 15 with 4 card support or something, while the next player has your typical x KJTxx xxxx xxx.

[jjbrr]

I interpreted his question as "When partner shows a major suit raise, is he sometimes balanced and how does opener find out if he's balanced?"

[pooltuna]

2NT=Jacoby; 3M=4 card LR

Only if you cuebid singleton/voids. Of course 3M rather than 3♠/4♥/4m(i.e. a splinter) is a weaker hand

1NT forcing/semi-forcing allows for 3 card LR. Lack of a roughing value needs to be factored into the decision to make or not make a LR.

[bd71]

people rely too much on system and not enough on bidding judgment

Ah, but what if you have poor/undeveloped bidding judgment and know it?!...then you better have a well-defined system.

No, I disagree. That's kind of like saying if you're a really bad driver and you know it, you better get a really big SUV so that you can get away safely with screwing up.

 

Bidding judgment is not some voodoo magic that only a lucky few can obtain. It's a learned skill just like everything else. If you want to be good at it, you have to work.

Not sure that's a great analogy...poor bidding judgement doesn't put lives at risk (unless your partner has a heart condition).

 

But to remove things from the analogy and try to make my point clearer (maybe we don't even disagree)...

 

Good bidding judgement and a well-defined system are obviously not mutually exclusive. Best to have both.

 

And I agree that developing better judgement is certainly feasible for all/most (i.e. it's not "voodoo"), but I believe it's a slow process of gradual accumulation over a long period of time.*

 

So for those who are still early in the process of developing judgement (me included), trying to define clear agreements and having good definitions to your bidding system (which is how I took the OP) seems critical and can have a better immediate return that anything you do to try to kick-start the slow osmosis of judgement.

 

 

 

 

*Kudos should go out to whoever's tagline (can't recall who) is something like "God judgement comes from experience, which in turn comes from bad judgement."

[jdonn]

Lol it's like saying if you want to run track in the olympics but are in bad shape, you better have good sneakers! Sounds good in theory, won't help you one bit in practice. All that will help you is practicing to become a better runner.

[pirate22]

jjbr has my question to a tee.............some jacoby pards insist on 4 card support of major opening--excluding splinters-some dont care it can be 3 card support ,and a direct raise to 4 is end of story.unless opener is in range of 18/19.

I have experienced if i bid 4 we go down because no ruffing values in dummy.if i bid jacoby with 3/4 still go down for same reason.and if i bid 3 pard passes.with 4 on

and to bid 3n/t over pards opening 1 major-is hogging it and 4 spades is on.

I cannot believe "law of total tricks" solves the problem

[bd71]

Lol it's like saying if you want to run track in the olympics but are in bad shape, you better have good sneakers! Sounds good in theory, won't help you one bit in practice. All that will help you is practicing to become a better runner.

Another fun analogy...let's build on this one.

 

The vast majority of bridge players aren't playing in the equivalent of the Olympics. They've just got to figure out a way to beat the guys down the street.

 

Long-term, becoming a better runner (or developing better judgment in bidding) is clearly the way to beat them regularly. But if the track meet is tomorrow, replacing your cement shoes with good sneakers is probably the best, immediate thing you can do to give yourself a chance to win. I'd say not having clear agreements with your partner on basic bidding issues (like how your partnership plays stronger raises to 1M) is tantamount to getting rid of the cement shoes.

 

 

Pirate...the Law of Total tricks comment was a side comment and not directed at the bidding issue in your post. Agree that it's irrelevant for what you're asking about.