Plan the Auction

[awm]

Matchpoints, none vulnerable. After two passes you hold ♠AKJ9x ♥Q9 ♦KQ ♣KJxx. Your methods are fairly "normal" 2/1. You are not playing puppet stayman, in case this effects your answer.

 

If it matters, it's a STAC game (so you're shooting for a very high percentage if possible) and this is the second board of the session (first board was AVG+ for you). The field is fairly weak (club game) and both you and partner are substantially stronger than the field average (although there are a few good players scattered about). Opponents are roughly average relative to the field.

[mikegill]

I would go the 1♠ - 2N route. This doesn't feel like a game-force to me. I think bidding 2♣ is reasonable on values but I don't want to get to the wrong part score.

[Phil]

This looks a little familiar - what day was it?

 

Put me down for 1♠--> 2N. Opening 2N looks to be an overbid. A lot of your answers like opening 2♣ are filler - is there a reason to have a minimum number of poll choices?

 

I know you want a big game, but overbidding on the 2nd board doesn't look like the right way to go about that.

[jdeegan]

:D 1♠ with a 3NT rebid after a 1NT response. I'm going to overbid just a little because if I rebid 2NT and pard passes, I'm not going to feel very good about our situation given the conditions of contest. Time for the gambler to test his luck.

[nigel_k]

1♠ then 2NT. It's closer to a 5332 19 than anything else. Partner is also aware of the conditions.

[raist]

in "normal" 2/1, the 1M-1N-2N rebid should show 18-19 bal, which is exactly what this hand looks like

 

3N rebid is a totally different type of hand

 

as a few ppl said, partner will also know we want a big score and he will bid 3n if appropriate.

[jjbrr]

same as everyone else

[awm]

This was kind of a funny hand. Partner held:

 

♠Qx

♥xxx

♦xxxx

♣AT9x

 

As you can see, 4♠ is basically on a two-way guess in clubs. Bidding 1♠...3N (what I tried at the table) goes down three because RHO leads a heart from AJxxxx and opponents take the first six heart tricks plus the diamond ace. Bidding 1♠...2N obtains a slightly better down two. Opening 2N gets you a diamond lead ("right" siding the contract) and you can make 3N+1 if you guess the clubs. Opening 1♠ and rebidding 3♣ might get you to 4♠.

[whereagles]

Easy 1♠+3♣ where I live B)

 

With pard's hand he might bid 4♠ or 5♣ over that. Probably spades, since it's MPs.

[fromageGB]

Is Gazzilli ruled out by the question? I would go 1♠ 1NT 2♣ and as partner's hand as given is not strong enough to ask what I have with 2♦, he bids 2♠ and I bid 4♠.

[gnasher]

Is Gazzilli ruled out by the question?  I would go 1♠ 1NT 2♣ and as partner's hand as given is not strong enough to ask what I have with 2♦, he bids 2♠ and I bid 4♠.

And he puts down xx Axxx Jxxx xxx.

 

The reason that 4♠ is OK (and it's no more than that) opposite a 6-count is because everythng he has is working flat out - even ♣9 is necesssary.

[fromageGB]

I agree that 4♠ may not make on every hand, bit it is what would be bid by our methods. However, gnasher's hand in our methods would be a pass, not a 1NT. With only 2 of partner's suit, we don't stretch the 1NT reply.

[gnasher]

I agree that 4♠ may not make on every hand, bit it is what would be bid by our methods. However, gnasher's hand in our methods would be a pass, not a 1NT. With only 2 of partner's suit, we don't stretch the 1NT reply.

OK, that was an extreme example. Here's a less extreme one: Qx xxxx A109x xxx. Would you have the same auction?

 

If so, it seems to me that by bidding 4♠ as opener you're reaching a set of games that range from dreadful to about 50%. That doesn't sound like a good strategy.

[hanp]

What's a 3NT rebid in the awm system and why did partner not correct to 4S?

[fromageGB]

OK, that was an extreme example.  Here's a less extreme one: Qx xxxx A109x xxx.  Would you have the same auction?

 

If so, it seems to me that by bidding 4♠ as opener you're reaching a set of games that range from dreadful to about 50%.  That doesn't sound like a good strategy.

Sorry, I'll come clean. I would not actually bid 4♠ but didn't want to get to bogged down in the details of my probably non-standard methods, so simplified my post, the purpose of which was just to propose 2♣ (forcing) as an alternative initial rebid.

 

 

When I rebid 2♣ partner knows I am either balanced, have 4+ clubs, or any hand 17+. The response with a typical 8 count would be to bid 2♦ to find out, and with a weaker hand would make another bid. 2♠ could be a 6/7 count with 2 spades, or perhaps weaker than that with 3 spades (a normal 7+ hand would bid 2♠ initially).

 

If I had just the minimum sort of hand, maybe 17 up to 19, I would pass his 2♠ rebid. This hand I reckon possibly comes into the area of "it's worth another try", so might bid 3♣ therefore showing a 19/20+ sort of hand with a 4+ card club suit. With the given partner's hand, good clubs and a doubleton queen of spades, 4♠ from him seems a quite easy bid, with the 2 suited fit, maximum for the 2♠ bid, no wasted values.

 

On your example Qx xxxx AT9x xxx I'd say partner's choice was between 3♠ and 4♠, as I take 3♦ to be to play. I wouldn't blame partner for 4♠, as I am at the bottom end of my continuation after his sign-off. OK, Perhaps my initial decision to go on after his denial was faulty - it was certainly borderline. I'll apologise and go one off.

[aguahombre]

What's a 3NT rebid in the awm system and why did partner not correct to 4S?

Good question. Played the same STAC, and wish I had lied or miscounted my spades. If I had rebid 3NT instead of 2NT, partner would have pulled to the alleged 6-2 fit :P

 

Also, IMHO, this hand is closer to a downgrade than an upgrade. I almost rebid 2C, which would have scored a whole lot of matchpoints.

Edited August 22, 2010 by aguahombre

[Finch]

If it matters, it's a STAC game (so you're shooting for a very high percentage if possible) and this is the second board of the session (first board was AVG+ for you). The field is fairly weak (club game) and both you and partner are substantially stronger than the field average (although there are a few good players scattered about). Opponents are roughly average relative to the field.

OK, this is totally off-topic, but I was interested by this post.

As I understand a STAC is what I would call a simultaneous pairs, where a large number of people in clubs across the region all play the same hands, and the aim is to get the highest percentage.

 

I play in these when I can, and I've got the top score or near top score in the country a few times, playing in similar circumstances ("The field is fairly weak (club game) and both you and partner are substantially stronger than the field average (although there are a few good players scattered about"). We don't do this by "shooting" for huge boards. The trick is to avoid the very poor boards and take everything you are given.

 

(Maybe we'd do better if we did more shooting. But I doubt it. It's fairly common to be dealt 70%+ session in a club game, what's also common is to give some of it away through avoidable errors).

[ONEferBRID]

♠AKJ9x

♥Q9

♦KQ

♣KJxx

 

♠Qx

♥xxx

♦xxxx

♣AT9x

 

1S - 1NT

3C - ??

        RKC "showing" ; w/4+Cl

       4C = 0 ( or 3 improbable )

       - 4D = 1 ( or 4 impossible )

       4H ( 4oM) = 2 - cQ

       4NT = 2 + cQ

 

4S ( No slam intentions missing 2 key cards ) Responder is happy to pass;

but Responder's pass is mandatory after Sp game sign-off

since 3C maybe artificial w/6+Sp.... needing a forcing bid.

 

4S Still no cakewalk... needs to find the ♣Q.

[awm]

I'm not really sure what strategies other people use in a simultaneous pairs game, so I put this in as part of the conditions since that's what was going on. I didn't mean to suggest some particular approach.

 

The one observation that might be relevant to this board is that much of the club field will probably bid game on this hand with 19 hcp opposite a response. Even if game is relatively lousy, some of them will probably make it because of poor defense. I'm not convinced that bidding conservatively is that likely to pay off here; you land yourself in a partial when the field may be in game, and this tends to nullify your superior declarer play.

 

I'd say that playing in a STAC, I tend to take a few more risks than in a regular club game. I wouldn't say it's "wild swinging" but my feeling is that waiting for 70+% games to come around just by playing normal bridge is not all that high percentage even in a club field.

[aguahombre]

Well, since Adam won one of the STAC sessions (overcall), his strategies must have merit. I doubt, however, that he won solely by high-road policy.

 

I suspect he and his partner simply evaluated each hand better than the rest of the field, whether high or low or different strain -- plus playing and defending well.

 

I don't remember whether the given hand was from the session he won.

[awm]

Nope this hand not from the session I won. That session had many interesting features, perhaps notably that partner totally misplayed a hand (miscounted trumps) turning a top into a bottom and we still finished with a 74.45%. It would've been 78% barring that mistake, which would've been the highest percentage I've ever gotten in a 24+ board game (I've broken 80% in the BBO speedballs a couple times, but those are only 12 boards of course).

 

Anyway, my view is that "swinging" is a tactic which increases your variance while slightly decreasing your expected score. It makes sense to "swing" if the score you are trying to obtain is substantially better than your expected score in the field, whereas you don't want to swing if your expected score is pretty close to what you're aiming for. Usually swinging is something you do when you're having a bad set and need to recover (i.e. your expected score given the boards you have already played is not very good), but it also makes sense to swing early on if you think you're outclassed, or almost any time that your goal is to win a tough pairs event and finishing second is roughly equivalent to finishing last as far as you're concerned. Typically in a club game a good player does not want to swing, because his expected score is pretty close to a winning score in any case (for example my expected score with this partner at this club is probably around 60% which sometimes wins our direction anyway), and it's also not clear that the embarrassment of finishing around 50% due to unsuccessful swinging is equivalent to putting up a 60% and winding up second. However, in a STAC my expected score is far enough from the 70+% that I need to make the high overalls that it seems reasonable to do some calculated swinging.