Poll: Adv Strong Hand Decl vs Adv Hiding Shape

[Siegmund]

But if one hand is much stronger than the other, and the other hand is much more distributional than the first, then "all else" isn't equal.

 

Trying one more time...

 

1) Given one hand whose distribution is known precisely, and one that isn't, there is a huge gain keeping the unknown-distribution hand hidden.

 

2) Given one hand whose strength is known precisely, and one that isn't, there is a big gain in keeping the unknown-strength hand hidden.

 

3) Given two hands whose strengths and distributions are known, there is a small gain in having the having the stronger hand declare.

4) Given two hands whose strengths and distributions are known, I have no strong feeling as to whether the flatter hand or more shapely hand should declare. In practice we almost always know more about one hand's distribution than the other.

 

The first two are vastly more important than the last two. My sense is that #1 is more important than #2. But for some reason #3 is the one that gets the most attention. Maybe it's because we have so many auctions after 1NT where both hands are substantially constrained that the chance to benefit much from #1 or #2 has already been thrown away.

 

In the multi-responder case, 1, 2, and 3 ALL point to having responder declare. In a lot of other situations, the case is much less clear. It wouldnt be crazy at all, after a 1NT opening that denies a 4-card major, for instance, to play a structure that tries to make responder always declare. And I am quite convinced that Puppet stayman loses more than it gains, often forcing declarer to reveal a 5-card major in exchange for rarely finding 5-3 fits that only occasionally gain a trick over notrump.

 

(And re double-dummy simulations... yes, they confirm that the value of the stronger hand declaring lies almost entirely in gains from bad opening leads, not in the hand innately playing better from one side than the other.)

[NickRW]

In the case of 2♦ multi - 2N, then I think the strong hand should play it if possible. The weaker hand is reasonably well defined both as to strength and roughly as to shape. The 2NT bidder could be almost anything and is much more likely to hold side suit tenaces. So I don't think it is close on that particular example.

 

However, I think the OP is essentially right that, in general, trying to have the stronger hand play the contract is overrated in some people's minds. One case in point is that nearly everyone in weak NT land plays stayman and red suit transfers over 1NT. But natural weak take outs are not actually that bad - the weaker hand is not that well defined as to exact strength - the NT opener is well defined both as to strength and general shape - so it often plays well if the "weak" hand plays the contract. (This comparison doesn't hold so much water for strong NT - a weak hand here is usually really quite weak and, in general, needing to run away from 1NT is much less opposite a strong NT)

 

Nick

[Free]

I know some new bridge students. The reason given why they learn transfers is so that the strong hand can declare. If nobody tells them the real reason, then they obviously get the idea that it's always better to let the strong hand declare... :D

[hanp]

I dealt some hands where one player has 5-9 HCP and a 6-card major and the other has a balanced hand with 15-17 HCP. I was wondering if one could use a double dummy simulation after all to see which side should play the hand.

 

1. The number of double dummy tricks is almost the same regardless of who plays the hand. This is no surprise, with the opponents always finding the best lead from either side, the hand will usually play the same from either side.

 

2. Dealmaster pro checks how often the winning lead can be from 4 suits, 3 suits, 2 suits or only 1 suit. The outcomes were in favor of the strong hand declaring, but not by a very large margin. For example, a bit more often the best lead was from only 1 suit when the strong hand was declaring.

 

Given that the difference was rather small, I think that often it is more important that the hand about which less is known is hidden. For example, after multi, I would rather have the responding hand declare in general because almost nothing is known about this hand. After a strong notrump, it may still be right to let the notrump opener declare 4M, even though general shape and HCP range are known. Honor location will often be important. After a weak notrump, honors will be split more evenly and now it may indeed be better to let responder declare, or have both options available.

[tgoodwinsr]

A guiding principle be, shouldn't it, that "hands with tenaces declare," not (just) "strong hands declare"? You try to make a strong-notrump hand declarer not because it is strong, but because it is likely to contain tenaces. If you open 1NT on, say, Axx Axx Axxx Axx, there isn't likely to be much "declarer advantage" from your side of the table. (For this reason, you might avoid opening 1NT, or rebidding in notrump, on that sort of hand if your system allows you to.)

 

Similarly, a multi 2D opener isn't likely to have a tenace in a side suit, so it tends to be desirable for his partner to declarer. Responder can see whether his own hand contains "declarer value," and may be able to arrange the bidding accordingly.

 

The point is that "strong hand vs. weak hand" isn't the whole story by a long shot.

[jvage]

I agree with tgoodwinsr that "strong hand vs weak hand" isn't the whole story. The OP asks wether it is generally better to hide the strong or the shapely hand. I agree with the majority that the likelyhood of tenaces etc. generally make it better to let the strong hand declare, with some exceptions (keeping the strongest opponent on lead, the "weak" hand may have more tenaces or unexpected distribution etc.).

 

What I find a bit surprising is that Multi followed by a strong inquiery is used as an example where it may be preferable to let the weak hand declare. While there certainly are exceptions I think this is one of the positions where it will be most preferable to hide the strong hand (more than after say a 1NT opening). The Multi-openers most likely distributions are 6322 or 6331, while responder can have all kinds of distributions, not only balanced hands in the 15-17 range that it seems most posters discuss. Responder can have good or bad fit, a good sidesuit or ruffing values. If he does not have shape the likelyhood of tenaces will rise. If you think concealing shape is important I would think that would make you want to make responder declarer...

 

Edit: Especially playing MP it could also be a point that responders hand will reveal if this is a hand where overtricks is the main point or if the contract is "touch and go".

 

John

[cloa513]

A guiding principle be, shouldn't it, that "hands with tenaces declare," not (just) "strong hands declare"? You try to make a strong-notrump hand declarer not because it is strong, but because it is likely to contain tenaces. If you open 1NT on, say, Axx Axx Axxx Axx, there isn't likely to be much "declarer advantage" from your side of the table. (For this reason, you might avoid opening 1NT, or rebidding in notrump, on that sort of hand if your system allows you to.)

 

Similarly, a multi 2D opener isn't likely to have a tenace in a side suit, so it tends to be desirable for his partner to declarer. Responder can see whether his own hand contains "declarer value," and may be able to arrange the bidding accordingly.

 

The point is that "strong hand vs. weak hand" isn't the whole story by a long shot.

There is some declarer advantage of only aces but it takes partner to have considerable lower honours Q,J,10 (+9) and probably not the kings. Limited strength on table and undetermined considerable strength hidden could be principle for example your partner preempts in a minor or even major 2 or 3 level then you bidding 3NT will make difficult for opponents to judge how to defend especially if they don't choose the perfect lead and/or you choose somewhat unusual 3NT hands like with a singleton King or long major.