ATB

[1eyedjack]

[hv=myhand=M-14184619-1288517716]400|300[/hv]

 

Some context:

We were playing 5-5-4-2 style, 12-14 1NT opener, inverted minor raises.

Criticism of that basic method is NOT an option for the purposes of *this* poll. I am well aware that a lot of you would regard this context as non-optimal, and feel free to abstain from the poll if you feel that strongly.

 

That said, I would hope that you acknowledge that a similar problem could also arise after playing a strong NT opener when opener has a balanced hand outside the range (East presumably being correspondingly stronger). It might be a similar problem but would not be identical, because in our methods the 2N rebid has a wide but continuous range, whereas if you are playing a strong NT, the 2NT rebid may be NF or, if F, would have two (broken) ranges, and that could well have an impact on the continuations.

 

The main purpose of the poll is to investigate the optimum follow-up continuations after the 2C raise that you have been forced to play this way up to that point.

 

Any suggestions? Thanks.

[EDIT] OK, how do I make the hand large enough to read?

Edited November 1, 2010 by Gerardo
Changed diagram size using HV instead of direct link

[straube]

I think your system shouldn't take up so much room to show the strong NT. For example 1C-2C, 2H (or 2D) could show the balanced NT and then you leave responder more room to show pattern or ask for opener's strength or even stoppers. I hope you're playing MAFIA (responder always bids a major first) because it's a huge winner imo.

 

I'd like to have the ability as responder to show shortness, but I wouldn't bother to show a stiff ace or king here because it might make opener choose a club contract when has something like JTxx or Qxx in which case 3N has good chances.

 

So I voted mostly unlucky.

[1eyedjack]

I take your point, and with another partnership I did play next-step = the balanced hand.

It had it's downsides: I found that in practice on the vast majority of times that opener had that hand the contract ended up in 3N, sometimes wrong-sided.

[Bbradley62]

Your problem on this hand was not the bidding; over 70% (74 of 103) of EW pairs played 3NT, including many pairs playing 15-17 NT. Your problem was the play of the hand, as you were among the 44 of those 74 pairs going down while the other 30 pairs made.

 

In fact, you were given a clear chance to make the contract. Once South ducks two rounds of clubs, you are in a position to take the first 9 tricks (1♥, 2♦, 4♠ and 2♣). If you take this route, you get a good score for making your tricky game.

[straube]

Well, you could play...

 

1C-2C, 2H-2S as a puppet to 2N. This still gets you all the continuations after 2N plus 1C-2C, 2H-2N etc.

 

Btw, how do you distinguish 15-17 from 18-19?

 

Standard systems have a ridiculous amount of space over 1C. For example, you're pretty much saying that "all roads lead to 3N" after 1C-2C and I'd generally agree with that.

If one doesn't need the room, then that argues for making 1C something different. I like strong club partly for this reason...because I can really use the room for those hands.

[1eyedjack]

Your problem on this hand was not the bidding; over 70% (74 of 103) of EW pairs played 3NT, including many pairs playing 15-17 NT. Your problem was the play of the hand, as you were among the 44 of those 74 pairs going down while the other 30 pairs made.

 

In fact, you were given a clear chance to make the contract. Once South ducks two rounds of clubs, you are in a position to take the first 9 tricks (1♥, 2♦, 4♠ and 2♣). If you take this route, you get a good score for making your tricky game.

 

Your line works if the Spade finesse works and Spades break 3-3.

My line works if Hearts break 4-4 or are blocked.

I also go one less off in my line if the Spade finesse fails.

 

Your line may be better. I don't think that it is so much better as to justify your conclusion that "Your problem on this hand was not the bidding", given that 5C is just about a 100% cert, and indeed 6C is a cert if your suggested line of playing 3N works.

[Bbradley62]

Your line works if the Spade finesse works and Spades break 3-3.

My line works if Hearts break 4-4 or are blocked.

I also go one less off in my line if the Spade finesse fails.

 

Your line may be better. I don't think that it is so much better as to justify your conclusion that "Your problem on this hand was not the bidding", given that 5C is just about a 100% cert, and indeed 6C is a cert if your suggested line of playing 3N works.

I agree that the "cash out" line is low probability, and I didn't mean to imply that you did something horrible or even bad; it's just that your guess as to which line to take happened to not work. Maybe because I don't play in high-level events, but I would think that most players looking at the combined EW hands would want to play 3NT at MP, so it appears to me that you're trying to fix something that ain't broke.

[dake50]

Don't you make enough 3NT because you punted 3NT to not exasperate this one?

[mgoetze]

How are you people reading the hand diagram? It's so small that the spades don't fit into the hands for me.

[nigel_k]

I don't want to play 3NT at matchpoints but it isn't terrible as long as you have an uninformative auction.

 

Anyway if there is blame it must lie with East. If he wanted to investigate and avoid the bad 3NT he could have done so. Instead he decided to risk reaching a poor 3NT in order to keep opponents in the dark as to what to lead. That could have been right but not on this hand.

[1eyedjack]

How are you people reading the hand diagram? It's so small that the spades don't fit into the hands for me.

Seconded. I ask this question in the edit at the foot of the OP, but so far no mod has pitched in with a suggestion.

[Bbradley62]

How are you people reading the hand diagram? It's so small that the spades don't fit into the hands for me.

I changed the zoom level on my screen to 150% to read the diagram.

[mgoetze]

I changed the zoom level on my screen to 150% to read the diagram.

 

With my browser, that just makes everything bigger proportionally, so it is still ugly and I still can't see the spades.

[1eyedjack]

Changing the zoom does seem to work for me. But it is not what I would call a solution.

[Bbradley62]

With my browser, that just makes everything bigger proportionally, so it is still ugly and I still can't see the spades.

You should report this as a bug so the developers can look at it. They set up the thread "New Forums" under:

BBO Discussion Forums> Bridge-Related Discussion> General Bridge.

 

I don't know why it's there instead of under BBO-Related Discussion, but it is.

[lowerline]

[hv=myhand=M-14184619-1288517716]400|300[/hv]

 

Some context:

We were playing 5-5-4-2 style, 12-14 1NT opener, inverted minor raises.

Criticism of that basic method is NOT an option for the purposes of *this* poll. I am well aware that a lot of you would regard this context as non-optimal, and feel free to abstain from the poll if you feel that strongly.

 

That said, I would hope that you acknowledge that a similar problem could also arise after playing a strong NT opener when opener has a balanced hand outside the range (East presumably being correspondingly stronger). It might be a similar problem but would not be identical, because in our methods the 2N rebid has a wide but continuous range, whereas if you are playing a strong NT, the 2NT rebid may be NF or, if F, would have two (broken) ranges, and that could well have an impact on the continuations.

 

The main purpose of the poll is to investigate the optimum follow-up continuations after the 2C raise that you have been forced to play this way up to that point.

 

Any suggestions? Thanks.

[EDIT] OK, how do I make the hand large enough to read?

 

So the 2nt rebid shows a balanced hand of 15+ and makes the bidding GF... I think East should bid 3♣ now to show an unbalanced hand. West can then bid 3♠ to show where his strength is. IMHO East is to blame.

 

 

 

 

 

[Cyberyeti]

So the 2nt rebid shows a balanced hand of 15+ and makes the bidding GF... I think East should bid 3♣ now to show an unbalanced hand. West can then bid 3♠ to show where his strength is. IMHO East is to blame.

 

Agree 2N is GF and 3♣ is just auto.

 

We use 1♣-2♣-2♦ as an artificial enquiry, which makes these sequences a lot easier.

[awm]

I blame East. West showed a strong notrump, that's what he has. Yes, you could play 2♦ as some artificial inquiry here and it might be a little better, but I don't think that's the main issue.

 

More to the point, East showed a fairly balanced hand (okay, with clubs) and that's not what he has. He has a sixth club and a singleton heart. It's easy to imagine playing better in clubs opposite a strong notrump here... Look at the actual hand, opener is fairly minimum and has only three clubs, yet 6♣ makes and 3NT can be defeated! East should attempt to show his shape at the three-level (you have plenty of space, you're in a GF auction).

[dake50]

I don't like 2NT rushing to suggest stops

when I have HHx fit and maximal controls.

Try 2S. Now partner sees his 'perfecto'.

6C on SQ finesse -- close enough for me.

[inquiry]

West is of course faultless. He described his hand.

 

East is to blame, not the system. East has no reason to bid 3NT, as I assume 3♣ is forcing (if West;s 2NT showed extra values, it has to be).

 

 

BTW, if the bidding went 1C-2C-2N-3C-3S-3N, I would probably assign blame to system.

 

 

 

 

I have been toying with a reverse blummer like jump to 3 of a major after an inverted minor raise. This would show a balanced hand and nothing in the bid suit. This gives up on the splinter jump to a major, but there are other ways to show this. For instance, I play

 

1C-2C

2D <--- unbalanced min,

2H <-- balanced, usually minimum or at least want to play NT from other side of the table if played in NT

2S <-- five plus clubs, generally balanced

2NT <<-- balanced, forcing

3C <<-- unbalanced EXTRA VALUES, 3D ask for shortness

3H/3S <--- reverse blummer type bid, shows 3 or 4 card suit, no honor. This can lead to "right siding the contract" or avoiding problems. Or in this case, pushing hand towards club contract opposite shortness in responder hand.

 

Now, I have only tried this change in "theory", not in practice. My current system still uses 1C-2C-3H, and 4H as shortness showing, despite the raise to 3C shows unbalanced and extra values. It is this redundancy which made me investigate this change. I had forgotten about it until I saw your hand.