Bidding is 80% of bridge

[jogs]

In general the ninth trump is worth a full trick over the eighth trump. That means you bid four of a major with 25 HCP and 8 trumps. Bid four of a major with 22 HCP and 9 trumps. The tenth trump doesn't generate a full trick over the ninth trump as often. Bid four of a major with 19 HCP, 10 trumps provided someone holds a singleton. Need more points when both partners are 5332.

[Vampyr]

I dunno, if taking one trick more is massively important, then surely playing 1M-2♣-2♦-2M as my 3-card limit raise instead of 1M-3M is also massively important?

 

It's funny, many teachers in the UK teach that if you are playing 5-card majors, you only need 3 cards for a limit raise! But I would never wish to play a method that didn't distinguish between 3- and 4-card support in an invitational hand.

[jogs]

It's funny, many teachers in the UK teach that if you are playing 5-card majors, you only need 3 cards for a limit raise! But I would never wish to play a method that didn't distinguish between 3- and 4-card support in an invitational hand.

 

In the U.S. many if not most distinguish 3-card raises from 4-card raises. Use forcing NT then 3 of a major for a 3-card raise.

 

1M - 1NT

2m - 3M

 

Is a 3-card raise.

 

1M - 2NT

 

Is Jacoby 2NT and a 4+-card raise.

[Zelandakh]

The problem with your example, jogs, is that the first is an invitational raise and the second GF. But your point is valid that playing a FNT allows you to bundle more raises through it than, for example, SAYC. Another solution, as mgoetze puts forward, is to use 2C as a multi-purpose bid. Bocchi-Buboin (inter alia) played this. A third solution is to use the first step as a relay. Then 1H - 1S - 1NT/2C - 2H and 1S - 1NT - 2m - 2S can be 3 card INV raises.

[phil_20686]

many use jacoby for invitation+ raises. No reason not to with a sensible response structure.

 

the point about bidding is that is is pretty easy to get within a few % of optimal agreements if your judgement is sound. All these agreements and relays come up so rarely that it is difficult to have enough of them to really gain a lot vs another good pair. Sure if you compared WC players to your average joe then their bidding agreements help a lot, but mostly it is stuff like lebensohl in competition, or a sensible cue bid structure, or a good 1nt structure, andn these things are played by all reasonable tournament players. Experts have a greater depth of agreement but it is rare for any board to come up in a 24 board match where the in depth agreements of WC pairs substantially improve their equity vs strong tournament players.

[mgoetze]

The problem with your example, jogs, is that

 

he missed the point entirely. I was simply pointing out that being able to stop in 2M on certain invitational hands rather than 3M is almost as good as taking a trick more as declarer, not asking for bridge lessons.

[phil_20686]

he missed the point entirely. I was simply pointing out that being able to stop in 2M on certain invitational hands rather than 3M is almost as good as taking a trick more as declarer, not asking for bridge lessons.

 

sure, but my point was that taking a trick more in 3M is worth something every time you play in 3M, your bidding agreement only gains when we would have a specific sequence to 3M. :)

[jogs]

Zel, you're right. With 4-card support 10-11 HCP, not 4333, I generally manufacture a 2 level response, hopefully a 4-card suit, then jump to game. Only J2NT with 12+ HCP.

 

4=3=2=4 10 HCP

 

1♠ - 2♣, 2♦ - 4♠. Not inviting with these hands.

[mgoetze]

sure, but my point was that taking a trick more in 3M is worth something every time you play in 3M, your bidding agreement only gains when we would have a specific sequence to 3M. :)

 

That's not quite true, it also gains when opener is on the borderline of accepting or declining the invite and can now make a help suit try to decide, or when opener would like to make a slam try opposite the invite. But that kind of stuff doesn't count here, apparently. ;)

[han]

I was simply pointing out that being able to stop in 2M on certain invitational hands rather than 3M is almost as good as taking a trick more as declarer.

 

But this is a really bad point, it's not even close to being true.

 

I've played this gadget for several years, and yes, I do remember stopping in 2M with exactly 8 tricks, winning 4 or 5 IMPs. I recall one particular tournament where it happened, but maybe there were other times. I remember no succesful slam auctions or gametry auctions after this start, but maybe there were those too. I also remember a hand where the opponents were able to double our artificial 2D and we had a bad board because we did not have sufficient discussion of what to do afterwards.

 

Currently I no longer play this gadget, not because I worry about not having discussed the contested auctions, but because I believe that it gives up too much compared to the 2C response to 1M being 100% GF. But maybe I am wrong and this system of yours really is very good.

 

Even if this is true the advantage you gain from this system are very marginal. First of all, I would guess that the 3-card invite to a 1M comes up quite a bit less than once a session. But if my partner and I take 1 more trick than you do on every hand, then that's already 1 IMP per hand when you are in 2M and I'm in 3M and both contracts make. But if I am in 4M and make 10 tricks, our gain is really big. Surely there must on average be several hands per session where we have close games. The advantage you gain from having this great system of yours are insignificant to the IMPs I gain from playing the cards so much better than you.

 

In general I would say that the having-a-good-system factor is very small compared to the having-clear-agreements factor, which is still smaller than the being-good-bidders factor. I also believe that all of these bidding factors are still smaller than playing the cards well, but perhaps by less than some posters think.

 

As an aside, hearing your partnership described as "a tough pair, they play the cards so well" is a far greater compliment than hearing "a tough pair, they bid so well".

[mgoetze]

Even if this is true the advantage you gain from this system are very marginal. First of all, I would guess that the 3-card invite to a 1M comes up quite a bit less than once a session. But if my partner and I take 1 more trick than you do on every hand,

 

Sure, but you don't, do you? Sometimes there are simply 9 tricks there and no possible chances for an overtrick. I mean, let's say I were to play the cards as well as you do (I don't, of course), except that you will always recognize and correctly execute a double squeeze and I won't. That comes up much less often, I'm sure. So if I were already at that level, I might be better served by learning how to stop in 2M on invitational hands than by studying double squeezes.

[han]

That's not quite true, it also gains when opener is on the borderline of accepting or declining the invite and can now make a help suit try to decide.

 

I'd just like to point out that this is also far from clear. The more information you give on your auctions, and the more artificial bids you make that can be doubled, the better your opponents will lead and defend. Also, the clearer you make it that you are on the borderline of accepting or declining, the easier it becomes for them to double you when that's right, especially when declarer has shown a side suit. Auctions like 1S - 3S - 4S have a lot going for them.

[jogs]

I dunno, if taking one trick more is massively important, then surely playing 1M-2♣-2♦-2M as my 3-card limit raise instead of 1M-3M is also massively important?

 

There's no free lunch. This forces the pair to change the way to bid game forcing and slam interest hands. May lose a level of bidding to investigate slam.

[han]

Sure, but you don't, do you? Sometimes there are simply 9 tricks there and no possible chances for an overtrick. I mean, let's say I were to play the cards as well as you do (I don't, of course), except that you will always recognize and correctly execute a double squeeze and I won't. That comes up much less often, I'm sure. So if I were already at that level, I might be better served by learning how to stop in 2M on invitational hands than by studying double squeezes.

 

The situation you sketch is very hypothetical and has nothing to do with reality. As Justin has often written, the difference between good declarers and bad declarers is not that the good declarers make more double squeezes. Of course a strong declarer is more likely to recognize a double squeeze, but that's not where they make most of the difference.

 

Here is a humiliating example of a hand I played:

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46497-intermediate-advanced-play-problem/

 

I had this hand at the table and didn't play it correctly. Fortunately it wasn't matchpoints and I was not vulnerable, but I bet that Helgemo would virtually always get a problem like this right, no matter where he plays and how important the hand is. This is far from a double squeeze, but at an average session there must be 5-10 decisions of this level, maybe more (although most problems don't have an answer that's as clearly right as this one). The better declarers and defenders get them right more often, and that's worth a lot of points.

 

I don't have a very good idea fo your current level, but you seem like a prototypical example of a player who really should be studying card play instead of bidding systems.

[blackshoe]

If you use 2NT for inv+ raises, then you are not playing Jacoby.

 

Hardy raises:

 

1NT - may include 2 card simple preference, 3 card simple support too weak to raise to 2, a raise to 4M with a side A, or a 3 card limit raise with no side shortage.

2M - 5+ - 9-, 3 or 4 card support

2NT - 15+, 4 card support, GF, slam interest

3♣ - 4 card limit raise (9+ - 12-) with no side shortage, or 3 card limit raise with a side shortage (3♦ then asks about the shortage)

3under - 4 card "limit raise" with a side shortage — a splinter, GF. 3M asks for the location of the shortage.

3M - weak, 0-5-, 4 card support

3over - 4 card support, side shortage, 12+ - 15-, GF.

4♣ - balanced, 12+ - 15-, 4 trumps, at least two of the top three trump honors

4♦ - as 4♣, but not as good a trump suit.

4M - weak, 0-8, 4+ trumps, if 4, a side shortage. No side A.

 

Oh, with 3 card support and GF values, make a 2/1 response, and then bid the major.

[mgoetze]

I don't have a very good idea fo your current level, but you seem like a prototypical example of a player who really should be studying card play instead of bidding systems.

 

Well that at least we can agree on, on the assumption that my goal is to become a good bridge player. ;)

[han]

Fair enough.

[phil_20686]

If you use 2NT for inv+ raises, then you are not playing Jacoby.

 

lol. Not this again. IMO any 4 card value raise can be adequately described as "jacoby" or at least "jacobyesque", if the opponents want to know about all the possible responses they have to ask. NOrmally they only want to know whether or not it promises support for the major.

 

The world has moved on, since technically jacoby specifies a set of responses, and is not only GF, but 15+, and the responses specified are the worse possible in terms of getting useful information, no one actually plays jacoby. In my part of the world everyone understands jacoby to be a spade raise of some reasonable strength. If they care what the strength is they can ask. I doubt anyone who knows one end of the deck from another actually plays "jacoby" as originally specified.

[hrothgar]

lol. Not this again. IMO any 4 card value raise can be adequately described as "jacoby" or at least "jacobyesque", if the opponents want to know about all the possible responses they have to ask. NOrmally they only want to know whether or not it promises support for the major.

 

I describe all of my conventional bids as "Jacoby"

 

1N - 4♦ = Jacoby

 

1S - 4♥ = Jacoby

 

1S - 3S (Jacoby)

4♣- 4♦

4N = Jacoby

 

It's much easier on the memory and if folks want to understand the responses or indeed the meaning, all they need to do is ask...

 

What possible reason is there to pollute a perfectly good, accurate descriptive term like "Jacoby" ???

 

It's one thing if some yahoo doesn't know any better... (It screws things up, but at least it isn't deliberate)

But deliberately changing the meaning because you feel like it verges on the unethical...

[phil_20686]

It's one thing if some yahoo doesn't know any better... (It screws things up, but at least it isn't deliberate)

But deliberately changing the meaning because you feel like it verges on the unethical...

 

Jacoby is not well defined anyway. I hope when you describe it as Jacoby you remember to mention whether or not you play splinters, strong jump shifts, or if your style is to 2/1 with hands with 4 card support and a strong side suit, since if you do any of these things your bid does not show "4+ spades and a GF" it shows "a subset of the hand which have 4 card support and are GF". Further, I'm pretty sure you should whack in a specific limit there, since some people would GF on 11 HCP, whereas some will want a solid 13. And you should probably mention how light you open.

 

Obviously in reality there is a cut off as to what is really relevant. IMO, when it comes to defending, the material information is that it shows a fit for spades and a goodly number of points. Saying you bid with 9HCP as INV+ is not materially different from calling it a "GF" when you GF on grotty 11's with 4 card support which may in reality not be much different from good looking nines.

 

Certainly, if the only difference is in your responses, then it is materially identical to the defence to call it jacoby, as rho bids are not going to vary depending on what you can find out about each others hands. Thus calling it "jacoby" is certainly full disclosure.

 

Are you you seriously suggesting that "a subset of hands, all of which have 4s, all of which will be invitational strength or above, but not all such hands" is materially better disclosure than "jacoby"?

 

Besides, while you might claim that "jacoby" has a specific definition. No such convention names are recognised by the WBF. Furthermore, when it comes to language, usuage is king, and in EBU land invitational+ is actually more common than GF, and everyone calls it jacoby, and the inevitable follow up question is "which kind".

[kenberg]

I'll second the above view of brothgar although I regard it as so obvious I can't see why it is needed.

 

1♥ 2NT (alerted as Jacoby)

3♥ 4♥

Pass

 

What's up? If the opponents are playing the real Jacoby I suppose opener has quite a good hand and responder has the values for game but nothing extra. In variants, the opener's 3♥ bid is perhaps passable, and if so responder may have extras but not enough to contemplate slam opposite the passable 3♥. Quite a difference. Sure, I can ask. And if the auction goes 1NT-2♦-2♥3NT-pass, with 2♦ alerted as a transfer, I can also ask for further information to make sure that it wasn't a transfer to spades. Do we really want to have that as a standard procedure? The accurate use of words is a valued trait.

[blackshoe]

"Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty, in Alice in Wonderland

 

:rolleyes:

[nige1]

I describe all of my conventional bids as "Jacoby"

1N - 4♦ = Jacoby

1S - 4♥ = Jacoby

1S - 3S (Jacoby)

4♣- 4♦

4N = Jacoby

It's much easier on the memory and if folks want to understand the responses or indeed the meaning, all they need to do is ask... What possible reason is there to pollute a perfectly good, accurate descriptive term like "Jacoby" ??? It's one thing if some yahoo doesn't know any better... (It screws things up, but at least it isn't deliberate) But deliberately changing the meaning because you feel like it verges on the unethical...

I'll second the above view of brothgar although I regard it as so obvious I can't see why it is needed.

I think (I hope) that hrothgar has his tongue in his cheek again :)

[phil_20686]

I'll second the above view of brothgar although I regard it as so obvious I can't see why it is needed.

 

1♥ 2NT (alerted as Jacoby)

3♥ 4♥

Pass

 

What's up? If the opponents are playing the real Jacoby I suppose opener has quite a good hand and responder has the values for game but nothing extra. In variants, the opener's 3♥ bid is perhaps passable, and if so responder may have extras but not enough to contemplate slam opposite the passable 3♥. Quite a difference. Sure, I can ask. And if the auction goes 1NT-2♦-2♥3NT-pass, with 2♦ alerted as a transfer, I can also ask for further information to make sure that it wasn't a transfer to spades. Do we really want to have that as a standard procedure? The accurate use of words is a valued trait.

 

Well the WBF strongly discourages the use of any names on their cards. You should really describe the possible hands. 1N-2C = "staymanic" really describes almost any system that might at some point be able to find out about openers majors. Really we should not be accepting any convention names as explanations. When you do so you are really accepting that you only needed the most general information about the bid held. If you need information as specific as a point range you definitely should not accept the name of a convention as sufficient disclosure.

[phil_20686]

I'll second the above view of brothgar although I regard it as so obvious I can't see why it is needed.

 

1♥ 2NT (alerted as Jacoby)

3♥ 4♥

Pass

 

What's up? If the opponents are playing the real Jacoby I suppose opener has quite a good hand and responder has the values for game but nothing extra. In variants, the opener's 3♥ bid is perhaps passable, and if so responder may have extras but not enough to contemplate slam opposite the passable 3♥. Quite a difference. Sure, I can ask. And if the auction goes 1NT-2♦-2♥3NT-pass, with 2♦ alerted as a transfer, I can also ask for further information to make sure that it wasn't a transfer to spades. Do we really want to have that as a standard procedure? The accurate use of words is a valued trait.

 

Regardless of the version, 3H is alertable. If you did not ask you should not be surprised to find that it showed a club singleton. Methods along the lines of 3c=min 3d=bal non mind then shortage in steps are incredibly common. If you assumed that the "jacoby" alert fixed the meaning of 3H you are pretty absurd. At least one pair I know the 4H bid would be alertable too, if it were below 3N, since with a minimum balanced option they rebid 3N in case opener wants to investigate further. So 4H would be non-min bal with no concentration of values in a minor.