deciding whether to show shape

[straube]

My hand

 

AKJ8

J

K8752

QT6

 

Partner opens an artificial 1D and rebids 1N after my 1S. We play MAFIA.

 

We have this gadget that allows me to show 4 spades, 1 heart and 5+ diamonds. We require a slightly better hand than this to show pattern. Why?

 

A. Partner shows 11-13. If there is a game it is likely in 3N.

B. Lets not tip the opponents off to the best lead. Rarely but occasionally they won't lead a heart.

C. When we promise a bit more, partner is likely not going to be scared with Kxx of hearts and bid 4m when we can take the first 9 tricks in 3N. He will choose better.

D. We've reserved 4m for slam tries.

E. When partner has a perfecta, he is allowed to bid 6m knowing that I have a bit more.

 

So a heart is lead. Partner has...

 

T2

Q87

AQJ63

AJ8

 

Our 1N is 14-16 and perhaps he miscounted. My hand is strong enough that by agreement I can show shape over this bid. So our downfall is partly partner's opening.

 

However, I've always had doubts about this self-imposed restriction to only show shape with a bit more. Typically we require a 6-loser hand opposite a 14-16 NT and a 5-loser hand opposite an 11-13 NT.

Is this a bad agreement? Should we be willing to play 4m when 3N looks bad? Should we misdirect partner into 4m when 3N would have made on power?

[dake50]

If playing MAFIA, doesn't showing the minor first claim a stronger hand?

IE. does 2D first then 2S shows 14+, so 1S then 2D less than 14.

(esp if some GF artificial was available but wasn't chosen).

[the hog]

Dake, the op plays MAFIA, so the minor is NEVER shown first, regardless of strength. You are thinking of Walsh responses.

Straube, many years of playing Moscito have convinced me that your C, D and E points are not correct. Relay the hand out. In this instance, your partner was to blame of course

[bluecalm]

I agree with the hog here.

Depending of the system you may just describe your shape exactly as it is or bid something which is 5+d, 4S and then partner will bid 3NT with H/C stopped or ask for stopper in on of those if he needs it. W/e you have in your system I think it's worthwhile to use it especially if the shortness is in the major suit.

[dake50]

"Dake, the op plays MAFIA, so the minor is NEVER shown first, regardless of strength."

-- the hog

.

So 1D then 2S doesn't exist? Or is that the artificial GF, I alluded to?

.

But, you are right I had always assumed MAFIA was an opening bid scheme.

It awakens me to RESPONSES may also MAFIA.

I'M acronyming MAjors FIrst Openings: 'MAFIO' not MA FI Always.

[bluecalm]

So 1D then 2S doesn't exist? Or is that the artificial GF, I alluded to?

 

It is usually played as natural.

For example:

 

1D - 2C

2D - 2S = KQx xxx Qx AQxxx

 

This is very handy because usually those 3rd suit bids are either values or natural and it's difficult construct coherent system after those.

The problem with MAFIA is that you may face awkwars situation when opener jumps. This is why this approach sucks for standard system where jumps are both frequent and made with no exceptional shape (like 5-4). In precision which I assume Straube plays the jumps are usually made only with 6-5 or 7+carders so MAFIA is much safer/better.

[straube]

It is usually played as natural.

For example:

 

1D - 2C

2D - 2S = KQx xxx Qx AQxxx

 

This is very handy because usually those 3rd suit bids are either values or natural and it's difficult construct coherent system after those.

The problem with MAFIA is that you may face awkwars situation when opener jumps. This is why this approach sucks for standard system where jumps are both frequent and made with no exceptional shape (like 5-4). In precision which I assume Straube plays the jumps are usually made only with 6-5 or 7+carders so MAFIA is much safer/better.

 

That's about right. We play a strong club so opener seldom jumps without a fit for responder's major. Playing MAFIA we have a much better chance of relaying for opener's shape (when he doesn't rebid 1N) or relaying for responder's shape (when opener does rebid 1N).

 

So say opener rebids 1N and responder patterns out and opener bids 4m. Is that 1) afraid of 3N and 2) afraid of 5m?

[akhare]

Nitpicking on point miscount in a specific hand detracts from the actual discussion -- remove JC from partner's hand if it's that important.

 

The main question here is whether responder should show shape with GF values without necessarily promising extras.

 

I think that the answer should be yes because:

 

1) Opener only has 11-13 balanced and the danger forcing to slam is exagerated and if so, we might make it anyway

2) While it may tip off the opps, it's probably what they would have lead anyway

3) The tipoff may actually result in a better lead for our side in 3N

4) We may actually find the better minor game

[straube]

Nitpicking on point miscount in a specific hand detracts from the actual discussion -- remove JC from partner's hand if it's that important.

 

The main question here is whether responder should show shape with GF values without necessarily promising extras.

 

I think that the answer should be yes because:

 

1) Opener only has 11-13 balanced and the danger forcing to slam is exagerated and if so, we might make it anyway

2) While it may tip off the opps, it's probably what they would have lead anyway

3) The tipoff may actually result in a better lead for our side in 3N

4) We may actually find the better minor game

 

I agree about the nitpicking. I'm thinking we need to show shape, too. Maybe that leads to 4m sometimes as the final contract.

[the hog]

"Dake, the op plays MAFIA, so the minor is NEVER shown first, regardless of strength."

-- the hog

.

So 1D then 2S doesn't exist? Or is that the artificial GF, I alluded to?

.

But, you are right I had always assumed MAFIA was an opening bid scheme.

It awakens me to RESPONSES may also MAFIA.

I'M acronyming MAjors FIrst Openings: 'MAFIO' not MA FI Always.

 

It certainly isn't an opening bid scheme.

A MAFIA player opens normally. I have seen the acronym as MAjors First In Answering.