Bidding after 1H-1S

[bluecalm]

(these kinds of sims are often used to justify playing forcing 1NT

 

That is very weak argument for forcing 1NT. Main reason to play it to not miss 5-3, 6-3, 6-2 or 7-1/7-2 fits not only that 5-2 might be better than 1NT.

As to your point about 4-2-2-5 and 4-1-4-4, yeah that makes sense. Unfortunately calculations takes a lot of time if I want to calculate exact amount of tricks and to answer this question I would have to do at least 3 or 4 of them.

Just before I decide to devote more time to this question, do you believe playing 2♠ over 1NT on those (ie the ones which would pass natural 1NT) is a winner at MP's or do you think it's more or less a wash ?

[awm]

I believe that in general playing a style where we routinely play 4-3 major fits instead of 1NT when opener's hand is balanced (but never 4333) is a matchpoint winner. It seems obvious that the approach will do better when responder's hand is less balanced, although this is probably less important than suit quality in the 4-card holding.

 

At IMPs I'd expect 1NT to be slightly better, but I believe that "an imp a board where this comes up" is a big overstatement of the effect.

 

Basically my expectation is that 2M will make one more trick than 1NT most of the time, the same number of tricks a smaller fraction of the time, and a wildly different number of tricks quite rarely; something like 60-30-10 seems about right to me. At MP this makes 2M better (win 60-70% of the time); at IMPs of course the issue is that most of the wins for 2M are +1 IMP whereas some fraction of the losses (but clearly not all of them) are seven tricks in each contract which is lose 4 or 5.

[bluecalm]

I did quick simul: 4-2-(4-3), 4-1-4-4, 4-2-(5-2) shapes for responder, 3-5-(2-3) for opener.

2♠ makes 0.6 tricks more on average (while still making 10% less often). To calculate EV of one vs the other I would have to through all the frequencies and see. I am not going to work anymore on this. I think there might be something to what you are saying at matchpoints. It's interesting and increase variance which is also good.

[fromageGB]

1♥ 1♠

1n = 2533 or 4+♦

2♣ = clubs

2♦ = 3-card spade support

I like this. Adam's is too complex for me, and I think it important not to raise spades on 3, for the reasons Mike said. This still gives responder the 2♣ 4SF over the 1NT.

[bluecalm]

On side note, Italians pairs solved this with Gazilli and top precision pairs solved this with opening 1NT on 15-16hcp and 5M-3-3-2.

I much prefer both of those. What is the reason you want different solution to this problem ?

I can understand the desire to play in 4-3♠ at matchpoints but even if it's better than 1NT it won't make up for 4-3 minor fits instead of 1NT (plus if you really want to you can raise to 2♠ with 3♠ - 5♥ - (3-2) and 11-14hcp anyway).

[MickyB]

On side note, Italians pairs solved this with Gazilli and top precision pairs solved this with opening 1NT on 15-16hcp and 5M-3-3-2.

I much prefer both of those. What is the reason you want different solution to this problem ?

I can understand the desire to play in 4-3♠ at matchpoints but even if it's better than 1NT it won't make up for 4-3 minor fits instead of 1NT (plus if you really want to you can raise to 2♠ with 3♠ - 5♥ - (3-2) and 11-14hcp anyway).

 

This structure is massively better than Gazilli. You have more room on your strong hands, you can stop in 2C, you have more flexibility when you have diamonds and you have two ways of raising spades. All this for losing the option to rebid a natural 1NT the one time in twenty-five that you are dealt a 2533 weak NT.

[awm]

On side note, Italians pairs solved this with Gazilli and top precision pairs solved this with opening 1NT on 15-16hcp and 5M-3-3-2.

I much prefer both of those. What is the reason you want different solution to this problem ?

I can understand the desire to play in 4-3♠ at matchpoints but even if it's better than 1NT it won't make up for 4-3 minor fits instead of 1NT (plus if you really want to you can raise to 2♠ with 3♠ - 5♥ - (3-2) and 11-14hcp anyway).

 

You seem to be referring to different problems.

 

The main issue I'm concerned about is the specific natural auction 1♥-1♠-2♦, where it is very difficult for responder to force game in an informative way. This is the incentive behind having diamond hands rebid 1NT, which allows a cheap 4th suit bid to distinguish GF from invite hands. Yes, this causes slight problems when opener is 5332 (you don't have 1NT natural anymore) but 2/1 players seem to have given up on playing 1NT exactly after a 1M opening in a lot of other sequences (and it doesn't seem to lose them huge amounts of IMPs or MPs).

 

The secondary issue is the one solved by Gazilli. But the observation is that if I am going to play opener's 1NT rebid as artificial and forcing anyway (to deal with the problem of the natural 2♦ rebid), then perhaps it is better to use this 1NT bid as the Gazilli two-way bid rather than using the 2♣ rebid. This has the advantage of letting me play in two of either minor when it's minimum opposite minimum (i.e. getting rid of the main downside of Gazilli -- that you can't play in 2♣ any more).

[bluecalm]

All this for losing the option to rebid a natural 1NT the one time in twenty-five that you are dealt a 2533 weak NT.

it depends on the system. In precision 1♥ opener is 5-3-3-2, 11-14pc once every 3.8 or 26%.

In "standard" it's once in 4.47 or 22%. Nowhere close to what you are saying.

If we remove 5H-4S shapes (and 5-3-3-2, 15-16pc) it will be even higher (because with those it doesn't matter what's our agreement).

 

The main issue I'm concerned about is the specific natural auction 1♥-1♠-2♦, where it is very difficult for responder to force game in an informative way

 

Oh, I see. I forgot that it's a problem at all because in Poland everybody plays that 2NT is GF here which solves a lot of those problems. Also I like playing that 2♠ here is GF and natural 5+spades (Meckwell treatment) but it's probably only good in precision. So I usually have 3 games forcing bids here: 2♠, 2NT and 3♣. It was easy for me to forget that not being able to force to game comfortably could be a problem here ;)

 

e secondary issue is the one solved by Gazilli. But the observation is that if I am going to play opener's 1NT rebid as artificial and forcing anyway (to deal with the problem of the natural 2♦ rebid), then perhaps it is better to use this 1NT bid as the Gazilli two-way bid

 

With this I agree. I wouldn't want to give up natural 1NT ever in this sequence but if I am to do it for some reason then some kind of structure as you present seems to be very good.

[straube]

What do Meckwell rebid with 3-5-4-1 or 3-5-1-4? I've assumed the minor and not sure if that's right. We use 1H-1S, 2m/2H-2S as a GF asking bid (which also promises 5 spades) which is similar to what they do I think.

 

This idea of 1H-1S, 1N as diamonds seems to me to be a big win for standard, but less of a win for limited (10-15) openings. I'm thinking Adam will disagree with this because he applied something similar to his strong club system, but his 1H ranges 8-15 or so and that may be enough of a difference for it to matter a lot.

 

For the 10-15 range, I seemed to have a sudden abundance of room after 1H-1S, 1N and 1H-1S, 2C when I gave up 2C and 2D respectively for artificial bids of some kind. When I have too much room, I'm always wary that I've given up too much elsewhere to get it. What is 1H-1S, 2C-2D for Meckwell? I'm guessing it's to play (I remember their very old notes said 1S-1N, 2C-2D was to play and not BART) because their 2S bid is GF and how much need do they have for a second artificial bid? To show 6 spades GI at the 2-level I suppose or to differentiate light club raises from heavy club raises.

 

We frequently rebid 1N with 2-5-(42) as well as 5332s.

 

One side benefit to 1H-1S, 1N is that responder can now describe his shape. Let's say he has 5-1-4-3. He has room enough to show this and see if opener likes the mesh. If responder has raised spades with a 35(32) there isn't room to do this.

[MickyB]

it depends on the system. In precision 1♥ opener is 5-3-3-2, 11-14pc once every 3.8 or 26%.

In "standard" it's once in 4.47 or 22%. Nowhere close to what you are saying.

If we remove 5H-4S shapes (and 5-3-3-2, 15-16pc) it will be even higher (because with those it doesn't matter what's our agreement).

 

4% was referring to 2-5-3-3 precisely [as you seemed to be arguing that it was reasonable to play a natural 1NT rebid even if you chose to raise on 3-5-(32)]. Also, many 14s will get upgraded, and some 11s won't get opened.

 

Even so, your figures look too high to me, I get 11-14 5H(332) at 1.1% of total hands and 11-13 2533 as 0.3% of total hands. A conservative [11+] definition for a 1H opening gives 11-14 bal as one time in six, while rule-of-19 makes it less than one time in seven.

[straube]

4% was referring to 2-5-3-3 precisely [as you seemed to be arguing that it was reasonable to play a natural 1NT rebid even if you chose to raise on 3-5-(32)]. Even so, your figures look too high to me, I get 11-14 5H(332) at 1.1% of total hands and 11-13 2533 as 0.3% of total hands.

 

I think his figures were percentages of heart openers, not total hands.

[bluecalm]

What do Meckwell rebid with 3-5-4-1 or 3-5-1-4?

 

Always a minor.

 

What is 1H-1S, 2C-2D for Meckwell? I'm guessing it's to play (I remember their very old notes said 1S-1N, 2C-2D was to play and not BART)

 

I guess you are referring to 1H - 1NT - 2C - 2D ? Then I am pretty sure it's natural.

 

We play that 2NT is forcing if there is not 3rd or 4th suit below 2NT, so:

 

1H - 1S

2C - 2NT = invite

 

1D - 1S

2C - 2NT = invite

 

1H - 1S

2D - 2NT = forcing

 

1H - 1S

2H - 2NT = forcing

 

1D - 1S

2D - 2NT = invite

 

etc.

[wclass___]

Flannery <3

[straube]

Meckwell plays (I think) 1H-2S is six spades and less than GI so they always have a prepared 2S bid which is GF

 

I was wondering if then 1H-1S, 2C-2D was to play.

[olien]

So, if 5143 is such a problem after 1♥ - 1♠ // 2♣ (assuming that 2♠ is the game force), why not play 2♦ there shows exactly 5♠ and an invitational hand. Then the auction can proceed smoothly and can stop in 2M.

 

Just an idea

[bluecalm]

So, if 5143 is such a problem after 1♥ - 1♠ // 2♣ (assuming that 2♠ is the game force), why not play 2♦ there shows exactly 5♠ and an invitational hand. Then the auction can proceed smoothly and can stop in 2M.

 

Because it's useful to have natural 4th suit ? By "natural" I mean a hand which doesn't have 4th suit stopper. For example:

 

AKxx xx xxx AKxx

 

1H - 1S

2C - ???

 

You want to bid 2♦ here. You also want to bid it with Axx/Kxx of diamonds to make partner bid NT.

Also 2♠ is natural here, even if game forcing. Sometimes you don't get dealt 5+spades.

 

I was wondering if then 1H-1S, 2C-2D was to play.

Some hands where Meckwell bid 2D:

 

['VERSACE Al', 'RODWELL Er', 'LAURIA Lor', 'MECKSTROTH']

('4.AK843.543.AT92', 'AQ875.9.AT82.K85')

p 1H p 1S

p 2C p 2D

p 2H p 3N

p p p p

 

['Alan Sontag', 'Jeff Meckstroth', 'Peter Weichsel', 'Eric Rodwell']

('Q.J9843.AQ9.K762', 'AKJ73.7.JT52.AT5')

1H p 1S p

2C p 2D p

2N p 3N p

p p p p

 

['Rodwell', 'Branco', 'Meckstroth', 'Chagas']

('A7.J8743.2.AQ987', 'KQT9543.A.A.T542')

p 1H p 1S

p 2C p 2D

p 3C p 4C

p 4D p 4H

p 5D p 6C

p p p p

 

['Rodwell', 'Versace', 'Meckstroth', 'Lauria']

('K3.KQT73.A9.JT32', 'QT862.A5.62.AQ95')

1H p 1S p

2C p 2D p

2N p 3N p

p p p p

 

['Meckstroth', 'Eisenberg', 'Rodwell', 'Hayden']

('8.AJT87.K75.KQ97', 'AJ943.642.A2.AT4')

p 1H p 1S

p 2C p 2D

p 2N p 4H

p p p p

 

As to 2♠:

 

['Weinstein', 'Rodwell', 'Garner', 'Meckstroth']

('T5.AT976.AKQ7.T3', 'KQJ973.K83.4.AJ2')

p 1H p 1S

p 2D p 2S

p 2N p 3H

p 3S p 4H

p 4S p p

p

 

['Meckstroth', 'Stansby', 'Rodwell', 'Martel']

('Q7.KQJ32.KQJT9.3', 'AJT98653.5.A.T92')

1H p 1S p

2D p 2S p

3C p 3S p

4C d p p

r p 4D p

4H p 4N p

5C p 5H p

6C p 6S p

p p

 

['Meckstroth', 'Westerhof', 'Rodwell', 'Jansen']

('K72.A9743.AKJ6.2', 'AT9863.Q2.Q4.KQ5')

p 1H p 1S

p 2D p 2S

p 3S p 4D

p 4H p 4S

p p p

 

So it's forcing and probably 6+ spades.

[straube]

I would think with AKxx xx xxx AKxx that they'd start with 2C.

 

All of your examples of 1H-1S, 2C-2D sequences show responder having 5 or more spades. I'm guessing that...

 

1H-1S, 2C-2D is GF and consequently promises a 5th spade (with only 4 they make a 2/1 first).

 

1H-1S, 2C-2S is GI with six spades

 

1H-1S, 2D-2S is GF and consequently promises a 5th spade.

[bluecalm]

Yeah, probably. Unfortunately vugraph archives has only so much of Meckwell hands and we will not know unless they play more :-)

[Siegmund]

Just out of curiosity... the forum has refused 3 days in a row to let me download the attachment at the head of this thread - in both IE and Firefo - but the number of downloads keeps increasing. Is it just me? Is the document available anywhere else?

[glen]

Just out of curiosity... the forum has refused 3 days in a row to let me download the attachment at the head of this thread - in both IE and Firefo - but the number of downloads keeps increasing. Is it just me? Is the document available anywhere else?

I don't get a refused message, I get "We could not find the attachment you were attempting to view."

[awm]

Part of why I posted the attachment was to see if that functionality works on the new forums. Seems a bit iffy.

 

Anyway, the same file is available from my website.