Precision 2D question

[dcohio]

We use 2D as 11-15, short diamonds, can be (34)15 or 4405.

 

2 level bids are to play, 2NT asks

 

Our asking bids are as follows:

 

2NT: asks

-->3C: any minimum

----->3D: asks

------------>3H: 3 card hearts

------------>3S: 3 card spades

------------>3NT: 44 majors

-->3D: 4414 max

-->3H: 4315 max

-->3S: 3415 max

-->3NT 4414 max stiff A/K

-->4C: 4405 max

 

we had a problem hand arise the other day. I opened 2D with 11 on a 4315 pattern. Partner bid 2H to play. Partner had:

 

742

J5x

Axxx

953

 

Is it right to pull 2H to 2S with 4315 and then partner knows my pattern and can place the contract in a better spot?

 

Also, are there better responses to 2NT than what we use?

[bluecalm]

-->3NT 4414 max stiff A/K

 

Probably better to open this 1d and then 3NT is 4-4-0-5 min which is missing from you structure (and 4C is 4-4-0-5 max as just it was)

 

Is it right to pull 2H to 2S with 4315 and then partner knows my pattern and can place the contract in a better spot?

 

Yes, standard is to pull to 2S with 4-3-1-5 every time.

[straube]

I think I've seen...

 

2H

.....2S-4315

2N

.....3C-weak

..........3D-asks

...............3H-3415

...............3S-4315

...............3N-4414

...............4C-4405

.....3D-strong, 3415

.....3H-strong, 4315

.....3S-strong, 4414

.....3N-strong, 4414 diamond honor

.....4C-strong, 4405

[wclass___]

More input:

The question arises of whether opener should take account of this by bidding

again, say with 4=3=1=5 shape, in hopes of improving the contract. My opinion is

no. Responder usually will have three hearts only with specifically 2=3=5=3 or

3=3=5=2 shape (with six diamonds he can pass 2D, and with four clubs he can bid

3C; he can also bid 3C with 2=3=5=3 if he judges it best). As against those

possibilities, consider the hugely greater number of possible shapes with which he

will bid 2H with four or more hearts. The usual effect of bidding again will be an

irritated 3H bid by partner. Best to stay put.

Really, the only reason to bid again is to cater to a possible game. It is certainly true

that the 4=4=0=5 shape has significantly greater playing strength than the others,

and you may miss a game if partner has a good fit for a major. A partial solution to

this problem is to open 1C with that shape and a good 15 count (valuing the fivecard

club suit as worth an extra point, and the void as worth something also).

 

Says nothing about 3=3=4=3...., but i think 3♣ by responder is fine. Opener will have 5♣ most of the time.

[WellSpyder]

... the 4=4=0=5 shape has significantly greater playing strength than the others,

and you may miss a game if partner has a good fit for a major. A partial solution to

this problem is to open 1C with that shape and a good 15 count (valuing the fivecard

club suit as worth an extra point, and the void as worth something also)...

Don't do this in England, though, or the TD will penalise you for playing an illegal agreement!

[Free]

First of all, always pull with 4=3=1=5 after 2♦-2♥. This avoids playing 3-3 fits and is usually a winner.

 

After 2♦-2NT I like to play:

3♣ = any min

...3♦ = relay

......3M = 3M

......3NT = 4-4M (4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5)

3♦ = max 4=4=1=4

3M = max 3M

3NT = max 4=4=0=5

 

This way you always stay below 3NT. Imo it's a small disadvantage not to be able to show a difference between minimum 4414 and minimum 4405, but it lets you set all suits as trumps very easily:

4♣ = sets ♣ (you can use this as minorwood if you like)

4♦ = RKC ♥

4M = signoff

4NT = RKC ♠

If you split the 2 hands up and use 4♣ to show a 4405, then you can't set ♣ that easily.

[chasetb]

The 3343 hand signing off should always bid 3♣. Doing some rough math, 61% of the time you can expect partner to have 5♣, resulting in an 8-card fit; 100% of the time you will have a 7-card fit. 72% of the time, partner will have 4♥ or 4♠; that still leaves a 28% chance of a 6-card fit. I don't pull 4315 hands from the 2♥ sign-off unless I have a Maximum, because usually partner will have 4 Hearts, and the opponents will know the exact distributions (assuming they are decent players and Opener declares 2♠, which I suspect is likely).

[SteelWheel]

Last time I had a peek at the Berkowitz/Cohen agreements (about 10 years ago now, I guess), both they and Meckwell had concluded that leaving in a 2 ♥ call with only 3-card support in this situation was a loser. Their systems both called for opener to pull with only three hearts. Supposedly, it was based on some BOREL simulations that Meckstroth had done. My pards and I adopted this as well. Figured if it was good enough for Meckwell, Berk/Cohen, and BOREL, it was good enough for us.

[Free]

The 3343 hand signing off should always bid 3♣. Doing some rough math, 61% of the time you can expect partner to have 5♣, resulting in an 8-card fit; 100% of the time you will have a 7-card fit. 72% of the time, partner will have 4♥ or 4♠; that still leaves a 28% chance of a 6-card fit. I don't pull 4315 hands from the 2♥ sign-off unless I have a Maximum, because usually partner will have 4 Hearts, and the opponents will know the exact distributions (assuming they are decent players and Opener declares 2♠, which I suspect is likely).

There's also such thing as 3334/2344 (weak enough that you don't want to play at 3-level), 3352, 2353 and 3361 with poor ♦s (which you won't pass). Pulling will be a winner in any case where your Majors are equal in length and in any case where you have only 3♥s.

On the other side, it will be a loser if you have all of the following:

- a good 4 card ♥

- less than 4♠s (except if you have a shortness and 3♠-4♥, then it won't matter much).

- less than 3♣

Compared to the many cases where you gain, it's imo clear that pulling is much much better.

[JLOGIC]

Definitely pull with 4315.

[benlessard]

I didnt think it was right to pull but with further counting i do now.

[chasetb]

There's also such thing as 3334/2344 (weak enough that you don't want to play at 3-level), 3352, 2353 and 3361 with poor ♦s (which you won't pass). Pulling will be a winner in any case where your Majors are equal in length and in any case where you have only 3♥s.

On the other side, it will be a loser if you have all of the following:

- a good 4 card ♥

- less than 4♠s (except if you have a shortness and 3♠-4♥, then it won't matter much).

- less than 3♣

On average, 8-card fits earn 1.5 more tricks than 7-card fits, and 9-card fits earn a little over 1 more trick than 8-card fits. The math says you are losing when you don't bid 3♣ with a guaranteed 8-card fit and a possible 9-card fit than a 7-card fit at most. Even if you don't believe me, in the 4-3 fit (your first two distributions) the 2♦ opener is going to get tapped of trump. The 3361 is interesting - 95% of the time partner will have 1♦ for you. I'm still afraid that the 2♦ opener could get tapped of trump, but as I have never had a 3361 with poor Diamonds, I don't have any evidence to prove or disprove you.

 

In Precision Today, they state that you should pull all 4315 hands from 2♥, because 'on frequency' it's correct; however, they don't differentiate between Max hands and min hands. I posted earlier that I always pull with a Maximum. The reasoning is that you left out most weak hands with 5 Hearts, and all 6♥332 and 3631 hands that can't/won't preempt in Hearts when you talk about losing when not pulling 2♥. You can avoid the 3-3 fits, and have the little extra needed to make a 3-level contract when Opener's partner has to bid 3♣ or 3♥ by pulling with all Maximum 4315 hands. As a quick aside, it can't be all that bad to pass sometimes and have a 3-3 fit, as systems that open 2♥ to show our 2♦ openers will end up the same place.

 

Compared to the many cases where you gain, it's imo clear that pulling is much much better if a Maximum.

I agree with your statement now. As you can tell, I fully disagree with pulling if a minimum hand, because of the possibility of making the contract worse, and of being very unlikely to get X'ed. I do ask that somebody simulate min 4315 hands when partner bids 2♥ to sign-off, and see what happens. I also ask that somebody sim 3361 hands with a weak Diamond suit opposite min 4315 hands, then sim the same 3361 hands opposite Max 4315 hands. I'm thinking that by weak suit, it should be all hands with J as the top card, most with Q as the top card, and a few with A or K if poor intermediates. Minimum hands are all 11-12 HCP hands, and 13 HCP hands with J/Q♦, and/or 0-2 controls (don't count the singleton). If the hand is borderline, look at the quality of the Club suit and decide.

 

***As a side note, John Montgomery, the author of The Revision Club System, 4th Edition (for those not familiar, it's essentially Meckwell Light taken to it's natural conclusion of 1♦ being the only positive and other bids some sort of negative). It's a pretty good write-up, and in his 2♦ Opening he is against pulling 2♥ by Responder. Because of his system but not being able to deny/disregard the statement in Precision Today, I came up with my compromise.

[gnasher]

On average, 8-card fits earn 1.5 more tricks than 7-card fits, and 9-card fits earn a little over 1 more trick than 8-card fits.

Where did these figures come from?