Rebid problem

[gnasher]

Big club methods, for example, handle these hands very well. They carry baggage of course, else all top pairs would play big club rather than a substantial minority as is the case.

 

No method handles all hands well. 2/1 doesn't handle this one well.

I don't think this problem is caused by playing 2/1. The problem is with not playing any methods after 1♠-1NT.

[kenrexford]

I don't think this problem is caused by playing 2/1. The problem is with not playing any methods after 1♠-1NT.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[mikeh]

I don't think this problem is caused by playing 2/1. The problem is with not playing any methods after 1♠-1NT.

I think you are being too pedantic. Of course one may use gadgets in any method, but the vast majority of players who play 2/1 don't play a gadget here that would work. For example, many 2/1 players have bart available in auctions that start 1S 1N, but that doesn't help with the OP hand.

 

I now regret not writing:

 

'When I refer to 2/1 as a method, I intend only to refer to 2/1 as played and understood by the vast majority of players familiar with 2/1....that form of 2/1 doesn't handle this hand type well. When I suggest that you change your methods, and mention big club as an example, I do not mean to suggest that it is impossible to modify the approach almost universally known as 2/1 so as to handle it. While others have mentioned Gazilli, unless I expressly mention it here, someone is going to nitpick'

 

Heck, there I was, trying to be a little less discursive than normal, and I get criticized for not being sufficiently specific. It's a tough world here on the forums :P

[lamford]

I would bid 3H as partner will pass 2H with something like ♠x ♥10xx ♦AKxx ♣xxxxx when game is very good. What methods would help on this hand? I think it is hugely different that you have ♠A10xxx and ♥KQJxx rather than ♠KQJxx and ♥A10xxx. Partner will not be 3-1 in the majors but he might well be 1-3.

[rhm]

I would bid 3H as partner will pass 2H with something like ♠x ♥10xx ♦AKxx ♣xxxx when game is very good. What methods would help on this hand? I think it is hugely different that you have ♠A10xxx and ♥KQJxx rather than ♠KQJxx and ♥A10xxx. Partner will not be 3-1 in the majors but he might well be 1-3.

 

Of course you will only make "a few" games other will miss routinely :P

 

And your partners will not have to make courtesy raises, going down in 3♥ when 2♥ was the limit for no good reason.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

Of course you will only make "a few" games other will miss routinely :P

 

And your partners will not have to make courtesy raises, going down in 3♥ when 2♥ was the limit for no good reason.

 

Rainer Herrmann

We should have a game some time. You and I seemed to be the only people to agree on a "Hesitation Exclusion Blackwood" ruling a while ago - the one with screens.

[Finch]

I think 2H is completely obvious, and anything else just asking to get too high.

 

p.s there are gadgets other than Gazilli, of course, and I play some of them, so with one partner I can bid 3H showing a 5-5 invite, and with the other I can bid 2H, constructive (about 14-17). But if the options are (i) game force or (ii) bid 2H, the latter is clear.

[Finch]

I only need ♥Axx ♠xx across for a shot at game, what are you guys doing with 2♥?

 

For me it is even bete since 3♥ shows 5-5

 

well, that needs spades 3-3, I don't mind missing that game.

 

The 3H bidders are all focussed on partner's perfect 3-card heart holding opposite. They seem to be missing two things:

(i) sometimes partner doesn't have 3- or 4-card heart support, and you will go off in 3NT

(ii) if you bid 3H, that shows 5-4 majors game forcing. What are you going to do if partner bids 3NT over it? If partner bids 3S?

 

Let's give partner a couple of possible hands:

 

Kx

x

KJ10xx

QJ10x

 

now 3NT is obviously the right spot and he'll bid it over 3H

 

but with

 

xx

Axx

Jxxx

Qxxx

 

he'll bid 3NT over 3H on this as well, and if I have to play in game (which I'm happy not to do) then 4H is much better.

[lamford]

Kx

x

KJ10xx

QJ10x

 

now 3NT is obviously the right spot and he'll bid it over 3H

That hand has only 12 cards. But you make a good point that 3H may well lead to the wrong game.

[cherdano]

I think you are being too pedantic. Of course one may use gadgets in any method, but the vast majority of players who play 2/1 don't play a gadget here that would work. For example, many 2/1 players have bart available in auctions that start 1S 1N, but that doesn't help with the OP hand.

 

I think you two are having a European-versus-North American disconnect here. I am pretty sure that among 2/1 players outside of North America, Gazzilli and variants of it are much more common than, for example, Bart.

[lamford]

Pass.

A bit eccentric with 5-5.

[Finch]

Yes, I am better off bidding 2♥ if the hand is a total misfit and partner is not maximum for his 1NT response.

 

And let's not forget there are hands where the aim is not to reach 4♥ but 6♥, partner having something like ♠x, ♥Axxx, ♦KJTxx, ♣xxx .

 

You are better off bidding 2♥ every time partner is maximum, because you can find the right game.

Also, you are far more likely to get to slam opposite x Axxx KJ10xx xxx after rebidding 2H than after rebidding 3H (1S-1NT-2H-4D is extremely descriptive, after 1S-1NT-3H good luck working out when slam is good and when it isn't)

 

The times you are better off bidding 3♥ are when partner is about to pass 2♥, which is when he has a very suitable minimum.

[rhm]

I would bid 3H as partner will pass 2H with something like ♠x ♥10xx ♦AKxx ♣xxxx when game is very good. What methods would help on this hand? I think it is hugely different that you have ♠A10xxx and ♥KQJxx rather than ♠KQJxx and ♥A10xxx. Partner will not be 3-1 in the majors but he might well be 1-3.

 

Of course you will only make "a few" games other will miss routinely :P

 

And your partners will not have to make courtesy raises, going down in 3♥ when 2♥ was the limit for no good reason.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

You are better off bidding 2♥ every time partner is maximum, because you can find the right game.

Also, you are far more likely to get to slam opposite x Axxx KJ10xx xxx after rebidding 2H than after rebidding 3H (1S-1NT-2H-4D is extremely descriptive, after 1S-1NT-3H good luck working out when slam is good and when it isn't)

 

The times you are better off bidding 3♥ are when partner is about to pass 2♥, which is when he has a very suitable minimum.

A remarkable logic. You may find slams with the same hand when your partner shows a weak hand by bidding 2♥ only and miss slams (or games) when your partner takes away valuable bidding space to show a much stronger hand.

Strange though it may sound, my experience suggests otherwise.

We lesser mortals have to take all our courage to raise 2♥ with x Axxx KJ10xx xxx and many would simply pass 2♥ at the table I am sure.

But if the bidding starts 1S-1NT-3H I would in deed bid 4D with the above hand.

The bidding might then continue, 5D-5H-6H

 

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

We lesser mortals have to take all our courage to raise 2♥ with x Axxx KJ10xx xxx and many would simply pass 2♥ at the table I am sure.

 

But this is posted in the A/E forum, so I hope we are allowed to assume partner is not an idiot.

[lamford]

But this is posted in the A/E forum, so I hope we are allowed to assume partner is not an idiot.

I agree that partner will always raise 2H with four, and I think the problem hands are when partner is 1-3 in the majors. He will almost always put the dummy down in 2H, but a simulation suggests this is completely wrong. The assumptions are as follows:

 

Partner: 6-9 points; 1-3-?-?; Play by both sides double dummy, which if anything favours the defence on this type of hand, where leading trumps or not leading trumps could be critical.

 

The results: 4H makes 58.7% of the time; 3NT would make 24.9% of the time.

 

This does not mean that 3H is beter than 2H, but it does alert us to the real risk of missing a good game.

[gnasher]

6-9 points doesn't sound quite right - it's not 1965 any more.

 

With that shape I think a range of 5-10 is closer to reality. I expect that will make the odds of game a bit better.

[rhm]

But this is posted in the A/E forum, so I hope we are allowed to assume partner is not an idiot.

 

Why is partner an idiot if he passes 2♥?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skj432hq432d2caj2&n=s5ha765dkjt43c543&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1sp1np2hp]266|200[/hv]

 

I would find 2♥ quite a challenging contract already.

A 4♦ bid looks to me a bit absurd.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

6-9 points doesn't sound quite right - it's not 1965 any more.

 

With that shape I think a range of 5-10 is closer to reality. I expect that will make the odds of game a bit better.

It did. Under the same terms, I had 65.8% for 4H making, and 31.0% for 3NT by partner. Interestingly there were 5.2% of making slams in hearts, which will be played in 2H!

[mikeh]

I agree that partner will always raise 2H with four, and I think the problem hands are when partner is 1-3 in the majors. He will almost always put the dummy down in 2H, but a simulation suggests this is completely wrong. The assumptions are as follows:

 

Partner: 6-9 points; 1-3-?-?; Play by both sides double dummy, which if anything favours the defence on this type of hand, where leading trumps or not leading trumps could be critical.

 

The results: 4H makes 58.7% of the time; 3NT would make 24.9% of the time.

 

This does not mean that 3H is beter than 2H, but it does alert us to the real risk of missing a good game.

 

If the idea of the simulation is to show that on a specified subset of hands on which partner passes 2♥, we ought to have bid 3♥, then fine, but essentially of marginal relevance at best to the question of the best rebid as opener.

 

Everyone who says 2♥ is right recognizes that they will miss some games. Nobody needs a simulation to prove that. I suspect that, as with me, their concerns are not only about missing some games, but also about the far more common scenario in which a gf 3♥ gets us to a silly contract. Even at imps, vulnerable, there is a point where accumulating many minuses for every plus makes overbidding uneconomic.

 

A simulation, to be of assistance, should constrain the responding hand such that it would pass 2♥.

 

Then we try to determine which games we would reach on those hands after the gf 3♥, and see how we do.

 

It won't be easy, since double dummy solutions don't help with figuring out, on borderline hands, how the auction would go, nor when the opps might be able to start doubling.

 

I wouldn't agree with your constraints, by the way. As Andy pointed out, a lot of players don't need 6 points....I rarely, if ever, pass with an Ace and most 5 counts will get me bidding. And on a weak hand, I won't raise 2♥ even with 4 card support, and other posts here show that that is not an unusual approach....nor should it be....it is absurd to play that one must always raise with 4 cards....it deprives the raise of any real meaning. What do we do with an invite? Jump to game????? And before anyone says that one should stretch, I agree....but there will always be hands that don't warrant 4♥ and do warrant a try....forcing us to raise on all 4 card support makes opener's choice a crapshoot.

[benlessard]

I think 2H is clear and its not too tough to see why.

 

Most hands with 4H will raise to 3H. To pass 2H with

 

x

Axxx

KJxxx

xxx

 

is a joke, If you play 2H making 6 that its because you dont know what a courtesy raise is. Of course making courtesy raise will lead to 3H going down while 2H is the limit but often they can compete to 3m anyway, if your going down in 3H in a 4/4 fit often they make 3m and can bit it anyway.

 

Most 23?? will also bid 2S, over wich its going to be easy to play 3H/4H accordingly, if it goes 1S--3H--responder will often bid 3NT rather than the correct 4H, if the contract is between 4H/3NT or between 3H/4H bidding 2H will turn out much better (this is different if you play some gadget allowing 3H to show 5-5). Like Frances said some slam are even easier to bid after 1S--1nt--2H than after 1S--NT--3H (but its rare so i wouldnt worry about it) If partner has 23?? garbage He should pass 2H hoping that the 43 will play as good as the 52 fit, with those hand its much better than to play 2H than any games.

 

So IMO the only case in favor of 3H is medium hands 13?? or 03?? wich are very narrow in frequency compared to the others cases. Lamford is right in saying that with Axxxx and good KQxxx will overbid more than with KQxxx and Axxxx since 13 is possible but not 31. If responder has 13?? and a range of 5-11 for the 1Nt, I expect responder to bid 2NT or making a 3 card raise with 10-11. With 5/6 game doesnt rate to be good. So only 7-9 pts 13 where game is going to be 55%-58% are a problem.

[rhm]

I think 2H is clear and its not too tough to see why.

 

Most hands with 4H will raise to 3H. To pass 2H with

 

x

Axxx

KJxxx

xxx

 

is a joke, If you play 2H making 6 that its because you dont know what a courtesy raise is. Of course making courtesy raise will lead to 3H going down while 2H is the limit but often they can compete to 3m anyway, if your going down in 3H in a 4/4 fit often they make 3m and can bit it anyway.

 

Most 23?? will also bid 2S, over wich its going to be easy to play 3H/4H accordingly, if it goes 1S--3H--responder will often bid 3NT rather than the correct 4H, if the contract is between 4H/3NT or between 3H/4H bidding 2H will turn out much better (this is different if you play some gadget allowing 3H to show 5-5). Like Frances said some slam are even easier to bid after 1S--1nt--2H than after 1S--NT--3H (but its rare so i wouldnt worry about it) If partner has 23?? garbage He should pass 2H hoping that the 43 will play as good as the 52 fit, with those hand its much better than to play 2H than any games.

 

So IMO the only case in favor of 3H is medium hands 13?? or 03?? wich are very narrow in frequency compared to the others cases. Lamford is right in saying that with Axxxx and good KQxxx will overbid more than with KQxxx and Axxxx since 13 is possible but not 31. If responder has 13?? and a range of 5-11 for the 1Nt, I expect responder to bid 2NT or making a 3 card raise with 10-11. With 5/6 game doesnt rate to be good. So only 7-9 pts 13 where game is going to be 55%-58% are a problem.

 

All these arguments sound shallow to me.

On frequency grounds alone if the bidding starts 1S-1NT-2H opener will be 5-4 in the majors most of the time, simply because 5-4 distributions are much more common than 5-5 (or more extreme distributions).

The same holds true for opener's strength. He is much more likely to hold a minimum opening than having extras, simply because hands in the range 11-13 HCP are also more frequent than 14-16 HCP, in particular when opener has an unbalanced distribution.

The danger of making courtesy raises, is not only that you will often go down in 3♥ with nothing on for opponents (what contract are they suppose to bid and make past 2♥?), responder will also have to raise to game if he is stronger, since opener has no way of differentiating real invites from courtesy raises, and now you will go down in 4♥ when opener would have rejected a stronger invite and would have made 3♥. Sometimes 4♥ will get doubled.

 

You are simply overbidding most of the time whenever you hold 4 hearts for fear of missing game.

 

Now let us look at responders distributions if he has less than 4 hearts. Responder is clearly not likely to have spade support. He will hold 0-2 spades most of the time. So why are medium hands with 13 or 03 very narrow in frequency compared to other cases?

It seems to me that such hands are quite likely hands for partner's 1NT response.

 

The way I see it the 2♥ bidders favor a timid approach for opener and need to compensate with an aggressive approach for responder.

 

The result: they will miss some games (and slams!), they will rarely be able to stop in 2♥ even when game has no chance, because responder is supposed to keep the bidding open on the slightest excuse.

 

The 3♥ bidders, will sometimes get overboard, when the deal is a complete misfit and responder is minimum. However, some of the time they will reach a making 3NT, on a misfit, which the 2♥ bidders will miss.

The irony is that the 3♥ bidder will stop far more frequently in 2♥ when game has no chance, simply because they do not put so much pressure on responder to keep the bidding open, and minimum hands for opener are common.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Finch]

I agree that partner will always raise 2H with four, and I think the problem hands are when partner is 1-3 in the majors. He will almost always put the dummy down in 2H, but a simulation suggests this is completely wrong. The assumptions are as follows:

 

Partner: 6-9 points; 1-3-?-?; Play by both sides double dummy, which if anything favours the defence on this type of hand, where leading trumps or not leading trumps could be critical.

 

You've already posted a hand in another forum where you give as a problem what responder should rebid on a 1=5=5=2 five-count with 2 queens and a jack, without any comment about the merits of a 1NT response. So I assume your simulation should include 1=3=4=5 hands such as x xxx Q10xx QJxxx as you seem to think these are a 1NT response.

[phil_20686]

Why is partner an idiot if he passes 2♥?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skj432hq432d2caj2&n=s5ha765dkjt43c543&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1sp1np2hp]266|200[/hv]

 

I would find 2♥ quite a challenging contract already.

A 4♦ bid looks to me a bit absurd.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Passing 2H with the north hand is absurd rainer.

[mikeh]

Why is partner an idiot if he passes 2♥?

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skj432hq432d2caj2&n=s5ha765dkjt43c543&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1sp1np2hp]266|200[/hv]

 

I would find 2♥ quite a challenging contract already.

A 4♦ bid looks to me a bit absurd.

 

Rainer Herrmann

You make some good arguments, but using this construction to prove your point weakens your overall credibility.

 

The S hand, with those delightful spots, is a borderline opening bid...while most would open it, passing can hardly be criticized in a 2/1 context.

 

And nobody...including, I suggest, you....designs a bidding method so as to avoid bad contracts when both partners are minimum and the hands don't mesh. If you do...well....you are missing a lot of good contracts. And the fact that you seem to espouse a 3♥ rebid, to me, shows that you prefer to overbid than to underbid. The reality is that 2/1 methods have wide ranges for 1 bids and wide ranges for the 1N response, which automatically means that the 2nd and 3rd rounds of auctions are going to be uncomfortable. When you and partner decide where to draw the lines, there will be where you find problems, no matter where you draw the line.

 

Gadgets help...they have a cost of course, but good gadgets embedded in a coherent method, fill in many gaps and narrow others. The OP was, I assume, asking in the context of a method lacking such gadgets....and asking where one draws this particular line between 2♥ and 3♥. It is apparent that there are tqo schools of thought and, not surprisingly, no unanimity on collateral questions even within a given school.