Stronger Hand v. less described hand

[EricK]

A lot of systems put much effort into making the strong hand declarer (eg by playing transfers). But there may also be much to be gained from having the hand which has revealed less about itself as declarer (many relay systems are geared towards this).

 

Sometimes a system can achieve both. But where this can not happen, which do you think is more important?

 

Eric

[MickyB]

I'm going for the less described hand, although it will depend a lot on the situation.

 

As an aside, given that all things are equal, is it better to have the long trump hand declaring or on the table?

[helene_t]

It is an advantage to have the trump length on the table, since that means more cards in the side suits to protect against the opening lead, and to conceal.

 

But the main purpose of transfers is to preserve bidding space by reserving the more economic minor suit bids for the more useful major suits. Exept in competion, where you may want the overcaller to lead, declarership is not so important.

[Free]

If I have to choose between the "less described hand" or the "stronger hand", I'll choose the stronger hand. BUT if I have to choose between the "completely UNKNOWN hand" or the strong hand, I'll go for the unknown hand. It's a huge difference imo!

 

If you know absolutely NOTHING about declarer, the defense is twice as though. If you however know something about his hand, then there's not much use of hiding a weak hand. As long as declarer has some values, it's better to hide the unknown hand and let opps look surprized from time to time :D

 

In other words: NONE OF THE ABOVE.

[mikestar]

I'm with Free on this. I think you should prefer the less described hand if the disparity in description is great, but the stonger hand in case of doubt.

[HeartA]

I go with Free as well.

[BrianEDuran]

Hi all

 

I think there is a dimension missing to this question, being the level of opponents. If you are playing in a local club game, few people are counting out the hand, even when you open a NT. But in "good" events, lets say A/X nationals, everyone is counting.

 

My answer would depend on the field. I want the strong hand in hand in a weak field. In a strong field I want the undifined hand in hand.

 

Brian

[jtfanclub]

As long as both hands have least 8 hcp, I want the less defined hand declarer.

 

If one hand is very weak, it needs to be dummy.

 

I claim that honor partials are more important than either. If you have Axx across Qx, the hand works much better if the Qx is declarer. Doesn't matter which hand has more points, or is more defined. Having an opponent lead around to your partial is often the difference between making or being set.

[jikl]

I like Brian's answer.

 

Sean

[EricK]

As long as both hands have least 8 hcp, I want the less defined hand declarer.

 

If one hand is very weak, it needs to be dummy.

 

I claim that honor partials are more important than either. If you have Axx across Qx, the hand works much better if the Qx is declarer. Doesn't matter which hand has more points, or is more defined. Having an opponent lead around to your partial is often the difference between making or being set.

This is true, but it only gains if the King is wrong; and also, even if you do arrange for the Qx to be declarer, the hand must be such that the player not on lead can't get in later in the play and successfully broach the suit from there.

 

Especially in part score hands the chances are that both opponents will be able to lead at some point in the hand.

 

Eric

[jtfanclub]

the hand must be such that the player not on lead can't get in later in the play and successfully broach the suit from there.

Maybe it's because of the level of the opponents, but often if the opponent leads something because he can't lead into my Axx across Qx, when the other opponent gets in he doesn't know to lead that suit.

 

Also, while double-dummy I might make the same tricks if the king is onside, in reality I may not be able to do so- I might not have sufficient entries, or I may not be able to afford for them to clear the suit if I'm wrong.

[EricK]

Thanks for your answers.

 

Part of what got me thinking about this were auctions like

 

1NT 3NT

1NT 2♦ 2♥ 3NT

1NT 4♦ 4♥

1NT 2♣ 2♥ 4♥

1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3NT

and similar auctions beginning 2NT

 

Here, as soon as dummy goes down, the defense has an excellent idea of the whole hand. At MP they know whether they should be trying to defeat the contract or restrict declarer to eg eleven tricks. At IMPs they know whether they have to take desperate measures to defeat it, or whether passive defense is called for.

 

It seems to me to be a fundamental mistake from the point of view of bidding theory for one hand to limit itself so much in shape and strength AND to arrange for that hand to be declarer in so many auctions.

 

Are there any systems which try to avoid these problems (by not opening or rebidding NT on balanced hands with a well defined HCP range)?

 

Could a useable one be designed?

 

Eric

[the hog]

Without a doubt - less described. Relay systems have a huge advantage here.

[MickyB]

I saw a system that opened 1♠ on a balanced range. While this may make defence more difficult, you have lost out a lot in the bidding - you gain no constructive bidding room, the opps have extra opportunities in the auction, etc. I've played a little short club, strong NT, transfer responses to 1♣ where 'completing the transfer' shows 11-13 bal, which must right-side some contracts. As Ron mentioned, relay systems do very well here when the undisclosed hand is playing the contract. Strong NT, 4cM does well too, frequently having auctions 1M:1N, AP where opener has shown 11-13 bal and responder has denied GF values. You could introduce some artificiality after a GF 2/1 so that the bal hand doesn't rebid in NT.

[luke warm]

i think it depends on what is meant by 'strong hand' and on the relative difference in strength between the hands.. for example, after our 1nt, 2h/s is to play... and with our relays after a 2d game force (again after 1nt), there's no guarantees who'll end up declaring

 

but if the bidding goes (in standard), 1d/1s/2nt now i think i'd rather the strong hand declare, if possible

[hrothgar]

Having the strong hand as declarer is nice

Having the unknown hand as declarer is essential

[EricK]

I note, for instance, that Moscito uses transfer openings for suits (which tend to make the unknown hand declarer) but still uses a natural 1 NT opening (indeed an even more limited than normal 1NT in that it denies a good 4 cd major).

 

So they go part of the way, but still have the problem I highlighted.

 

Eric

[hrothgar]

I note, for instance, that Moscito uses transfer openings for suits (which tend to make the unknown hand declarer) but still uses a natural 1 NT opening (indeed an even more limited than normal 1NT in that it denies a good 4 cd major).

 

So they go part of the way, but still have the problem I highlighted.

 

Eric

I've never analyzed this specifically, however, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the auction

 

1N - (P) - P - (P) is a damn sight more common than either

1♥ - (P) - P - (P) or 1♠ - (P) - P - (P)

 

I am a very firm believer that preemptive bids should be "natural" so that Responder can pass the suit opened with a high frequency. The same holds true for MOSCITO's 11+ - 14 HCP NT opening.

[EricK]

I note, for instance, that Moscito uses transfer openings for suits (which tend to make the unknown hand declarer) but still uses a natural 1 NT opening (indeed an even more limited than normal 1NT in that it denies a good 4 cd major).

 

So they go part of the way, but still have the problem I highlighted.

 

Eric

I've never analyzed this specifically, however, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the auction

 

1N - (P) - P - (P) is a damn sight more common than either

1♥ - (P) - P - (P) or 1♠ - (P) - P - (P)

 

I am a very firm believer that preemptive bids should be "natural" so that Responder can pass the suit opened with a high frequency. The same holds true for MOSCITO's 11+ - 14 HCP NT opening.

This adds another factor to the equation.

 

A weak NT does act as a pre-empt, and it may be that this factor is more important than making the "described" hand dummy.

 

Eric

[Free]

Don't forget you can use whatever structure you want over 1NT. In the early days, we used transfer responses over stayman (GF) which rightsides most Major-contracts, and many minor-contracts. Only the NT is not available anymore, but that's no big problem imo. Weak NT is preemptive, and if you're gonna be in game, partner will usually be stronger than the opener. And it's certainly not worth it to change to another opening to show the same hands: 1♠ doesn't help much (you're going to play 1NT by the weak hand), 2♣ is too high if partner has nothing...

 

Imo NT is a necessary evil, you can't make a perfect system which rightsides the contract EVERY time, you can only increase the frequency of getting the right hand to play, usually by using transfer or reversed responses over relays.

Take Jimmy's NT structure for example: 2♦ is a GF relay, which asks about opener's shape. You can answer natural which will usually make opener (and known hand, and the weak hand) declarer, but if you reverse the responses (2♥ shows ♠s, 2♠ shows ♥, and 3-level bids try to transfer ♣) responder has A LOT more chance of becomming declarer. Not always, but pretty frequent.

[the hog]

Frederick, look at the revised Keri structure. Its excellent!

[Antoine Fourrière]

In my opinion, the less described is more important, especially in a partial, or when the distributions are not wild.

 

It is certainly possible to conceal declarer's strength if you accept to lose the major-suit partials, provided it is always the balanced hand which asks about pattern when slam is out of the question.

 

It would be a kind of Polish Club wherein all balanced hands are opened 1♣ and vice versa. Something like:

 

1♣ balanced, 12+, may have a five-card major or a six-card minor or a bare K (or Q ? (or A?)))

1♦ unbalanced with five diamonds, four diamonds and five clubs (even 15+), or three-suiter with diamonds (one-round force if need be, since you can always answer 2♦ with any 0-4)

1♥ unbalanced with five hearts

1♠ unbalanced with five spades

1N 15-21 with clubs or a 4=4=1=4 (pass with 0-3, answer 2♣ with 4-6)

2♣ 11-14 with clubs (including the hands with five clubs and a four-card major, and either the 4=4=1=4s or the hands with six clubs and no four-card major, but presumably not both)

(or

1N 11-17 with clubs (pass 0-7, 2♣ 7-10, 2♦ 10+)

2♣ 17-21)

2♦ and above would cover the preempts, the unbalanced game forces (at least outside diamonds), and a few problem hands.

 

Over 1♣

1♦ 0-6 or 13+, forces 1♥

1♥ 7-8 without a five-card major (1♠ and 1N 12-17, 2♣ 18+)

1♠ 9-10 without a five-card major (1N 12-15, 2♣ 16+)

1N 7-10 with a five-card major (2♣ 12-15 or 18+, 2♦ 16-17)

2♣ 11-12 without a five-card major (2♦ 14+, others 12-13)

2♦ 11-12 with five hearts (2♥ 12-13)

2♥ 11-12 with five spades (2♠ 12-13)

2♠ 9-11 with six clubs

2N 9-11 with five clubs and five diamonds

2♠ 9-11 with six diamonds

 

(11-12 means : I intend to play game, unless opener has 12-13)

 

After 1♣ 1♦ 1♥,

1♠ 0-6 without a five-card major (1N 12-19, 2♣ 20+)

1N 13+ balanced or 19+ unbalanced, asks for range, then for shape, then for high honors

2♣ 13-16 unbalanced without a five-card major (2♦? 2♥ 13-14, others 15-16)

2♦ 0-6 or 13+ with five hearts (2♥ 12-19, 2♠ 20+ both ask for range)

2♥ 0-6 or 13+ with five spades (2♠ 12-19, 2N 20+ both ask for range)

2♠ 17-18 unbalanced without a five-card major

2N 13-16 with six clubs or ten minor cards

3♣ 13-16 with six diamonds

3♦ 13-16 with six diamonds and a four-card major

3♥ 13-16 with six clubs and four hearts

3♠ 13-16 with six clubs and four spades

 

I don't think this answer scheme risks much from preempts (although there surely are more efficient ones), since both players have already given useful information, but opener may not enjoy a direct overcall at the two-level when he has a strong NT with which he can't double for takeout (or should double simply show 16+?).