ATB...get to 6C

[jmcw]

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hajt987dt2ck952&n=sa64hqdaj963caq84&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1dp1hp2cp2hp2np3cppp]266|200[/hv]

 

MATCHPOINTS who's fault

[lalldonn]

South underbid arguably the second time and clearly the third time. North seems to have bid fine.

[jmcw]

South underbid arguably the second time and clearly the third time. North seems to have bid fine.

 

Yep, I think you're right. I was the culprit.

I think my 3rd bid should be 3♠ or possibly 4♣

[mgoetze]

I think it would help to know the bidding system in use e.g. what's 1♦-2♥? Was 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♥ forcing?

 

Also I think this belongs in I/A, not General Bridge Discussion.

[aguahombre]

Sure, South is the underbidder who must take the responsibility for the part score contract. Realistically, I would be delighted to arrive at 5C, or 4H..6 wasn't gonna happen.

 

4H would get a lot of matchpoints.

[jmcw]

I think it would help to know the bidding system in use e.g. what's 1♦-2♥? Was 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♥ forcing?

 

Also I think this belongs in I/A, not General Bridge Discussion.

 

 

1m - 2♥ = weak

1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ = NF

 

why I/A ?

[mgoetze]

1m - 2♥ = weak

1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ = NF

OK, I don't know that bidding system, can't comment, sorry.

 

why I/A ?

Because it's not very general.

[aguahombre]

1m - 2♥ = weak

1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ = NF

OK, I don't know that bidding system, can't comment, sorry.

I don't believe you really mean that. Even if it isn't your style, certainly you have run across 2H responses showing a weaker hand than the floor for a 1H response. And, I am equally certain you know 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♥ frequently ends the auction for the majority of pairs.

[lalldonn]

North literally showed 3154 with 17-18 points with his 2N bid.

[aguahombre]

And since that is what North actually had, the only way he could share fault would be if they somehow had agreed 3C was forcing and he forgot. Even then, South would get blame for his part in making that agreement :rolleyes:

[TWO4BRIDGE]

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hajt987dt2ck952&n=sa64hqdaj963caq84&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1dp1hp2cp2hp2np3cppp]266|200[/hv]

 

MATCHPOINTS who's fault

I think they can get there with an aggressive splinter bid by South ( admittedly resulting ):

1D - 1H

2C - 3S! ( Reverse-jump Splinter for ♣ )

4C! ( Minorwood-RKC ) - 4S ( 3rd-step = 2 - ♣Q )

5D ( Kickback for Kings ) - 6C ( no outside Kings )

[nigel_k]

South 80%.

 

You are unlikely to reach slam, especially at matchpoints so you want to be in hearts. I would have rebid 3♥ instead of 2♥ with South based on the heart texture and club fit. I also prefer 3♥ to 2NT with North, which would have ensured you reach game. But 3♣ is a clear underbid and the worst call.

[Dark Widow]

1m - 2♥ = weak

1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ = NF

If I were playing this (and I sometimes do) then I would like to agree that the direct 2♥ response showed a max of around 7 and the delayed 2♥ can then be used for about 8-10. If that agreement were in place then North can afford to be more aggressive here. Perhaps something like 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3NT - 4♥ would now be possible.

[rhm]

North literally showed 3154 with 17-18 points with his 2N bid.

Even if he did, I prefer 2♠ over 2♥ with the North hand. I would have bid 2NT with the same distribution, but the ♠Q instead of the ♥Q.

I would not pass 3♣ either, but preference back to 3♥ (almost worth 4♥ when playing weak jumps over 1♦).

The ♥Q is a big card in this context and the North hand is great for a high level suit contract and worth more. Points are not everything.

Nevertheless South must take a bigger share of the blame, but I do not agree that North is blameless, particularly not when playing weak jumps over 1♦.

Poor hand evaluation on both sides.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

deleted

[kenrexford]

Good hand for methods i like. Responder bids and intermediate js to 2H. Opener bids 2NT as check. Responder bids 4C azs good side 4-card clubs and maximum. The auction could be five bids.

[jmcw]

North literally showed 3154 with 17-18 points with his 2N bid.

 

Perhaps this is expert treatment, but I don't get it.

 

With 3154 why not 2♠,

then 2NT is 2254,

and 3♥1354

 

 

Even if he did, I prefer 2♠ over 2♥ with the North hand. I would have bid 2NT with the same distribution, but the ♠Q instead of the ♥Q.

I would not pass 3♣ either, but preference back to 3♥ (almost worth 4♥ when playing weak jumps over 1♦).

The ♥Q is a big card in this context and the North hand is great for a high level suit contract and worth more. Points are not everything.

Nevertheless South must take a bigger share of the blame, but I do not agree that North is blameless, particularly not when playing weak jumps over 1♦.

Poor hand evaluation on both sides.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Can South ever have only 5♥ maybe 4513

[rhm]

Can South ever have only 5♥ maybe 4513

Would you bid 2♥ over 2♣ with a 5 card suit? Opener will often pass with a singleton or void and a minimum opener.

If you do, your 5 card must be extraordinary. I would expect ♥AKJTx.

Would you takeout 2NT into 3♣ with a 3 card club suit, where opener has very likely only 4 cards? Why?

If responder is weak with a 5 card heart suit and can not stand 2NT opposite 17-18 why did he not quit over 2♣?

Bidding over 2♣ with a weak hand and only a mediocre 5 card suit is not compatible with weak jump responses.

If responder has values, why do you want to stop in 3♣? One of these games 5♣, 4♥ or 3NT must be odds on.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

With 3154 why not 2♠,

then 2NT is 2254,

and 3♥1354

With 1354 and extra values, you're worth 4♥. With 1354 and a minimum, I think it would be normal to have raised to 2♥. With 2254 we probably belong in hearts, and we'd almost never want to play in precisely 2NT, so it works to raise immediately.

 

That allows us two bids to deal with a strong 3154, so we may as well use both of them. There's a big difference between ♠AQx ♥x and ♠Axx ♥Q.

[rhm]

With 1354 and extra values, you're worth 4♥. With 1354 and a minimum, I think it would be normal to have raised to 2♥. With 2254 we probably belong in hearts, and we'd almost never want to play in precisely 2NT, so it works to raise immediately.

 

That allows us two bids to deal with a strong 3154, so we may as well use both of them. There's a big difference between ♠AQx ♥x and ♠Axx ♥Q.

Agreed, and I rather raise 2♥ than bid 2NT with ♠Axx ♥Q, but 2♠ followed by 3♥ describes this holding perfectly and gives us a better chance to select correctly between ♥ and notrumps.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

I think the expectations are different from 1m--2♥ wjs. It surprised me to see some replies that suggests 1♥ and then 2♥ is almost equal to 1♥ and then 3♥

 

For some people AJT9xx is too good for wjs, since it is in normal response range. Imo any 6 card suit that starts with an Ace is good enough to bid 1 and then 2 especially if he has the spots. So without the ♣ K i would bid 1♥ and then 2♥. Thus i dont think N has any blame whatsoever.

 

When i bid 2♥ over 1 minor (if i played it wjs) it would look like more to xxx QJTxxx xxx x - xx KTxxxx xxxx x

[Finch]

I think the expectations are different from 1m--2♥ wjs. It surprised me to see some replies that suggests 1♥ and then 2♥ is almost equal to 1♥ and then 3♥

 

For some people AJT9xx is too good for wjs, since it is in normal response range. Imo any 6 card suit that starts with an Ace is good enough to bid 1 and then 2 especially if he has the spots. So without the ♣ K i would bid 1♥ and then 2♥. Thus i dont think N has any blame whatsoever.

 

When i bid 2♥ over 1 minor (if i played it wjs) it would look like more to xxx QJTxxx xxx x - xx KTxxxx xxxx x

 

There are various ways of playing weak jump shifts. It's a common English approach to play an immediate jump as a lower range weak two (about 4-8 or so), to play 1 then 2 as constructive (about 9-12 or so) and 1 then 3 as game forcing.

I think it works well; I have less interest in making a purely pre-emptive call after partner has opened and the next hand passed, and it greatly improves constructive bidding.

 

See http://www.ebu.co.uk/englishbridge/2011/August/Debate.pdf for more information on this style.

[MrAce]

There are various ways of playing weak jump shifts. It's a common English approach to play an immediate jump as a lower range weak two (about 4-8 or so), to play 1 then 2 as constructive (about 9-12 or so) and 1 then 3 as game forcing.

I think it works well; I have less interest in making a purely pre-emptive call after partner has opened and the next hand passed, and it greatly improves constructive bidding.

 

See http://www.ebu.co.uk/englishbridge/2011/August/Debate.pdf for more information on this style.

 

 

I never said i do it for preemptiing ? I dont do it for preempting opponents, though it may function now and then for this purpose too coincidentally, i do it to show my hand to my pd, since it is out of question for me to pass with these hands. Playing 4-8 is a huge huge range imo. Also it is deceptive if we look at it as HCP. There are 5 hcps with Qx KTxxxx xxxx x and there is xx AJTxxx xxxx x. Also xxx KQJxxx xxx x 6 hcp and there is Kx JTxxxx xxx Qx, those are not same hands for me ( i am pretty sure they arent same for you either)

 

Also there are hands where you have a fit or tolerance to pd's minor it may even be much weaker because all you need may be a 3 card fit to make game, such as after 1♣;

 

JTxxxxx

x

xx

Jxx

 

(Though i strongly suggest to play 1♣--2♦ = a weak jump shift in a major, just like multi, it works great over 1♣ and is workable over 1♦, something i played 20 years ago and it worked very well for me.)

 

So basically when you talk about constructive bidding, you need to set your priorities about what are you trying to construct for. Slams or games ? Will you pass in peace when you hold QTxxxx x xx xxxx when your pd opens a minor ? RHO passing increases to chance that your pd may have a big hand, which bid can tell this hand better than a wjs and get it out of your chest in 1 bid vs a pd who may have a big hand ?

 

I mean we can make simulation and figure that we are not likely to make game when we hold this. But that means nothing to me since simulations will not tell us if it would be a good save or not to find a save vs 4♠ or even 3NT if we have a fit. In defense this hand is a dead man, if we play, however, it offers hell lot of tricks.

 

Let me compromise the example i gave to x QJTxxx xx xxxx and your pd opens 1♣, then this becomes close to your 4-8 range and reasonable. But then again if you bid 2♥ with this and also 2♥ with 8 hcp hands, your pd is totally in trouble deciding when and what to do. Often will make a move that will end up getting minus score or will not make a move and miss something.

 

Thats why i like

 

1♣--2♦ = WJS in a major

1♦-2♦ = WJs in a major

1♦--2♣ = GF just like over 1M but doesnt promise a ♣ suit yet.

1m--2M = Invitational

 

I also disagree that playing the style you suggest allows you to play 1M followed by 3M can be used as GF slam hands. What was responder supposed to start with with 6♥+4♠ and 4 hcp only ? He can not start wjs due to side 4 card major. He will start 1♥ and then will bid 2♥ when pd bids 2 minor or 1 NT. Or if he has a little more than this , he would like to invite to game, but he can not do this since that will be a slam going hand in your method, unless you have this taken care somewhere else in your system. But even so, just because of the range of wjs, you can not have this luxury, you need to take care of things like 6-4 majors first somewhere in your system.

[rhm]

...

 

I also disagree that playing the style you suggest allows you to play 1M followed by 3M can be used as GF slam hands. What was responder supposed to start with with 6♥+4♠ and 4 hcp only ? He can not start wjs due to side 4 card major.

...

A sever problem with the standard approach is that jump rebidding your major to show an invitational hand when opener has shown at least 9 cards in the minors gets you frequently too high on the likely misfit.

This scenario is frequent and this is a serious deficiency of standard systems.

 

The solution is in deed to play the jump rebid as game forcing. The idea is less to facilitate slam bidding, though it does, but to stay low on the above frequent scenario, opener having a distributional minor suit oriented hand, but with minimum HCP, and responder having average HCP values with a reasonable but not solid six card or longer major.

 

Your approach may better differentiate weak from very weak responding hands, but it does nothing to solve the above dilemma, which happens far more often.

Bidding must be geared to solving frequent scenarios first, not to the rare ones. Average hands around 10 HCPs occur more often than hands around 4 HCP and distributional hands with just enough to open are far more common than distributional hands having substantially more.

If you have a weak responding hand, game is unlikely in the first place and it is well known that you may be able to show only your main feature, since you can not overstate your meager values by taking several bids. So with 6♥+4♠ and 4 hcp only, you just bid 2 ♥ and forget about the spades.

Unless your partner is strong enough to introduce the spades, it is quite unlikely you would have done better in a spades contract than in your long suit when you are that weak.

 

So I think you get your priorities wrong and the trade-off between these two approaches are fairly clear.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Playing the style that Frances advocates, with QTxxxx x xx xxxx facing a minor-suit opening it's generally OK to respond 1♠. If partner rebids 1NT you can sign off in 2♠ without showing extra values; if he rebids his minor or bids 1♦-1♠;2♣ you can pass. The only really awkward auction is 1♦-1♠;2♥, when you'll probably end up in the wrong partscore opposite a 2452 or 1453 shape.