How should E/W get to 3S or 4S?

[awm]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa987hak73dj6c754&w=st42hq985dk74cak2&n=s6h64dqt983cqt863&e=skqj53hjt2da52cj9&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1cp3cppp]399|300[/hv]

 

BAM scoring. N/S were allowed to play and make 3♣, when E/W can make 3♠. Even 4♠-1 would be a better BAM result. What did E/W do wrong (if anything)?

[gszes]

hold your cards closer to you so declarer cant see his lho has AKx

that way your side collects + 50 for 3c down 1 at least (3 clubs 2 dia).

 

you were unlucky to have opps that were playing inverted minors.

I would not lose to much sleep over missing 3s here.

[gwnn]

I may x 1C but even I can barely stomach it.

[wank]

 

What did E/W do wrong (if anything)?

 

played 2nd hand high?

[rsteele]

A better question is how do E-W get to 3NT?

[rhm]

Assuming standard bidding, when the bidding comes back to West, West knows:

 

North needs a weak hand with at least 5 clubs to bid 3♣. But at these colors North is likely to be unbalanced or hold even more clubs.

As a minimum North South must have an eight card fit and if it is only an eight card fit, South is balanced in the 12-14 range and East your partner must have substantial values.

(Of course you might ask opponents how they play 3♣. Might South pass with 18-19 balanced? This analysis presumes not)

 

If South has 4 cards in clubs it does not matter whether South is balanced (12-14) or not. If you PASS you will almost certainly loose the board.

 

Conclusion: REOPEN with DBL. At worst you will go down one when 3♣ would have made. BAM makes this kind of DBL attractive.

 

Balancing has gone out of fashion. The reasons and arguments brought forward are dubious.

In the long term, the occasional disaster notwithstanding, DBL will improve your BAM score.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[semeai]

What did E/W do wrong (if anything)?

played 2nd hand high?

 

I rather suspect it was "led the ♣A" instead, not that this is necessarily an error.

[kenrexford]

Good hand for R.U.N.T. After a 1♣ opening, West does not want to double because partner will get too excited too often. But, white-on-red, you want to act aggressively. A 1NT overcall as a light takeout works wonders here, because West can get in without too much risk and without sending the wrong message. East wilol now have no problem competing with his hand.

 

The "Really Unusual Notrump" is not designed simply to mess with the opponents but rather is a means of protecting yourself when you have cause (and vulnerability protection) to intervene but do not want to overstate values for partner. (Also the "Overcall Structure" uses this call.)

[han]

You bid 1NT over 1C as a light takeout with a 4333 distribution, and this is supposed to be safer than doubling? Sometimes your ideas are better than this.

[kenrexford]

You bid 1NT over 1C as a light takeout with a 4333 distribution, and this is supposed to be safer than doubling? Sometimes your ideas are better than this.

 

In what way did I claim that 1NT was safer than doubling? The reason for bidding 1NT is not that it is safer but rather to limit the hand. I mean, it is "safer" than a double in the sense that partner will not expect a better hand and thus will not bid beyond that which is justified. But, obviously a call that forces the two-level risks more than a call that only commits to the one-level.

 

The key question is whether a 1NT overcall with this type of hand is safe enough (and descriptive) to merit the call. When considering the safety factor, you also must consider the "safety" of passing, which can be (as this deal illustrates) "unsafe" itself. That is, passing either forces a late pass-out OR induces a much higher-level decision to bid late (and possible sets).

 

From my experience, the 1NT call with this type of hand IF LIMITED is "safer" than the pass in the long run, especially over a minor, because the opponents are forced into a very quick red-on-white decision with minimal information exchange and severe handicapping of their space.

[Bbradley62]

you were unlucky to have opps that were playing inverted minors.

Since I've been away for a while... don't virtually all non-beginners play inverted minors?

[ggwhiz]

To me it's about the form of scoring and this vul.

 

I would stick in a 3♠ bid over 3♣ just because I can't stomach passing and hearing 3nt float with pard on lead.

 

That said, I'm quite crazed at BAM and don't win a lot but there is a lot of pressure on them. They need to beat you 2 doubled, have no game AND possibly pick the right one (5♣ or 3nt) to a spade lead.

 

Only a well oiled partnership or a south that dials you for 1100 will know what to do for sure but you still have to get past pard who may well raise here. Maybe not though with ♣AK wasted opposite my stiff or void :P

[mike777]

prefer x over 1c with 12 hcp and at least one 4 card major, choice 2 is too pass out the hand.

 

principle of getting in early rather than having to guess later in the auction.

[sathyab]

Bidding 3♠ with the East hand at these colors isn't too hard, as long your teammates also play inverted minors and bid 3♣ with the North hand. The more difficult problem for me is if the colors were reversed, but I'd do it anyway I think. Bidding 3♠ with this hand is hard, but balancing with a 4-3-3-3 with the West hand is a lot harder. And I don't think I'd make a direct double with the West hand with that shape and so much in their suit.

[sathyab]

Assuming standard bidding, when the bidding comes back to West, West knows:

 

North needs a weak hand with at least 5 clubs to bid 3♣. But at these colors North is likely to be unbalanced or hold even more clubs.

As a minimum North South must have an eight card fit and if it is only an eight card fit, South is balanced in the 12-14 range and East your partner must have substantial values.

(Of course you might ask opponents how they play 3♣. Might South pass with 18-19 balanced? This analysis presumes not)

 

If South has 4 cards in clubs it does not matter whether South is balanced (12-14) or not. If you PASS you will almost certainly loose the board.

 

Conclusion: REOPEN with DBL. At worst you will go down one when 3♣ would have made. BAM makes this kind of DBL attractive.

 

Balancing has gone out of fashion. The reasons and arguments brought forward are dubious.

In the long term, the occasional disaster notwithstanding, DBL will improve your BAM score.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Another way of looking at it is to estimate the probablity of finding an 8-card fit. If partner has a stiff ♣, you're guaranteed to have one. When he has two ♣, if he has a five-bagger himself, you're home. When he doesn't have a five-bagger, you'll fail only when his 3-card suit is ♥. Looks like pretty good odds.

[Zelandakh]

Since I've been away for a while... don't virtually all non-beginners play inverted minors?

That rather depends on the rest of the system being played.

[daveharty]

This situation is easily handled via a convention known locally as the "Buckeye Fumble" (I understand it has a different name south of the Michigan/Ohio border). When your RHO opens the bidding, take the following steps to show a hand with some values that is otherwise unsuitable for a takeout double:

 

1. Square your hand on the table and fan them; study them closely

2. Turn your attention to the bidding box; pinch the entire set of bidding cards in the box and raise them one quarter inch; drop them back and study them intently

3. Pull out the pass card and place it on the table well to the left of center.

 

A seasoned practitioner can accomplish all of this within the space of 3-4 seconds, thus avoiding any "hesitation." West had an easy BF on this hand; East could then confidently bid 3S, and West, having already bid his hand, could pass.

 

There are a couple of local pairs who use this convention quite effectively.

[phil_20686]

I find the responses here incredible. In order of unbelief:

 

(1) Using 1N as a limited light take out is completely absurd. We have discussed in multiple threads the need for a natural 1N overcall in the modern style of bridge. Further, if you were to use some kind of t/o bid as 1N, using it as a light t/o with no extra shape is surely terrible. Saving it up for those 4441 or 5440 8-11 counts would make some sense.

 

(2) Bidding 3S after 1C p 3C on a weak NT is pretty bad. You have eight losers, a reasonably defensive hand, two clubs, only five spades. Even when partner has a decent hand and you can make three spades, he will raise you. Partner will need an opening hand to give 4S play, and seeing as how he passed 1C that is not very likely.

 

(3) I like to double with the west cards. I can understand pass, but it is always hard to get into the auction later. If you pass a weak hand with good shape, there is a reasonable chance that you could protect later, Axxx Axxx Qxxx x say, would be able to back in over 3C, but with this hand, you know you are never coming back to the party if partner doesnt bid. And if lho bids 1S there are a lot of hands where you can make nine tricks where partner will never get a chance to come into the auction. Of course, there is some danger that partner might get overexcited, but I always find these overblown. Its not like when partner bids game and it has no play, it would magically be cold if only you had added the J of spades to your hand, and everyone would be doubling with a thirteen count and this shape over 1C I assume. You often have to double with less ideal shape over 1m openings,, as they might not be real suits, in which case the chance of being short in them is much less.

[kenrexford]

I find the responses here incredible. In order of unbelief:

 

(1) Using 1N as a limited light take out is completely absurd. We have discussed in multiple threads the need for a natural 1N overcall in the modern style of bridge. Further, if you were to use some kind of t/o bid as 1N, using it as a light t/o with no extra shape is surely terrible. Saving it up for those 4441 or 5440 8-11 counts would make some sense.

 

 

Using 1NT as a light takeout does not mean that the strong balanced hands cannot be described. When takeout DOUBLES are made more sound via a R.U.N.T. (or "Overcall Structure") 1NT overcall, and when you add in Herbert Negatives, the typical solution is to double with these hands. Assessing a call as "absurd" without knowing the full context seems rather strange. If, for instance, you were to play that a 1♦ overcall showed a strong, balanced hand, then obviously your critique would be somewhat off, as the real "loss" would be the 1♦ overcall.

 

While I agree that a shapely 1NT light-takeout overcall might be more appealing to many, and that a 4-3-3-3 takeout with this hand might seem "too much," that debate is one of judgment and complicated, and I can accept your take as a legitimate and perhaps supported judgment.

 

But, describing something as "completly absurd" wthout knowing the full systemic context seems dubious, especially in light of the discussio centeringaround an actual auction where the actual style proposed scores well and solves a real problem.

 

But, to each his own.

[han]

But, describing something as "completly absurd" wthout knowing the full systemic context seems dubious, especially in light of the discussio centeringaround an actual auction where the actual style proposed scores well and solves a real problem.

 

I would think that especially in light of a discussion where an absurd style scores well is there a need to describe the style for what it is.

[kenrexford]

Would you double 1S with 3433 shape? Probably, forcing the two level.

 

Is a penalty pass likely in that scenario? Hardly.

 

Does limiting the hand to light have value? Obviously.

 

Is there a benefit to assuring that doubles are sound? Obviously.

 

Can strong balanced hands be effectively be bid via a sound double and Herbert negative? You would need experience to know.

 

Does a light 1NT overcall cost more than gain or create too many swings? Again, experience is key.

[phil_20686]

But, describing something as "completly absurd" wthout knowing the full systemic context seems dubious, especially in light of the discussio centeringaround an actual auction where the actual style proposed scores well and solves a real problem.

 

Your first post appears to suggest a light 1N as a stand alone convention in otherwise standard methods. Now you seem to be saying, essentially, that that would be absurd but it wasn't what you were saying, and that you need a whole structure to get around some of the problems this convention causes, and ameliorate the obvious disadvantages. Well fine, maybe, can't say I would ever be convinced that you could do that in this case, but there you go.

 

Anyway, someone needs to protect the newbies from your crazy ideas. :)

 

Although, to give credit where its due, not all of your ideas are crazy, and I really thought your book on cuebidding was excellent. I use some of that stuff myself.

[kenrexford]

Your first post appears to suggest a light 1N as a stand alone convention in otherwise standard methods. Now you seem to be saying, essentially, that that would be absurd but it wasn't what you were saying, and that you need a whole structure to get around some of the problems this convention causes, and ameliorate the obvious disadvantages. Well fine, maybe, can't say I would ever be convinced that you could do that in this case, but there you go.

 

Anyway, someone needs to protect the newbies from your crazy ideas. :)

 

Although, to give credit where its due, not all of your ideas are crazy, and I really thought your book on cuebidding was excellent. I use some of that stuff myself.

 

My "first post" was as follows:

 

Good hand for R.U.N.T. After a 1♣ opening, West does not want to double because partner will get too excited too often. But, white-on-red, you want to act aggressively. A 1NT overcall as a light takeout works wonders here, because West can get in without too much risk and without sending the wrong message. East wilol now have no problem competing with his hand.

 

The "Really Unusual Notrump" is not designed simply to mess with the opponents but rather is a means of protecting yourself when you have cause (and vulnerability protection) to intervene but do not want to overstate values for partner. (Also the "Overcall Structure" uses this call.)

 

My first post, therefore, was not stated as if the call was in the context of otherwise standard methods. Rather, I proposed the solution as a part of one of two recognized defensive structures, namey "Overcall Structure" and the "Really Unusual Notrump" or "R.U.N.T." structure.

 

The objection is sort of like objecting to 2♥ as a "Jacoby Transfer" to solve a problem, with the objection being, "But, then how do you show hearts? Stupid convention if you cannot show hearts!"

 

Additionally, it seems rather odd to suggest that I started with one concept and then backtracked into a different concept, when it seems fairly established that my point was made in a fairly established context already established. See, e.g., http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/1554947634

 

You also make a logically flawed assumption that the "whole structure" is designed to get around a problem, meaning that somehow the involvement of the herbert negative is a problem-solving tool to enable the 1NT light takeout. Rather, the "whole structure" is actually meant to be cohesive and ALL part of a grander, better scheme. A light 1NT takeout takes the burden off of the takeout double, which assures that the takeout double is sound, which is a good end result, because that enables more aggressive game tries, competition, and penalty doubles. The Herbert Negative is more effective opposite a sounder double because (1) the "weak" range can be tighter, (2) the "constructive" range accordingly lighter, and (3) the space consumed by the artificial relay less troubling. Starting with a "sound" double with 15-17 balanced is quite nice because (1) you find some 4-4 major fits more easily (the reason why some advocate avoiding 1NT openings with 4-4 majors), (2) penalty conversions are more lucrative, and (3) the Herbert Negative scheme used to facilitate better takeout sequences actually makes a strong balanced 1NT opening less useful anyway. (Consider, for example, holding 16 HCP and 4-4-2-3 shape after a 1♣ opening. Standard methods have a difficulty in that you either bury strength and double or bury majors and overcall 1NT. My structure has no problem, as Opener just doubles, Advancer expecting extras by that double.)

 

In other words, the 1NT light takeout is not the goal, with everything else designed to enable that. Rather, the entire structure is designed to facilitate better constructive auctions, with the 1NT overcall in a sense being the solution to the enhanced scheme, with the bottom taken out to maximize the pluses of that solution. Look at it this way -- one could say that the 1NT overcall is the fix to enable the rest of the constructive approach, not the reverse.

 

Consider that the origins of the structure were from an approach in the early 1990's from parts of Europe where 1NT was the stronger overcall and doubling thus potentially very weak. I restructured that two-way eastern European approach to reverse the meanings, figuring that (1) 1NT was preemptive, which was nicer with weaker hands and (2) a sounder DOUBLE meant that more space was available for the constructive auctions, with Herbert Negatives adding that cherry on top that made the whole thing quite effective.

 

In that context, critiquing the approach from a standpoiint of being anti-constructive (losing the strong balanced hands) is bizarre to me. The usual objection is that these goals might be nice, and the restructuring effectuve for constructive auctions, but the risks inherent to forcing the two-level in a no-known-fit scenario argues against the light 1NT takeout or argues in favor of a stricter approach (like purity as to 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0). My response is that the ambiguities work against both sides, such that the net results from years of experience is that 1NT as light, and aggressively so, is a heavy net gainer, albeit with an occasional large flop (more than outweighed by the large gainers). Thus, I would agree that purity might make a lot of sense at short-match IMP scoring against an inferior team (to avoid a possible large swing), but effective as free-wheeling at MP, long IMP matches, and against a superior team in short matches.

 

Glad you enjoyed and employ the ideas in the Cuebidding at Bridge book. Maybe take that leap of faith and read through (and perhaps try) my RUNT structure, and you might find yourself unwittingly sucked in. LOL

[Yu18772]

May be I would double with W hand in BAM on the first round, but really I would deem it as the worst t/o double ever. Other than that - I dont see any blame.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifYu