Possibly dumb theory

[JLOGIC]

Today I held A Kxxx xxxx AQxx. Third seat r/w I opened 1D P 1H P ? It occurred to me partner is very likely to have some values given the opps failure to bid w/r (they were expert opps), so I should probably bid 3H since he is way more likely than usual to have the kind of hand that passes 2H when game is good, and he won't drive to slam as a passed hand. Partner had Jxx Axxxx xx Kxx so it was a perfect fitter and worked out well.

 

Amazingly enough, the next set (12 boards later), my partner had AJ8x ATxx K9xx x. He opened 1D in 4th seat all white, I bid 1H, and he bid 2H. He said "I wonder if this is a jlall 3H bid" and I had QT9 QJ9xx T Qxxx and everything split well so I made 5.

 

I guess the summary of my theory would be the 2.5 heart bids should bid 3 when both opps have passed. This is more true when you are vul and they are not, and more true when your shortness is spades. A flaw in this reasoning is the opps not bidding makes partner less likely to have 5 hearts (notice in both of these hands partner did, but that should be atypical), and these hand types are much better with a 5-4. Also, the opps not bidding spades makes it more likely partner has spade wastage/length. So maybe this theory is dumb and it got lucky twice. Anyone do this/thought of this or have any thoughts?

[dake50]

Agree 1D-1H-, 3H should suggest spades short.

Both as an attempt to play 3H verses 2S and

to help partner discount spade quacks/promote minors.

Add a tier to Drury for showing shortness. If opener

is not sub-minimum, he rebids his short to help discover

duplication or minimum points all working. If Drury-bidder

next shows his short opener sees that duplication or

all working borderline decision.

[wank]

i think you have it the wrong way round. it should be responder who knows to invite light over a simple raise. that avoids widening the ranges too much and avoids getting to the 3 level on minimum values and only 8 trumps.

[benlessard]

I agree with wank. Another thing I see is that 1D-1S-3S responder is on a guess on opener type of hand. While 1D-1S-2S there is many game available. I see it in a theoric way responder has extra tool when he go from 2 to 3, so responder should be more willing to go from 2 to 3 than opener.

 

 

 

I think some of the minimum hand with 4 trumps should pass the 1 level to allow a raise to show at least a some extras allowing partner to invite light. The drawback is that they might compete more often but I think its a good tradeoff.

[mikeh]

Today I held A Kxxx xxxx AQxx. Third seat r/w I opened 1D P 1H P ? It occurred to me partner is very likely to have some values given the opps failure to bid w/r (they were expert opps), so I should probably bid 3H since he is way more likely than usual to have the kind of hand that passes 2H when game is good, and he won't drive to slam as a passed hand. Partner had Jxx Axxxx xx Kxx so it was a perfect fitter and worked out well.

 

Amazingly enough, the next set (12 boards later), my partner had AJ8x ATxx K9xx x. He opened 1D in 4th seat all white, I bid 1H, and he bid 2H. He said "I wonder if this is a jlall 3H bid" and I had QT9 QJ9xx T Qxxx and everything split well so I made 5.

 

I guess the summary of my theory would be the 2.5 heart bids should bid 3 when both opps have passed. This is more true when you are vul and they are not, and more true when your shortness is spades. A flaw in this reasoning is the opps not bidding makes partner less likely to have 5 hearts (notice in both of these hands partner did, but that should be atypical), and these hand types are much better with a 5-4. Also, the opps not bidding spades makes it more likely partner has spade wastage/length. So maybe this theory is dumb and it got lucky twice. Anyone do this/thought of this or have any thoughts?

 

I think 2 hands are too small a sample size from which to draw conclusions or on which to base a bidding theory. I also think that you have it backwards: that spade shortness should be a deterrent (only a mild one) rather than a plus.

 

I guess a simulation might help, but we'd get into issues about whether an opp should overcall with a weak 5 card spade suit, or a 4 card holding, etc. We'd get into issues about where to draw the line on responder accepting or rejecting the invite.

 

As it is, while I see the logic in the spade inference, I think you may be underestimating the odds that partner is 4=4 in the majors. The more likely the opps are to bid 1♠, the more likely it is that their failure to do so is because partner has spade length. If he does have spade length, then he will far more often be 4=4 than 4=5 (I think...I don't know the actual odds but it seems intuitively correct). And 4-4 fits on minimal hcp don't generally fare well unless we have a long side suit we can use as our source of tricks.

 

FWIW, I think that I'd rather upgrade a hand with say 4=4=1=4 than with 1=4=4=4. I have a decent chance of a double fit or at least a partial side fit on the first than on the second.

[gszes]

I think the theory is very sound with my only qualification being

when you have the singleton A dont do it. When you have the

singleton small go for it. There is a certain preemptive value

if p cannot bid game that is bound to win some imps even if

you go down at the 3 level. That in conjunction with making

games packs quite an IMP wallop. MP? not so sure its good

there since going down in 3 can be quite a poor mp score and

not sure how much bidding/maing 4 will compensate.

[Fluffy]

I don't like the spade short either, partner should have 4 cards and 4-4 fits do not enjoy 4-1 outside holdings.

 

About going wild when one partner is limited, it obviously depends on your passing style after 1m-1M, for some people 2M is already a 2.5M bid.

[cherdano]

Doesn't the auction suggest partner has spade values? That's assuming opponents care about suit quality when overcalling.

[Trinidad]

I think 2 hands are too small a sample size from which to draw conclusions or on which to base a bidding theory.

I think that you are completely missing the foundation of the theory. The two samples gave Justin the idea for his theory. Then he proceeded to reason why his theory should have some merit. For this he didn't need statistics (or the samples).

 

Your remark is like people telling Newton: "Watching one apple fall is a very poor statistical basis for starting to think about mechanics and gravity." Measurements and the statistics to evaluate them are very important. But not every theory is based on measurements and statistics or needs them.

 

You are putting too high a value on statistics and too low a value on simple, sound analytical reasoning. Or are you really taking a marked finesse because they have worked in 100% of the cases in the past?

 

Rik

[mikeh]

I think that you are completely missing the foundation of the theory. The two samples gave Justin the idea for his theory. Then he proceeded to reason why his theory should have some merit. For this he didn't need statistics (or the samples).

 

Your remark is like people telling Newton: "Watching one apple fall is a very poor statistical basis for starting to think about mechanics and gravity." Measurements and the statistics to evaluate them are very important. But not every theory is based on measurements and statistics or needs them.

 

You are putting to high a value on statistics and too low a value on simple, sound analytical reasoning. Or are you really taking a marked finesse because they have worked in 100% of the cases in the past?

 

Rik

I knew....just knew....that I should have used an emoticon :P Don't you think I that I knew that Justin wouldn't think 2 hands would (edit) be a sufficient data base? Oh well, the perils of internet (mis)communication strike again.

 

Had you continued reading beyond the first sentence of my post, I think you might have seen that I actually responded analytically (whether accurately or not is another matter) to his ideas, not based on statistics but on what passes with me for bridge logic.

[Trinidad]

I knew....just knew....that I should have used an emoticon :P Don't you think I that I knew that Justin wouldn't think 2 hands would not be a sufficient data base? Oh well, the perils of internet (mis)communication strike again.

 

Had you continued reading beyond the first sentence of my post, I think you might have seen that I actually responded analytically (whether accurately or not is another matter) to his ideas, not based on statistics but on what passes with me for bridge logic.

I did read the rest of your post. I agree with the logic of the rest of your post. But your first sentence was plain wrong and symptomathic for the emphasis that is put on statistics on BBF. People tend to try and solve problems with SIMs and stats (whether they know something about statistics or not) that can be solved analytically.

 

Rik

[Winstonm]

IMO the thing to keep in mind is the purpose of a jump rebid is to invite game, not to reach slam, ergo, it should be OK to stretch a bit in third and fourth seats when partner is a passed hand and opps are quiet in order to reach thin games, especially with hands that have good controls and shape. Partner should not get real excited if it is known these hands can shade a bit on HCPs.

[jogs]

Were you playing forcing club? On hand 1

I would have opened 1♣.

----- - pass

1♣ - 1♥

2♥ -

 

Partner could push since he held a fifth heart

and the club king was working.

[Zelandakh]

Were you playing forcing club? On hand 1 I would have opened 1♣.

If A Kxxx xxxx AQxx is a standard "16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced" hand to you then I suspect you are giving MI every time you play. The hand is worth considering for this evaluation only once the heart fit is known.

[wank]

If A Kxxx xxxx AQxx is a standard "16+ unbalanced or 17+ balanced" hand to you then I suspect you are giving MI every time you play. The hand is worth considering for this evaluation only once the heart fit is known.

 

i think he was very reasonably asking why the OP didn't open 1C and suggesting a possible reason why he didn't, i.e. that because 1C would be strong. even the most diehard 44 minors 1d opener might make an exception with this hand.

[JLOGIC]

Yeah I actually did open 1C, not sure why I said 1D.

[jdeegan]

:P I suspect the 'logic' (at least in part) may be that strangely silent non-vul opponents increases the odds that the hand is breaking normally.

[kgr]

I play that 2♠ and 3♣ are mini-splinters (12-14 or 18-19) in the given examples; that is 2.5♥

[awm]

I think the rationale is that there are three hand types where it really matters whether you bid 2M or 3M:

 

1. Responder has a poor hand so you play one level too high (either in 3M or if responder bids 4M expecting a better opener hand).

2. Responder has just a bit less than an invite, so you get to a good game that you would otherwise miss.

3. Responder has a game force hand that upgrades to push for slam over 3M (and you might get too high).

 

When responder is a passed hand, it eliminates (3) as a possibility. With singleton spade, the fact that both opponents have failed to overcall despite holding 8+ spades between them tends to increase the probability of (2) relative to (1). This wouldn't apply with a singleton minor, since opponents will overcall 1♠ on much less than they need for a 2m bid.

 

In all I think Justin's theory is reasonable, but since I tend to bid 3♥ on these hands anyway it leaves me without a lot of relevant experience (yes, I do pretty well bidding 3♥ in this situation).

[PhilKing]

:P I suspect the 'logic' (at least in part) may be that strangely silent non-vul opponents increases the odds that the hand is breaking normally.

 

Where opener's singleton is in spades, the argument runs against aggression - the opponent's silence makes it more likely that responder has wasted values.

[rhm]

In all I think Justin's theory is reasonable, but since I tend to bid 3♥ on these hands anyway it leaves me without a lot of relevant experience (yes, I do pretty well bidding 3♥ in this situation).

I subscribe to this philosophy.

I believe standard requirements for a jump raise are too high in a strong notrump framework with frequent three card raises.

This is reinforced if you open light, what most people do nowadays. Weak notrump systems have an advantage here in my opinion and you can not just copy their logic here.

After a single raise what is responder supposed to do with a borderline hand, when opener's strength can vary and the degree of fit is unclear?

If responder passes, a lot of good, even cold games are missed and often are. On the other hand if responder game tries, he will often leave the last plus behind him.

Game tries are over-judged.

Much better for opener to be aggressive when he has four card support. That way a lot of good games are reached, without giving opponents a lot of information and going down in three is remarkably rare in my experience.

When it happens opponents often had a contract of their own.

I do not mind bidding game with four card support and 18-19 balanced and I also do not mind splintering with a slightly weaker hand than in standard. It occurs more often and seems to work well.

That way responder does not stretch to invite when he receives a raise, because opener is really minimum or has only three card support.

With a four or a weak five card major responder will need close to opening values to move.

A side benefit is that it gets more dangerous for opponents to balance.

 

Rainer Herrmann