63% but there's always something I can do better

[Winstonm]

A failure to use Drury should indicate a 2-card holding and less than a limit raise, while the failure to raise hearts immediately should show less than 3 hearts and a lesser hand. Sometimes it's not what did partner bid but also what did partner not bid.

[the hog]

If I bid my own suit and then later compete or take preference for partners major, I am only promising 2.

 

Look at Phil King's hand above. If you bid 2H rather that 1S on this, how on earth can partner assess his hand properly? This is a clear 1S bid, even though you have 3 card support.

[Winstonm]

I must be extremely old fashioned because I always thought the idea of suit bidding was to find an 8-card or better fit - when I have a minimum hand worth only one bid, I always thought my clear duty was to announce to partner that we hold an 8-card fit, and the way I do that is by raising his major when I have 3.

[Winstonm]

I must be extremely old fashioned because I always thought the idea of suit bidding was to find an 8-card or better fit - when I have a minimum hand worth only one bid, I always thought my clear duty was to announce to partner that we hold an 8-card fit, and the way I do that is by immediatly raising his major when I have 3.

[gszes]

If I bid my own suit and then later compete or take preference for partners major, I am only promising 2.

 

support with support is a wonderful concept but it is far from dogma.

 

Let us assume you begin life with QJT9xx A43 xxx x this is a very

reasonable hand to start with 1s intending to support hearts later.

Spades can easily be a superior contract to hearts and showing

belated support at least allows p to know you have concentrated

values in spades. The principle is not that different from 2/1

thining where responder will bid say 2d with a decent 6 card

dia suit and support for partner's major. I realize you said that

you will make exceptions for game forcing hands but we hope

you will open up your thinking about delayed support:))))))))))))

[jillybean]

support with support is a wonderful concept but it is far from dogma.

 

Let us assume you begin life with QJT9xx A43 xxx x this is a very

reasonable hand to start with 1s intending to support hearts later.

Spades can easily be a superior contract to hearts and showing

belated support at least allows p to know you have concentrated

values in spades. The principle is not that different from 2/1

thining where responder will bid say 2d with a decent 6 card

dia suit and support for partner's major. I realize you said that

you will make exceptions for game forcing hands but we hope

you will open up your thinking about delayed support:))))))))))))

How many times are you going to bid spades before you show heart support here?

 

I dislike "rules" but if I had to make one it would be to show support with support, unless of course you have a gf hand.

[PhilKing]

How many times are you going to bid spades before you show heart support here?

 

I dislike "rules" but if I had to make one it would be to show support with support, unless of course you have a gf hand.

 

I've got a better rule - "don't support partner for no reason whatsoever with 2-card support."

 

Here was a hand last night where never supporting worked perfectly:

 

http://app.pianola.net/Results/Session11122/Travellers/26

 

Auction:

 

P P 1♦ 1♠

X 2♣ 2♥ P

4♥ All pass

 

Partner led a top spade and switched to the ♣J for one down. It was let through four times out of five at other tables. This is my idea of normal bridge, but it breaks your rule.

 

If you want to raise 1♥ to 2♥ after both opponents have passed with ♠KQJxx xxx xxx xx, fine. But it ain't bridge. If partner rebids a minor and you give preference to hearts, they will doubtless assume you have two, but so what? Your hand is worthless unless partner has some spades, and biddin, of all things, your best suit, will help focus on that.

[jillybean]

I've got a better rule - "don't support partner for no reason whatsoever with 2-card support."

Other than when we have denied 3 card support and are now competing with 2 card support, we also raise partners major on 2 when we hold shortage in another suit but I can accept that I am in minority or alone in this.

 

I don't understand your example. If you are suggesting not supporting partners 1♠ overcall, it is a totally different auction.

[PhilKing]

Other than when we have denied 3 card support and are now competing with 2 card support, we also raise partners major on 2 when we hold shortage in another suit but I can accept that I am in minority or alone in this.

 

That makes sense (and is bridge), but it has no application to this hand.

[Zelandakh]

but we hope you will open up your thinking about delayed support

 

We? You are halfway along the path to full-on hearts...!

[P_Marlowe]

I am aware of the difference between showing preference and competing.

If I have a invitational hand with 3 hearts and 5 spades, I am first going to make an invitational raise in hearts and not mention the spades.

 

I have no problem with all those who think raising hearts on the POS is ill advised :o but give me a

better hand with 4-5 spades and 2 hearts and this is how I am going to bid it.

Ok - If you show the inv. heart raise direct, instead of introducing the spade suit, than your 2H

bid cannot be based on primary support.

Showing the fit immeditaly simplifies a lot of auctions.

 

But you need to discuss this explicitly with your partner, since this is not mainstream.

If 1S denies primary support, bidding 2H is certainly ok, but bidding 3H is not.

The 3H bid showes, that the partnership is out of sync, and this is most likely due to a

different interpretation of 2H.

And of course, sometimes you happen to have 6 spades, 3 hearts and inv. values, do you still

hide the 6 card spade suit, even AKTxxx?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[billw55]

Jilly, this is interesting. You are quite firm about your own preferred treatment of this bid. And yet, clearly your partner was not on the same page - he thought your 2♥ showed three trump and a better hand. Still you use "we" in your last post. Is this an agreement that partner forgot - or an idea of yours that was undiscussed?

[jillybean]

Jilly, this is interesting. You are quite firm about your own preferred treatment of this bid. And yet, clearly your partner was not on the same page - he thought your 2♥ showed three trump and a better hand. Still you use "we" in your last post. Is this an agreement that partner forgot - or an idea of yours that was undiscussed?

After discussing this hand further with my partner we are on the same page, for us this sequence only shows 2 card heart support.

Give me and invitational hand with 3 hearts and 6 spades AKxxxx I am going to bid spades, we play xyz so have a method of showing an

invitational hand with hearts after 1H 1S 1N.

With a minimum hand I am much more inclined to support hearts directly as I believe it is important to let partner know we have a fit so

that he can make a decision to compete to the 3 level.

[the hog]

"With a minimum hand but good Spades I am much more inclined to bid spades directly as I believe it is important to let partner know we have a fit so

that he can make a decision to compete to the 3 level.

[dbsboy]

I think it is reasonable to have rules like "raise whenever you have 3+ card support" so lets assume that 1♠ denies 3+♥. (But I don't play it this way - ♠KQJXX ♥XXX ♦XXX ♣XX is a clear 1♠ to me)

 

However, 2♥ is still a poor choice. Even if you have denied 3 card support, it does not mean that you have to bid 2♥ whenever you have 2 card support.

 

First, as mentioned, there isn't really a need for you to preempt opponents. Opponents are not marked with a fit, you have defense in every minor, at any time you can bid 2♥ over their 2minor. If partner has 6 good hearts he would have bid 2♥ by himself anyway, so you don't really plan to compete to 3 level at this point.

 

Second, your hearts are not that appealing and your hand is balanced. If your hand is like, for example, ♠QXXXX ♥AK ♦ XX ♣XXXX then 2♥ looks much better. At least whatever partner chooses, 2♥ or 2♠, you would be quite comfortable with that. You would also be happy to hear partner competing to 3♥.

 

Third (may be irrelevant here), in 3rd/4th seat I do love opening 1M with 4 card Major. In this case bidding 2M w/ 2 card support would be disastrous.

 

I think one important point is that you do not bid 2♥ whenever you have 2 card support, even though you denied 3 card support in the previous round. For example, holding a hand like ♠XX ♥KX ♦AKXXX ♣KXXX I would bid 3♥ over 1♦-1♥-2♣-2♠-?, but with ♠AQ ♥XX ♦QXXXX ♣AJXX 2NT is obvious, so it is essential to evaluate many other factors instead of number of trump cards before you make a bid.

 

For the same reason, I think it is important to assess the quality of ♠ rather than raising the Major 100% of the time you have 3 card support.

 

Having said all these, I would assume you have 3 card ♥ and 5 good♠ given this auction.

[Winstonm]

support with support is a wonderful concept but it is far from dogma.

 

Let us assume you begin life with QJT9xx A43 xxx x this is a very

reasonable hand to start with 1s intending to support hearts later.

Spades can easily be a superior contract to hearts and showing

belated support at least allows p to know you have concentrated

values in spades. The principle is not that different from 2/1

thining where responder will bid say 2d with a decent 6 card

dia suit and support for partner's major. I realize you said that

you will make exceptions for game forcing hands but we hope

you will open up your thinking about delayed support:))))))))))))

 

The principle competing with dogma is that it is normally best to play in the weaker hand's suit, if possible. I submit that QJ10xxx, Axx is much different than holding QJ10xx, Axx. In the first, pard only needs to hold a balanced hand for spades to be right. In the second, spades does not improve our contract over hearts unless partner holds a fit.

 

In the latter case, I would argue it is wiser to raise partner than introduce a speculative 1S bid.

[PhilG007]

Bid 1NT over the double. This shows 6-9 points and values in the unbid suits

(in this case,the minors.)

[Fluffy]

unpassed 1♠ and then a voluntary 2♥ would be a limit raise.

 

having druri avaible this doesn't make much sense but I think I would take it that way also since everything doesn't fit, still the waters are muddy enough that bidding 3♥ with that trash should had never happened.

 

Bidding 1♠ with a weak hand and 3 card support I've always though is a beginners mistake, but I encounter good players who do it, haven't tried it myself ever anyway.

 

 

to Phil: the hand you posted is a clear fit-jump, 2♣ denies support and your partner should had tried to give you a ruff immediately, only supporting gives partner a chance to defeat, if you show clubs along the way, even better.

[kael chi]

None else for biding, i will pass.

[gszes]

How many times are you going to bid spades before you show heart support here?

 

I dislike "rules" but if I had to make one it would be to show support with support, unless of course you have a gf hand.

 

just bidding spades once and then supporting hearts shows a significant spade presence as there is no reason

to bid a puny spade holding before supporting with support. This is especially useful when you have a hand strong

enough to think about slam (ie your GF hand exception above):))))))))))))))))))

Is there a downside?? if the bidding goes (nooppeinterference) 1h 1s 2 c/d if your hand is too weak to at least bid

3h your 2h bid would be considered preference and the inference to great spades would also be lost. In this

case however the worst case scenario will be an occasional missed game. Small price to pay for much more

overall accuracy at being in the right place and much improved slam bidding.

 

 

 

[mgoetze]

Life was so much easier when people still believed in the law of total tricks.