Psychological Interference Double with threats

[mikeh]

 

 

 

We do agree that 2 ♠ had limited our hand, for some to 12-14, for many to 12-15, don't we? Of course if 2 ♠tells nothing, this would be another story. But nobody plays it that way.

 

 

Irony, thy name is Codo :P

[mikeh]

 

Actually I would be surprised, if the limiting nature of 2 ♠ is a minority view, but I honestly do not know. If someone is interessted to make a survey, I would like to know how big the minority is...

 

Maybe, when one is profoundly ignorant, one should not be quite so ready to assert that 'nobody plays it that way'. if you 'honestly do not know' why post with such certainty?

 

There have been countless posts on BBF in which a number of good players have suggested that the auction 1♠ 2x 2♠ can be and is by many played as essentially a waiting bid. Indeed, in 2/1 (arguably the most common method amongst tournament players based on global numbers), there are two schools of thought, and one of them is precisely that: 2♠ is the default catch-all call, with other calls having narrowly prescribed meaning.

 

Just as not everybody plays an artifical 3N in the OP sequence, not everybody plays your particular style for the 2♠ bid either. Maybe when I criticize you (actually, in my OP it was more Free than you whom I felt had made an error), it is because you are wrong?

[ggwhiz]

1♠ 2x 2♠ can be and is by many played as essentially a waiting bid.

 

As played by 100% of my partners and myself over many years and I don't care about the rest.

[fromageGB]

Yes it's a waiting bid, but there are quite a lot of strongish holdings that can be described by another bid. Playing 5 card majors, if you do hold a 12-14 (or thereabouts) with 5 card spades, and no cheap new suit to bid, I think 2♠ is common. Without knowing exactly, I'm sure most 2♠ bids made are in this category. Jlogic would say 92%?

 

I believe SEF, for example, needs a 15 count to bid 2NT with a balanced hand. I agree with Codo that "limited" is the first assumption that should be made when partner bids this (depending on system). Additional strength is needed to raise partner, or bid above 2♠.

[MrAce]

 

Actually I would be surprised, if the limiting nature of 2 ♠ is a minority view, but I honestly do not know. If someone is interessted to make a survey, I would like to know how big the minority is...

 

Well it depends on whom you apply the survey.

 

This is expert forum and most experts that i know play 2♠ rebid by opener not limited to 11-14. This of course doesn't mean "all experts play it this way" but when you said "nobody plays it this way" i was surprised.

 

Even those who plays it not limited divides into groups among themselves. For example i personally do not bid 2♠ with all 5332 hands, AJxxx Kxx xx KQx 1♠-2♦-2NT(12-14 or 18-19 ) is what i like. And those also divide into groups among themselves again, those who always bid 2NT with 12-14 and those who bids it with hands like one i constructed. Or those who always bid 2♠ with all 5332 hands.

 

Now when you said SEF is popular, i kinda figured where this is coming from. French players are not the biggest fan of opening 1NT with 5 card majors. In fact this was like some sort of religious thing for majority of them for a long time. I am not sure if they changed their style on this in last decade but if you are not opening 1NT with 5 card majors, the way you prefer 1M-2x-2M can be different. Because at the top of everything i wrote, now they have the 15-17 limit to deal with as well.

[lycier]

I think the high card points are not most important things but suits fit.it is just suits fit to creat tricks,not HCP; the amount of tricks depend on the extent of the suits fit,also not HCP ! Actually many of the high card points can be value-less.If you apply the principle of fast arrival,it precisely showed you can't bid any other with denied other features of the suit control you held .IMO,as for this hand,I was not content to bid 4♠ directly after 3♠ since I have a ♣K,the second control in my ♣ suit,this was a very important feature even though with minmum hand.

In the other word it was not suitable for the application of the principle of fast arrival in this sort of hand.

I think minmum hand is not a reason for the lost of slam,the application of the principle of fast arrival is not a reason for the lost of slam! It is of important to show the feature of your hand actively.

[MrAce]

I think the high card points are not most important things but suits fit.it is just suits fit to creat tricks,not HCP; the amount of tricks depend on the extent of the suits fit,also not HCP ! Actually many of the high card points can be value-less.If you apply the principle of fast arrival,it precisely showed you can't bid any other with denied other features of the suit control you held .IMO,as for this hand,I was not content to bid 4♠ directly after 3♠ since I have a ♣K,the second control in my ♣ suit,this was a very important feature even though with minmum hand.

In the other word it was not suitable for the application of the principle of fast arrival in this sort of hand.

I think minmum hand is not a reason for the lost of slam,the application of the principle of fast arrival is not a reason for the lost of slam! It is of important to show the feature of your hand actively.

 

Most of what you wrote seems personal opinion. But you are resulting imo. Even if we agreed to resulting, i would not blame the guy with 12 hcp and only one keycard (not even an Ace) and 5332 shape. Blame goes to the guy with 19 hcp. If W believed pd did not have ♣ control why did he bid 4NT ? If he believed pd has one why did he stop at 5 level ? There is a reason why people felt the neccesitty of inventing something called "serious 3NT" or its versions.

 

But assume South did not double 5♣, how would you bid slam with 1kc+♠Q missing anyway ? Had N held the ♠ Q would you still post this hand ? Or had E held ♠ T woul you still post this hand ? You ended up playing perfectly normal contract. Doesn't look like a hand that you should lose your sleep over it.:)

[lycier]

1- Both of the east seat and west seat didn't show their hands clearly in time,so these questions had nothing to do with double bid .

2- My friend have suggested me to use a remedy to resolve this problem after double if available in bidding space:

XX=first control

next cheapest bid=second control

return to bid trump agreed=deny any control

[PhilKing]

1- Both of the east seat and west seat didn't show their hands clearly in time,so these questions had nothing to do with double bid .

2- My friend have suggested me to use a remedy to resolve this problem after double if available in bidding space:

XX=first control

next cheapest bid=second control

return to bid trump agreed=deny any control

 

Lacking any control, he can just pass. A return to the trump suit says we are off two key cards and the next suit should mean whatever it would have meant without the double.

[MrAce]

Lacking any control, he can just pass. A return to the trump suit says we are off two key cards and the next suit should mean whatever it would have meant without the double.

 

+1

 

 

Exactly. Double by S helped your side rather than making things uncertain for you. West totally blew it up when he bid 5♠

 

@ Lycier:

 

-5♠ =We are short in keys

 

Pass = We have enough keys but i am not sure we stop clubs, after that -----------> E bids 5♠ lacking ♣ control, and shows Q of trumps or whatever else he wants to show with a ♣ control. Those are optional, but choice between pass and 5♠ by W is not. Not bidding 5♠ by E w/o a club stopper is not.

 

W can keep on asking trump Q or whatever else he wants to know if he has 1st or 2nd round control in clubs.

[mikeh]

 

I think minmum hand is not a reason for the lost of slam,

 

You're concerned that EW 'missed' a slam that depends on picking up Q10xxx in trump with no losers? Not to mention that there is the possibility of a club ruff whenever S has Axxxxx or x in the suit.

 

Move the spade J into the 5 card suit and only a very tall player, making maximal use of his peripheral vision, would make the slam and yet we've made the East hand stronger!

 

You are more than welcome to believe that EW ought to bid slam on these hands: indeed, I'd love to play you for serious money, in a long match, if you truly believe that E-W 'lost' a slam here.

 

E-W did misbid, imo. But they overbid, not underbid. They should have been in 4♠.

[000ffj]

w-e have 19+11=30p and 53 fitting spade suiter after east opened 1s from west,There is no doubt at least that 5s or 5nt will be makeable.so west won't and should not stop at 4s even though east sent stopping signal continually.

[mikeh]

w-e have 19+11=30p and 53 fitting spade suiter after east opened 1s from west,There is no doubt at least that 5s or 5nt will be makeable.so west won't and should not stop at 4s even though east sent stopping signal continually.

Firstly, it is trivial to layout NS hands on which 5 level contracts fail, so your stated premise is flawed.

 

Secondly, the objective of good bidding is NOT to bid to the level that you will usually make.

 

Thus if we think we can take 9 tricks in spades, we get no reward for bidding 3♠ rather than 2♠. Indeed, if we always bid 3♠ on hands that will usually but not always take 9 tricks, we will score, in the long run, far worse than those who consistently stop in 2♠.

 

This effect is magnified, due to the game bonus, when we aim to bid to the 5 level every time we think we can make 11 tricks.

 

We play at the 5-level in a major only when:

 

1) the opps have saved and we consider that bidding on is better than doubling

2) we are saving

3) we have explored for slam and found out that slam is best avoided.

 

Here, the only justification for going to 5♠ is the last one. However, and this is crucial for anyone aspiring to be an expert, it is important to understand that West has no business thinking of slam after opener's bidding. IOW, an expert W facing an expert E would know that there was no real likelihood of partner holding a hand that would justify W bidding slam: and he'd know that over 4♠.

 

Please read or re-read JLOGIC's initial post here where he describes the tendency of many players to think that holding an 18 or 19 count hand opposite an opening means that one should always drive to slam.

 

I think this thread offers non-experts a huge amount of insight into how to bid cooperatively and how to learn to trust partner. Yes, West has an enormous hand, but when East announces a horrible hand, via the 4♠ bid, West has to learn how to say the magic word: pass.

 

When we have these auctions in my partnerships, in a friendly game, we have been known to utter a squealing sound, as West, over the 4♠, which sound is the sound of the rapid application of brakes. West put his foot on the accelerator by forcing to game (assuming 2/1 gf) and then made a slam try....further depressing the accelerator...and East jammed on the brakes as hard as he could by his 4♠ which, regardless of serious/frivolous 3N implications, shows an awful hand in context.

 

Once you learn how to bid these hands and to stop at the 4-level, knowing what you are doing, you will have raised the level of your game a notch.

[glen]

... I think the principle of fast arrival is a wrong style ...

See Fred's "Improving 2/1 Game Force" and in his first article "The (misguided) principle of fast arrival"

[lycier]

See Fred's "Improving 2/1 Game Force" and in his first article "The (misguided) principle of fast arrival"

 

Thank you very much,now let's review Fred's "Improving 2/1 Game Force" and in his first article "The (misguided) principle of fast arrival" .

 

PROBLEM 2: The (misguided) principle of fast arrival

......

you have a laydown slam.the five level is not safe. The problem here is the jump to game. This bid deprives you of finding out at a safe level whether or not a spade control exists. The theory behind using the principle of fast arrival after 2/1 auctions is that without fast arrival, neither partner ever gets to express whether or not they have extra values. Standard 2/1 places such a large emphasis on bidding out your pattern and finding out how well the hands fit that the bidding is often at a high level before either partner has been able to limit his hand. Using fast arrival gives responder a chance to say that he has a minimum 2/1. Unfortunately, the price that must be paid for limiting responder's hand is too high. There are simply too many times that you need the four level for cue-bidding, especially when opener's hand is virtually unlimited (as is usually the case in 2/1 auctions). Even if both opener and responder are minimum, twelve tricks can easily exist if the hands fit well.

 

For this hand,the east seat should cuebid 4C instead of 4S to the game for fast arrival.

[JLOGIC]

Fast arrival refers to jumping to game in a GF auction, eg 1S 2C 2D 2S 4S with a minimum hand, or 1N 2H 2S 3C 4S, or 1S 2C 2S 4S. It doesn't refer to failing to cuebid and signing off.

[cherdano]

Ok, so maybe this is the point, here in Germany (and not just here) many people are influenced by the FES style, where 2 ♠ shows just that you hold a normal (11-14 or similar) opening and no lower suit to bid. It does not deny a diamond fit or a balanced hand.

I am not very confident about many things related to bidding. But I am confident that this style is vastly inferior. Having to jump in a forcing auction when you don't know the right strain will hurt a lot. (And remember that finding a game that is 7% better is just as important as finding a 55% slam.)

[fromageGB]

But I am confident that this style is vastly inferior. Having to jump in a forcing auction when you don't know the right strain will hurt a lot.

I may be misunderstanding you, but there is no mention of jumping. In a system like SEF there are bids you can make to describe your hand with a rebid greater than 2M, but these require greater strength. I would assume (without knowing all systems) this is pretty common. It's just that with hands with no cheap suit, or that have support, or are balanced, a rebid of 2M is made as a waiting bid if not strong enough to go higher. What's wrong with that? Therefore, while a 15+ hand can rebid NT or support partner, or a 17+ hand can bid a new (expensive) suit without a jump, there is a presumption that 2M is limited. It may of course be stronger.

 

Having made an initial 2M rebid, you don't have to jump to 4M to show (again) that you are limited, so the bidding is kept low to allow the best contract to be found.

[cherdano]

I may be misunderstanding you, but there is no mention of jumping. In a system like SEF there are bids you can make to describe your hand with a rebid greater than 2M, but these require greater strength. I would assume (without knowing all systems) this is pretty common. It's just that with hands with no cheap suit, or that have support, or are balanced, a rebid of 2M is made as a waiting bid if not strong enough to go higher. What's wrong with that? Therefore, while a 15+ hand can rebid NT or support partner, or a 17+ hand can bid a new (expensive) suit without a jump, there is a presumption that 2M is limited. It may of course be stronger.

 

Having made an initial 2M rebid, you don't have to jump to 4M to show (again) that you are limited, so the bidding is kept low to allow the best contract to be found.

 

Codo said that 2S is limited to 12-14 points. Nothing wrong with the style you describe.

[rhm]

Codo said that 2S is limited to 12-14 points. Nothing wrong with the style you describe.

To my knowledge FES style or what is called in Germany Forum-D are systems where 2/1 is not game forcing. Rebidding your major is not forcing and therefor limited.

Once you apply this style to 2/1 gf, rebidding your major may of course hide hands, which are stronger, but where a higher rebid than 2M would be inconvenient.

Usually these are unbalanced hands with 15+, shortage in partner's suit and either a weak six card major or a 5431 distribution, where the second suit is too weak and not worth mentioning as a high reverse.

These stronger exceptions are rare enough, so that the implication that opener normally is minimum would still be a sensible assumption unless proven otherwise later.

Though not my style, there are merits in this approach, considering that one of the big problems in 2/1 is that often neither opener nor responder get limited early.

 

Where I disagree with Codo is that this should induce opener to cuebid 4♣ with this absolute ace-less poor major suit minimum.

Again I wonder what opener would do if he happened to hold the rare stronger hand types or a really slam suitable minimum.

As Justin rightly pointed out calling the simple reraise 4♠ "fast arrival" is a misnomer. It is simply a sign-off, though with the same implication, warning responder of going higher.

If you believe in a weak opening style such bids are absolutely required.

Judgment rules the game, not dogmas.

 

Rainer Herrmann