Awkward MPs decision

[Jinksy]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq5hkj84d763cj76&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp1sp]133|200[/hv]

 

What now?

 

[ETA] - pick up partnership on BBO, with no agreements on rebid style.

[billw55]

Matchpoints? 1NT wtp.

 

If opener's sequence promises unbalanced or strong, I will reconsider.

[kenrexford]

The question is entirely dependent upon Opener's rebid style. For me, for instance, 2♣ is very appealing, because I would rebid 1NT with 4-3-3-3, thus making 1♠ purify clubs to at least 4-card. With 4-1-4-4, I would open 1♦. With 4-2-3-4 or 4-3-2-4, I would usually rebid 1NT unless I had a COV in the black suits, which also argues for pulling out of 1NT. However, this gets a tad tricky at MP, for me. Perhaps 2♠ on the expected Moysian is better than 2♣. Sure -- I might have 3-card spades as Opener, which is also a rare problem, but that hand bids again.

[monikrazy]

Is 1S forcing? If yes, I bid 1N. If not I pass with some reservations.

 

Also relevant is whether opener can bid 1N over 1H even with spades if he is balanced and minimum. If he does, we feel better about passing.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq5hkj84d763cj76&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp1sp]133|200|

What now?

[/hv]

IMO 2♣ = 10, 3♣ = 9, 1N = 8, Pass = 7, 2♠ = 6

2 of a minor is not always a disaster. Partner is likely to have 5+ ♣.

Edited to add the Hog's 3♣ suggestion.

Edited August 27, 2014 by nige1

[diana_eva]

I really don't understand pass as an option, never would have crossed my mind. I'd bid 1NT and accept invite or cooperate to find a game if partner continues.

[MrAce]

1nt at any form of scoring. Pass is really a bad call, 1spade is NF to me but it still can be up to a bad 18

[akwoo]

1N.

 

Vulnerable at IMPs with 1♠ promising 5♣ and 4♠, I would consider 2♣.

[mikeh]

methods count and this hand type is a good advertisement for the style in which 1♠ promises 9+ black cards....rebidding 1N as opener on all balanced hands.

 

In standard methods, which are woeful in more ways than this, we have to guess, knowing that it is just a guess. Since 1N MAY not end the auction, and since we do hold 10 hcp, and since it is mps, where 120 may beat 110, we have to bid 1N.

 

Pass is silly, not because 1♠ is forcing (such an agreement is, on a deep level, unplayable) but because 1♠is very wide-range and we own far, far too much to pass.

 

2♠ is a good answer on a different hand.....say KQx KJxxx xx Jxx, but the diamond holding seems wrong for that action here.

[the hog]

If 1S shows an unbalanced hand with the blacks, I bid 3C. This is too good for 2C with 3 great cards.

If you are playing a style where 1S shows a random 13 cards with 4S. I bid 1NT.

[Cascade]

Unless you are counting the ♣J I don't think this hand has three great cards. ♠KQ are great; ♥KJ are dubious and ♣J is better than it started out life but I wouldnt call it great.

[helene_t]

2 ♣ assuming that p promised four of them. Otherwise 2 ♠ assuming this is discussed. Pass with

some of the lols at the club who would have jumped with 16 points. Otherwise 1nt, trying to put up a happy face to inhibit the diamond lead. And then discuss the methods after the session

[Jinksy]

Just edited the OP, but to clarify for those who've already commented, this was a pickup partnership on BBO, with no discussion about rebid style (although P was from the US).

[msjennifer]

Even neglecting the CJ there are 9 hcp and hence playing any system pass is ruled out.A bid of 1NT is the correct bid telling partner a hand of 8 to bad 10 hcp and a balanced one at that.It does not promise a diamond guard.If partner has an unbalanced hand he will surely bid again.And after all with a balanced hand don't we all like to play in NT at matchpoints.!

[kenrexford]

Even neglecting the CJ there are 9 hcp and hence playing any system pass is ruled out.A bid of 1NT is the correct bid telling partner a hand of 8 to bad 10 hcp and a balanced one at that.It does not promise a diamond guard.If partner has an unbalanced hand he will surely bid again.And after all with a balanced hand don't we all like to play in NT at matchpoints.!

But, this is the mirror image of why 2C is appealing. If Opener can rely on a 2C bid with this hand, he will not feel required to bid simply because he's unbalanced, which many styles already promised, and will not therefore bid 2C when a massive misfit is more likely.

[helene_t]

If partner has an unbalanced hand he will surely bid again.

I don't think he will bid again with Axxx-x-Axx-KQxxx. But OK, with that hand 1NT will be good contract.

 

With AJxx-Qxx-K-Kxxxx I suppose some would bid 2♥, especially if playing strictly 4-cards up the line so that he knows that we can't have four diamonds unless we have 5+ hearts. But many would say that 2♥ would show extra values so that he has to pass 1NT.

[tobycurtis]

I had no idea there were so many people who bypass a 4-card spade suit rebid on balanced hands. Are there methods built in for finding 4-4 spade fits after a start of 1♣/♦ - 1♥; 1NT - ?

 

Even if 1♠ isn't 100% forcing, I wouldn't dream of passing with this almost-invitational hand. I don't know that partner has more clubs than spades, so I'm not gambling on 2♣/3♣ at matchpoints. I guess 1NT isn't so bad, but if partner does keep the auction alive, I don't want to be the one who has hinted at a diamond stopper, and I don't particularly want to be the declarer either. So I bid 2♠.

[mikeh]

I had no idea there were so many people who bypass a 4-card spade suit rebid on balanced hands. Are there methods built in for finding 4-4 spade fits after a start of 1♣/♦ - 1♥; 1NT - ?

 

 

no...none of the experts who bypass spades here have any interest in playing a 4=4 major suit fit.

 

Ok....that was silly. Of course we do. There is one problem tho: the method of finding the 4=4 fit works only when responder has invitational or better values. We will play 1N on a 4=4 spade fit when opener has a weak 1N and responder less than invitational values. Sounds like the same 'problem' that weak 1N players have every time they open 1N, yet strangely they seem to 'get away with it', in that a very large number of players around the world (tho not as many in NA) play a weak notrump method.

 

In the meantime, we avoid problems like this one, and gain a lot on good hands as well (because responder knows at the 1-level whether opener is balanced or unbalanced, and this can be very useful.

[akwoo]

I had no idea there were so many people who bypass a 4-card spade suit rebid on balanced hands. Are there methods built in for finding 4-4 spade fits after a start of 1♣/♦ - 1♥; 1NT - ?

 

Yes - New Minor Forcing or Checkback Stayman or more sophisticated versions of either work well for this purpose.

 

The only problem, as already pointed out, is that these require an invitational or better hand.

[Stephen Tu]

Pass is silly, not because 1♠ is forcing (such an agreement is, on a deep level, unplayable)

Uh, could you explain to me the deep reasons why playing 1♠ forcing opposite a normal say 6+ or 5+ minimum is unplayable?

[Jinksy]

I opted for 2♣ at the table, though still don't have strong feelings.

 

My objection to 1N is that, while it might not theoretically promise a stop, this being MPs, I don't want the opps to be able to run 5 tricks against us in 1N and then find they have another somewhere if we could make 2♣+1 or 2♠=, esp if P has Kx or similar in Ds.

 

I dislike pass for the reasons given, but still wonder if it isn't the pro-% MP action, given that a) I think a ♠ contract has highest expectation of the partials, b) if a partial is our limit any bid risks getting us too high or to a worse-scoring denomination and c) by my estimate about 7/8 of the time P will only have as much as 15 points, in which case I don't really want to be in game.

[mike777]

I like 1nt, we have a balanced hand and roughly 6-11 range.

 

 

Given I prefer xyz 2c is not an option here and that is ok.

 

For me 1s does not promise 54 and pard would not by pass a 4 card spade suit on this auction.

 

The opp may still balance with 2d as both are nv.

 

The problem hand for opener will be roughly:

 

AJxx..x...Kxx...AKTxx

 

2 suited hands with a stiff in the roughly 15-16 area can be tough.

[kenrexford]

Uh, could you explain to me the deep reasons why playing 1♠ forcing opposite a normal say 6+ or 5+ minimum is unplayable?

If you have to clarify that the bid is forcing opposite a normal minimum, isn't that a concession that the bid is nonforcing, when Responder has an abnormal minimum?

[mikeh]

Uh, could you explain to me the deep reasons why playing 1♠ forcing opposite a normal say 6+ or 5+ minimum is unplayable?

interesting way of framing the question. Most good players these days don't need 6+ to respond to 1m. Give me Jxxx Kxxxx xx xx and I am not passing partner's 1♣ opening and I wouldn't want to have to bid 2♠ over a 'forcing' 1♠.

 

On a more theoretical level, system design has to cater to many factors, some of which run contrary to others.

 

However, a major goal in any system design is to maximize the ability of bidders to limit the strength of the hand early in the auction. Bidding space is another important factor in system design. While preemptive bidding, picture bidding, fast arrival and so on have roles to play, in most straight-forward constructive, natural (i.e. not relay) methods, one wants to combine shape and strength disclosure with keeping the bidding low enough that we can expect to make the contract we reach.

 

When 1♠ is forcing, opener has conveyed zero information as to his strength (that is, nothing more than the info from having opened in the first place). It is possible, depending on what 2♠ is used for, that opener has refined his shape, but he hasn't refined his strength.

 

That means that responder, who is going to have as much say in where we end up as does opener, is in the dark despite this being the 2nd round of the auction.

 

It also means that since he can no longer pass, all of his actions are now less and differently defined than if pass were a systemically permissible call. When I raise 1♠ to 2♠, I am showing values that will permit a game opposite a good non jumpshift black two suiter. When 1♠ is forcing, the lower limit of my hand is lower, and the inferences opener can draw are different.

 

Once you widen the range that needs to be addressed, one often finds that one strains the meaning of several calls. Thus if my 1N may be on a 5 count, since I can't pass 1♠, then either I lower the high end of that rebid, and thus lower the low end of stronger calls, or I make 1N almost devoid of constructive information.

 

In turn, this means that opener, who has provided virtually no strength description, has to start refining strength on the 3rd round of bidding, while most of us have already taken steps to do so, even if to a limited degree, on the 2nd round.

 

I also fail to see any compelling need for 1♠ to be forcing. GF hands, with 9+ blacks, can bid 2♠. Yes, this is space-consuming but it is also narrowly defining, and one can, in a well-designed system, allow for some space consumption if the sequence provides good information at a still-reasonable level. The same is true for strong hands worth a 2N rebid, with a 4 card spade suit and a balanced hand. Bid 2N: surely all good players have excellent methods after a 2N rebid, which may contain spades?

 

By taking out gf 2-suiters, and balanced 2N rebids from 1♠, we have removed all need to make it forcing. Since we have no gfr hand, and deny a 2N rebid, responder can make a more informed and more informative call at his second turn.

 

 

I think it was Woolsey who coined the term 'a zero play' when discussing defence: it refers, iirc, to a play that can never gain, and can sometimes lose, compared to a better play.

 

Using 1♠ as forcing seems to me to be the equivalent in bidding. It creates losing options for the partnership on some auctions, because not only does it convey little information but it interferes with the information exchange on the next round as well. In addition, there seem to be no problems that require this meaning in order to have a solution. Any space we consume in the standard jumpshift or 2N rebid is made up for by the lack of any further need to 'catch up'. The forcing 1♠ camp has to start limiting strength sometime, and they have less room in which to do it now.

 

 

I hope that provides some insight into what I was alluding to in my earlier post.

[Stephen Tu]

interesting way of framing the question. Most good players these days don't need 6+ to respond to 1m. Give me Jxxx Kxxxx xx xx and I am not passing partner's 1♣ opening and I wouldn't want to have to bid 2♠ over a 'forcing' 1♠.

I guess I don't see much downside of bidding 2 spades here. If partner had a GF hand that in std methods would jump shift, you are getting to game, you weren't passing a std 2♠ jump shift were you? If partner had a minimum hand, it seems unlikely that you'd buy it for 1♠, and would likely get to 2♠ eventually anyway. Now sometimes partner has a medium strength hand, and will bid 3♠ or something like that, and passing would have kept you lower and you avoid going down one. But sometimes when partner bids 3♠ he'll make it anyway.

 

Generally, I think that the number of hands that pass 1♠ in standard is really low to begin with, so playing 1♠ as forcing isn't going to affect your results very much even if you occasionally get too high on these hands, and this frees up 2♠ to handle other difficult hand types that are handled poorly by standard methods, and the gains using 2♠ artificially could well compensate for occasionally getting too high when partner wanted to pass 1♠ but couldn't. I just don't see how one can rate playing 1♠ forcing as "unplayable". Maybe one could prefer not to play it forcing, but "unplayable" seems like a totally over the top comment.

 

However, a major goal in any system design is to maximize the ability of bidders to limit the strength of the hand early in the auction.

Is it really such a massive advantage to limit strength to 12-18 instead of say 12-21? To me if that were so important everyone would be playing strong 1♣ systems.

 

Once you widen the range that needs to be addressed, one often finds that one strains the meaning of several calls. Thus if my 1N may be on a 5 count, since I can't pass 1♠, then either I lower the high end of that rebid, and thus lower the low end of stronger calls, or I make 1N almost devoid of constructive information.

Isn't 1nt wide ranging anyway? Are you going to pass 1♠ on doubleton/stiff/void spade very often? If you respond light on a 1552/2542 type of hand I don't see how you are going to avoid having 1nt being wide range.

 

I also fail to see any compelling need for 1♠ to be forcing. GF hands, with 9+ blacks, can bid 2♠.

It's to free 2♠ for other uses, like one can use it to cover bridge world death hands, and various heart raises, generally improve auctions with strong one-suited minor by transmitting more information than a 1m-1♥-3m sequence.

 

If you aren't going to use 2♠ artificially, then sure, there's no great reason to play 1♠ as forcing. But if you have a gadget, I don't think making the ranges for 2♠/1nt/2m be a little wider really hurts you too much.