1m-1M rebid

[Free]

The book in question is "THE COMPLETE STAYMAN SYSTEME OF CONTRACT BIDDING" by Samuel S.Stayman (I edition 1957, III edition 1972). About pointing the author said, in chapter I - VALUTATION OF THE HAND that " in spring of 1949, in an article titled "Comparation of vary systems of point counting" we get at the conclusion that a more precise system of valutation of points of high cards was this one: A= 4,5 p., K=3 p., Q=2 p., J=1 p., 10= 0,5 points." Infact we know now that Milton Work (4-3-2-1) is precise for balanced hands but less for the other unbalanced hands where insert Goren scale (void=3 p.,singleton=2 p., doubleton=1 point) helps. It exist other systems of valutation (Four Aces of Dallas have scale 3-2-1-0.5 and older also Bissel points A=3, K=2,Q=1, J and 10=0). If are interested i can indicate the "Tabel of valutation of the hand" from the book.

I'm sorry, you're so right. In the 60 year period between the writing of this book and today, bridge hasn't changed at all. There haven't been any new developments about hand evaluation (like counting your points for shortnesses only when there's a fit), everything is still the same. And when a book says it's more accurate, it's definitely true for an eternity. Thanks for this very valuable contribution!

 

Serious remark: on a point scale of 44+ (the more precise system) obviously you'll have a higher value than a point scale of 40 (HCP). This doesn't mean you can compare them.

[benlessard]

AT MP its an obvious 2D since the odds of going down in 3D/3NT are higher than the odds of missing game/slam after 2D. At imps I would also bid 2D, I expect partner to stretch his raise when he hold Ax in D.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqh53dkqjt542ck5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1hp]133|200|

Two or three?

What is the smallest change you would have to make to the hand to change you into the other category?

[/hv]

So far I'm 50/50 with the top players in my country, with two players whose names you would recognize taking opposite sides. Would love to hear your thoughts (and which side you take).

Congratulations, lmilne, on winning the Open Play-off! :)

Have arguments presented here modified your opinion?

[Lovera]

I've found a closer hand in" Total Bridge " (by B. Romanet pag. 80): W ♠ xx ♥ A 10 x ♦ A x x ♣ A Q 10 9 x N ♠ A K J 10 x x ♥ Q x x ♦ K Q ♣ x x E ♠ Q x x x ♥ J x x x ♦ 10 8 x ♣ x x S ♠ x ♥ K x x ♦ J 9 x x x ♣ K J 8 x (that i refer how is in the book). South contract 2 NT - West opening lead is ♣ 10. "Incert contract, called in a tourney by couples. West that had initially bid 1♣, lead with ♣ 10 won by J in South that lead a little spade to 10 in dummy and Queen in East retourning with its last club covered by 8 and 9."

[MrAce]

I've found a closer hand in" Total Bridge " (by B. Romanet pag. 80): W ♠ xx ♥ A 10 x ♦ A x x ♣ A Q 10 9 x N ♠ A K J 10 x x ♥ Q x x ♦ K Q ♣ x x E ♠ Q x x x ♥ J x x x ♦ 10 8 x ♣ x x S ♠ x ♥ K x x ♦ J 9 x x x ♣ K J 8 x (that i refer how is in the book). South contract 2 NT - West opening lead is ♣ 10. "Incert contract, called in a tourney by couples. West that had initially bid 1♣, lead with ♣ 10 won by J in South that lead a little spade to 10 in dummy and Queen in East retourning with its last club covered by 8 and 9."

 

I admire the confident that Csaba, Free and others have in themselves about the futile mission of convincing Lovera. But the sooner they realize that Lovera will be the last one to reply, to each and every single logical post, the sooner this painful topic ends imo. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

[Cyberyeti]

3 for me and not close, BUT I play a GF unbalanced 2N rebid which means that I won't have a huge hand for the 3♦ rebid and partner will pass it on many hands where it's right.

[aguahombre]

3 for me and not close, BUT I play a GF unbalanced 2N rebid which means that I won't have a huge hand for the 3♦ rebid and partner will pass it on many hands where it's right.

I wonder how partner will know to "pass it on many hands where it's right", when apparently this hand is not quite a minimum for your 3♦ rebid, and yet the top end is just below GF. Perhaps "GF" is also reduced; but even if partner knows that, he can't do anything about it.

[Cyberyeti]

I wonder how partner will know to "pass it on many hands where it's right", when apparently this hand is not quite a minimum for your 3♦ rebid, and yet the top end is just below GF. Perhaps "GF" is also reduced; but even if partner knows that, he can't do anything about it.

 

This hand is closer to maximum than it is to minimum for 3♦ for us, tends to be about 6.75 - 7.75 or bad 8 playing tricks although this a a bad 7.5 tricks due to lack of aces.

 

We also have other system peculiarities available to deal with some of the other problematic hands.

[helene_t]

That you have a different rebid for the GF hands doesn't really change anything since 3♦ is not forcing in standard methods anyway. Standard bidder will, with a GF hand, fake a reverse or jump shift, or rebid 3NT.

[Cyberyeti]

That you have a different rebid for the GF hands doesn't really change anything since 3♦ is not forcing in standard methods anyway. Standard bidder will, with a GF hand, fake a reverse or jump shift, or rebid 3NT.

 

The standard death hand is often rebid 3♦ for many people, we don't do that, we will not have 8.5 tricks or a decent 8 which some people will.

[Zelandakh]

Some people will have 19 highs for a 2♦ rebid too. That does not make either call correct under standard methods.

[sfi]

I would bid 2♦

 

I don't know who you are and whether you are an expert or not. But it does not matter. Please ignore the suggestions/comments about this not being an expert topic. I personally think it was a nice hand to listen to expert opinions about how to evaluate it. I am sorry that it is hijacked.

 

Original poster will be playing in the Bermuda Bowl later this year, so definitely an expert.

 

2D for me as well. If partner moves, they will either have good values or aces. With neither of those I would prefer not to be in game.

[Cyberyeti]

Original poster will be playing in the Bermuda Bowl later this year, so definitely an expert.

 

2D for me as well. If partner moves, they will either have good values or aces. With neither of those I would prefer not to be in game.

 

But how are you going to enjoy it if the auction proceeds 1♦-P-1♥-P-2♦-P-P-X for example, while you might have a lot of playing tricks, you don't have a whole lot of defence if partner has a fairly poor hand like xxx, Axxxx, x, Qxxx where an initial 3♦ might buy the contract with both 3♦ and 3♠ making.

[sfi]

But how are you going to enjoy it if the auction proceeds 1♦-P-1♥-P-2♦-P-P-X for example, while you might have a lot of playing tricks, you don't have a whole lot of defence if partner has a fairly poor hand like xxx, Axxxx, x, Qxxx where an initial 3♦ might buy the contract with both 3♦ and 3♠ making.

 

Sure, it can go wrong. But I'm not overly worried about them bidding and making 3S when both opponents have had a chance to bid, including RHO being able to make a takeout double showing the blacks over 1H. I'm more concerned about our own constructive bidding here. FWIW, I am bidding 3D over the re-opening double, so LHO has to have the hand to compete further anyway to make the 2D call a loser in your scenario.

 

But 3D can go wrong as well, and I can carefully construct hands to show that. They would include moderate values but lack of quick tricks.

 

The truth is that I wouldn't complain too much if a partner bid 3D and it didn't work out. We might discuss what 2D and 3D should look like, but neither is a dreadful choice. Other things to factor into the discussion is preempt style (1D vs. 2D or 3D) and soundness of minor openings (what hands do you pass on). Both of these would affect expectations for your rebids.

 

Without these discussions, my tendency is to bid 2D though. I like quick tricks.

[Cyberyeti]

Sure, it can go wrong. But I'm not overly worried about them bidding and making 3S when both opponents have had a chance to bid, including RHO being able to make a takeout double showing the blacks over 1H. I'm more concerned about our own constructive bidding here. FWIW, I am bidding 3D over the re-opening double, so LHO has to have the hand to compete further anyway to make the 2D call a loser in your scenario.

 

But 3D can go wrong as well, and I can carefully construct hands to show that. They would include moderate values but lack of quick tricks.

 

The truth is that I wouldn't complain too much if a partner bid 3D and it didn't work out. We might discuss what 2D and 3D should look like, but neither is a dreadful choice. Other things to factor into the discussion is preempt style (1D vs. 2D or 3D) and soundness of minor openings (what hands do you pass on). Both of these would affect expectations for your rebids.

 

Without these discussions, my tendency is to bid 2D though. I like quick tricks.

 

This is a very reasonable post and makes the key point about how it fits with the rest of your system.

 

Yes 3♦ can go wrong too, it's more a matter of style and philosophy, we like to be able to pass 2♦ with some reasonable hands safe in the knowledge that partner can't have this much given some of the rubbish we can have for a 1♦ opener and 2♦ rebid. If your 1♦ has to be sounder than ours, then it makes a lot more sense to rebid 2♦.

 

IMO if RHO has the hand for the delayed double (a takeout double a queen light, maybe 4414), LHO probably has a 3♠ bid over 3♦ (which I would bid too) given that he'll have 4 spades and about a 10 count.

[PhilKing]

FWIW I don't think there are many hands that pass 1♥ and then double 2♦. The delayed sequence should guarantee 4H and decent values, since this is not a protective sequence where we should act light.

 

A 4414 12 count is a decent starting point.

 

Anyway, on this hand we would welcome protection over 2♦, since we can now bid 3♦ and show both our strength and lack of controls.

[yunling]

2♦, both 3NT and 5♦ seems far away.

When the auction goes 1♦-1♥-3♦-3NT, you probably need misdefence to make the contract.It may work against weaker players, but I don't see how it can be a winner at expert level :(

[aguahombre]

FWIW I don't think there are many hands that pass 1♥ and then double 2♦. The delayed sequence should guarantee 4H and decent values, since this is not a protective sequence where we should act light.

 

A 4414 12 count is a decent starting point.

 

Anyway, on this hand we would welcome protection over 2♦, since we can now bid 3♦ and show both our strength and lack of controls.

Have I been doing it wrong all these years?

 

I hold a 4-4-1-4 give or take opening values in 4th chair and it goes:

 

(1D) P (1H) ? to me....it seems a routine takeout double right now.

[lmilne]

Congratulations, lmilne, on winning the Open Play-off! :)

Have arguments presented here modified your opinion?

 

The hand that prompted this discussion would make a good hand for a bidding challenge.

Facing the posted hand was ♠ Axx ♥ AQJxx ♦ x ♣ Axxx.

 

My partner and I bid 1♦-1♥; 2♦-2♠ (art GF); 3♦-3NT; pass. My partner (Andy Hung, an expert who has been on several winning teams with me) was in agreement with several of the posters here that his hand was excellent for slam once partner has shown some gas, but it wasn't entirely clear what my intentions were in this sequence so he passed 3NT. Interesting to consider what a raise to 4NT would be by this supposedly limited hand!

 

I think I'm in agreement with Andy here, the hand isn't good enough for 3♦ (missing the ♦Ace we will just go off way too often when pard bids 3NT) but it's obviously a sensational hand once partner turns up with a good hand. Interested in hearing some other auctions that get closer to bidding the lay-down slam. I found it very interesting how the value of this hand changed once partner pipes up about owning a few of those controls we're missing...

 

BTW opening 1NT is filthy :D

[Cyberyeti]

Interesting hand opposite, QJ♥ are basically frosting, the 3 bare aces are sufficient as long as the hand has 3 spades in 6♦, and I think 6N protecting the AQ♥ is the best spot with his actual hand in case the third spade is getting ruffed after a heart lead against 6♦.

 

Opening 1N is filthy, if you play a weak NT, rebidding 1N over 1♦-1♥ is a little less so once partner hits your xx but still not great.

 

I think our auction would go (at teams, we may well stop in a NT game at pairs):

 

1♦-1♥

3♦-3♠(stop/cue not suit, we would play 1♠ as pretty much forcing so partner won't have 4)

4♦(virtue of the hand is the ♦ suit)-4♥(keycard, would have bid 3♥ if wanted to show more hearts)

4N(1/4)-5♣(Q♦?)

5♠(yes, K♠ no K♥)-5N(anything else)

6♣(K)-6N

 

6N can pay off in a couple of ways, partner has shown a long strong diamond suit missing the ace or king and if it doesn't run for one loser, it's just possible that you can scramble 5 heart tricks opposite a doubleton, 2 diamonds, 2 tricks in each black suit plus a black Q if partner has one.

 

We wouldn't have a prayer of reaching a slam without the ♥QJ.

 

If we rebid 2♦, we'd bid:

 

1♦-1♥

2♦-2♥(artificial relay, inv+)

3N(maximum, single suited <3♥)

 

and it would be a coin flip as to whether to go on if we were allowed to be this good for the 2♦ rebid.

[benlessard]

My partner and I bid 1♦-1♥; 2♦-2♠ (art GF); 3♦-3NT

 

look normal to me, I don't think its safe for opener to raise to 4Nt. 2S could have been bid with any borderline hand holding 5H, it doesnt imply any extras.

[aguahombre]

My partner and I bid 1♦-1♥; 2♦-2♠ (art GF); 3♦-3NT

 

look normal to me, I don't think its safe for opener to raise to 4Nt. 2S could have been bid with any borderline hand holding 5H, it doesnt imply any extras.

Yes. The move toward slam would have to be PARTNER's (something other than 3NT) after you bid diamonds 3 times. And that would be reasonable for him to do.

[mike777]

one nonexpert vote for 2d

 

 

does pard bid over 2d, if so what?

 

 

My next choice of bid may be more important

------------------

 

 

smallest change wow tough question:

 

small changes make me open 1nt or rebid 3d or rebid 2nt(17)

[rhm]

The hand that prompted this discussion would make a good hand for a bidding challenge.

Facing the posted hand was ♠ Axx ♥ AQJxx ♦ x ♣ Axxx.

 

My partner and I bid 1♦-1♥; 2♦-2♠ (art GF); 3♦-3NT; pass. My partner (Andy Hung, an expert who has been on several winning teams with me) was in agreement with several of the posters here that his hand was excellent for slam once partner has shown some gas, but it wasn't entirely clear what my intentions were in this sequence so he passed 3NT. Interesting to consider what a raise to 4NT would be by this supposedly limited hand!

 

I think I'm in agreement with Andy here, the hand isn't good enough for 3♦ (missing the ♦Ace we will just go off way too often when pard bids 3NT) but it's obviously a sensational hand once partner turns up with a good hand. Interested in hearing some other auctions that get closer to bidding the lay-down slam. I found it very interesting how the value of this hand changed once partner pipes up about owning a few of those controls we're missing...

 

BTW opening 1NT is filthy :D

The question really is what your continuations mean after 1♦-1♥; 2♦-2♠

 

How does opener show a a very good diamond suit in a good hand in context of the 2♦ bid?

What is the meaning of 3♦?

What is the meaning of 3♠?

What is the meaning of 3NT?

 

The easy part is to agree that 2♠ is an artificial game force. (I have this agreement too)

The hard part is to work out agreements thereafter.

My guess is you did not have much agreements thereafter.

With the lack of first round controls opener should not himself bypass 3NT.

Opener can only invite below 3NT.

 

For example, assuming natural continuations, if opener jumps to 3NT (showing a solid suit or a suit missing the ace in a non minimum hand) responder might see the light.

 

A sensible sequence might be

 

1♦-1♥; 2♦-2♠-3NT-4NT-5♣-6NT

 

4NT is quantitative. Opener accepts but shows that he does not have any aces, just in case.

(I know I am wrong-siding the contract. Let them find the heart lead when the finesse loses)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[PhantomSac]

 

(I know I am wrong-siding the contract. Let them find the heart lead when the finesse loses)

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Shouldn't be too hard at all, if you actually have that auction they should double with the king of hearts on your right 100 % of the time.