1m-1M rebid

[MrAce]

I bid 3♦ with this 7th and solid suit it being points in second level (17-19). The more little changing that allow me to bid 2♦ is lacking of Jack of diamond.

 

If KQJTxxx is called a solid suit, then QJT9xxx must be called semi solid suit nowadays.

[Lovera]

If KQJTxxx is called a solid suit, then QJT9xxx must be called semi solid suit nowadays.

Yes, the initial type is AKQ10xx or compact. The definition is mine to show presence of many honors in suit one.

[jogs]

2D，一副没有快速赢墩的牌，需要同伴更多的支持才能成局。这是一副有足够赢墩的牌。也是敌方容易犯防守错误的牌。但我更愿意让同伴保持对我的叫牌有信心。

 

Too bad I can't read Chinese (or whatever it is), but I agree with the conclusion ;)

 

Google translates it as: A no quick tricks cards, need more support to peer into the office. This is a card has enough tricks. The enemy is easy to make a defensive mistake cards. But I prefer to let my fellow maintain bid with confidence

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=chinese%20to%20english

 

That's nice. I was unaware that Google had language to language translations.

[Zelandakh]

If KQJTxxx is called a solid suit, then QJT9xxx must be called semi solid suit nowadays.

English is not Lovera's mother tongue. For the record, according to the terminology I learned, KQJTxxx is a self-supporting suit (will play opposite a void) and you need to add the ace for it to be "solid" (zero losers). On the OP question, I have a strong preference for 2♦ over 3♦ on this hand type.

[fromageGB]

That's nice.

Next time I play with an English-speaking Chinese, I will ask him how much support you do actually need to peer into the office.

[helene_t]

Next time I play with an English-speaking Chinese, I will ask him how much support you do actually need to peer into the office.

To peer into the office presumably means to make a game try. Google is bad at translating bridge lingo because so many words that have a common non-bridge meaning as well are used as bridge lingo in some languages but not in others.

[Lovera]

"The re-bidding with jump in a minor suit is generically based on a solid suit of [almost] 6 cards, with around an Ace and a King [1and a1/2 half tricks]forcing partner to consider 3NT bidding,if plastic valutation reveils that nine tricks are possibile. So [..Stayman system..pag.74]:♠ K 10 3 ♥ 7 5 ♦ A K Q 8 5 4 ♣ A 8 Bidding : 1♦ p 1♠ p 3 ♦ (45)". It is hopeing this example may be usefull, bye.

[Zelandakh]

♠ K 10 3 ♥ 7 5 ♦ A K Q 8 5 4 ♣ A 8

Can you not see a difference between this hand and the one from the OP?

[Lovera]

Can you not see a difference between this hand and the one from the OP?

It is sure that a difference in the long suit can be seen but in Stayman system AKQxx and KQJ10x are in the same group (of valutation) and called solid suit the first and quasi-solid the second one.

[rhm]

It is sure that a difference in the long suit can be seen but in Stayman system AKQxx and KQJ10x are in the same group (of valutation) and called solid suit the first and quasi-solid the second one.

The question is not whether the diamonds are suitable or not for 3♦. They are. .

The question is: What is this hand worth at notrumps?

My answer : Not a lot. (Hands lacking first round controls are rarely valuable)

The question is also not whether given time you will have 9 tricks at 3NT. You would.

With this type of hand the question is whether you will have 9 tricks before the defense has 5.

 

I back the defense, assuming partner would not move over 2♦ but would over 3♦. (I admit there are a few rare exceptions.)

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

With this type of hand the question is whether you will have 9 tricks before the defense has 5.

I was rather hoping he would come to this himself. :unsure: He is obviously someone that knows how to play so not seeing this key difference seems strange to me, a blind spot driven by over-reliance on book material perhaps.

[Phil]

This is a curious hand. From an evaluation standpoint we don't want partner bidding 3N with a random 8-10.

 

However if partner perks up and shows a good hand im much more interested in slam.

[Lovera]

You, first, have an hand valutable (around) 18 points (!) than an hand not i think with a possible svalutation until minimum hand(=14-16 points) it be inviteing and you must comunicate this force to your partner that has bidden once and had to make a second bidding (you have fear for king of club..). I think it needs to continue with a forcing 3♦, eventually to prepare to get five,bye.

[gwnn]

Lovera, the point (that has been made about four times in this thread) is that you are missing the ace of diamonds. That means that if partner lacks it, you will have to give away a tempo. Tempi are important in bridge, especially in notrump. Roughly speaking, we will need to stop all suits twice (or once+luck with the lead) if we miss the ace of diamonds. If we had the ace of diamonds, that requirement would only be a single stop (or no stop+luck with the lead).

[biggerclub]

I am no expert, but I am in the 2♦ camp. And again, concerned about no Aces. So give me just the A♣ instead of the K, and I am willing to go 3♦.

[Lovera]

This hand had anything of particolar as shape, not usually, 7-2-2-2 more seen in barrage bidding. Then many posters have choosen 2♦ and the rest 3♦. However this difference ? Probably it is due for a different way to valute hand (i use the Stayman method of valutation with a little difference). Infact let's consider only Milton Work this hand has 14 points than is weak it needing +2 points to be valuted in other level. On the other side it must consider that opps are silent and than we could have more points on our line yet to discover by partner bidding.

[biggerclub]

This hand had anything of particolar as shape, not usually, 7-2-2-2 more seen in barrage bidding. Then many On the other side it must consider that opps are silent and than we could have more points on our line yet to discover by partner bidding.

 

I am willing to allow partner to bid her own hand. Lord knows, she usually does. And more.

[neilkaz]

No aces and a defect for dub KQ. 2♦ for me.

[nige1]

Some partnerships have the understanding that a 3♦ rebid shows up to 18 HCP or a solid suit. For them, 3♦ is virtually forcing.

 

Other players agree that it shows, typically 14-15 HCP with a long good but not necessarily solid suit. For us, 3♦ is merely invitational. We argue that if partner has a poor hand, then opponents can probably make something and 2♦ is a lower entry level than 3♦. Detractors point out, however, that, when you rebid 3♦ with an aceless hand, then it's hard for partner to judge what to do

 

Notwithstanding, we're grateful to our expert critics for pointing out the counter-arguments to rebidding 3♦ (which we admit may well be a mistake); but please would they drop the patronising tone :)

[Free]

You, first, have an hand valutable (around) 18 points (!) than an hand not i think with a possible svalutation until minimum hand(=14-16 points) it be inviteing and you must comunicate this force to your partner that has bidden once and had to make a second bidding (you have fear for king of club..). I think it needs to continue with a forcing 3♦, eventually to prepare to get five,bye.

18 points? Preparing to get to 5? Are you kidding me? This hand sure is worth more than 14, but 18 is exaggerated. According to the K-R hand evaluator you get 16.15 and according to DK it's a 14- (more information). And sure, the average hand for partner will have at least 2 Aces and will cover another loser while ♣A will be onside 100% of the time... I think 3NT should be our aim, not 5♦.

 

Also: calling AKQJT in the same group as KQJT9 is just wrong. They might be (quasi) solid suits, but there's a reason why gambling 3NT is made with AKQ5432 and not with KQJT987. It's called "an entry".

 

 

In my initial post I answered very short because I think this is a no-brainer. On average our partner will have around 8-9HCP. If we want him to have ♦A, then he'll probably have some values in ♥ which leaves both black suits open for attack. Even if he has the ♦A, it might be stiff and we'll still need an entry. And if he doesn't have ♦A we lose tempo. Opps can easily have 4 ♠ tricks + ♦A. They could also have just 5 ♣ tricks off the top. They also might just have ♣A offside and ♠A, which destroys our hand completely after a ♠ lead (an aceless dummy with a running suit is quite easily defendable).

 

So I really don't get why people feel so strong about overbidding this hand. Imo this is a nice hand to start slow, and if partner makes a move we can go all-in with confidence. There's no reason to force things yet. And we can still compete if partner passes 2♦s and opps balance.

[Lovera]

18 points? Preparing to get to 5? Are you kidding me? This hand sure is worth more than 14, but 18 is exaggerated. According to the K-R hand evaluator you get 16.15 and according to DK it's a 14- (more information). And sure, the average hand for partner will have at least 2 Aces and will cover another loser while ♣A will be onside 100% of the time... I think 3NT should be our aim, not 5♦.

 

Also: calling AKQJT in the same group as KQJT9 is just wrong. They might be (quasi) solid suits, but there's a reason why gambling 3NT is made with AKQ5432 and not with KQJT987. It's called "an entry".

 

 

In my initial post I answered very short because I think this is a no-brainer. On average our partner will have around 8-9HCP. If we want him to have ♦A, then he'll probably have some values in ♥ which leaves both black suits open for attack. Even if he has the ♦A, it might be stiff and we'll still need an entry. And if he doesn't have ♦A we lose tempo. Opps can easily have 4 ♠ tricks + ♦A. They could also have just 5 ♣ tricks off the top. They also might just have ♣A offside and ♠A, which destroys our hand completely after a ♠ lead (an aceless dummy with a running suit is quite easily defendable).

 

So I really don't get why people feel so strong about overbidding this hand. Imo this is a nice hand to start slow, and if partner makes a move we can go all-in with confidence. There's no reason to force things yet. And we can still compete if partner passes 2♦s and opps balance.

The Stayman counting comprends values at shortness and longness in aside suit (Goren) and fourthemore detraction for honors not protected and hand without Aces such as :..2) For every cards more 4th (and so on) in a solid or quasi-solid (AKQxx, KQJ10x, etc.) points 2 (pag.3). The eventually bidding of NT by partner sure that suits unbidding are covered (with A or K).

[johnu]

The Stayman counting comprends values at shortness and longness in aside suit (Goren) and fourthemore detraction for honors not protected and hand without Aces such as :..2) For every cards more 4th (and so on) in a solid or quasi-solid (AKQxx, KQJ10x, etc.) points 2 (pag.3). The eventually bidding of NT by partner sure that suits unbidding are covered (with A or K).

 

If you read it in a book, it must be true.

[Lovera]

If you read it in a book, it must be true.

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.

[MrAce]

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

[jogs]

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." In fact 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.

 

Precise is a little strong. Adequate for most players. Every valuation system has a high standard deviation of error. Original estimates of value are NOT written in stone. Values are dynamic, not static. As the auction progresses one should constantly revalue the values of the hand. Think in terms of partnership tricks, not points for my hand.