(What) to bid?

[masonbarge]

Maybe I'm mistaken, my impression from TrumpEcho's post was that 1♥ 1N 2♣ 2♥ can include 3-card, perhaps even 4-card support. Then the question would not be "why not" but "why", even though I find nothing wrong with it.

With 4-card support, the proper initial response is 2H, not 1NT. We use the 1H-1NT-2m-2H sequence to show 6-9 with 3-card support.

 

With due respect to Mr. Leong, David Bird completely disagrees with him and says that a 4-4 minor scores better at both IMPs and matchpoints than a 5-2 major. This must be doubly true with the risky heart raise on xx.

 

His example is ♠K2 ♥Q1074 ♦9863 ♣J96, on a similar auction, ie 1♠-1NT-2♦-?

 

On his 5000-hand simulation, 2♦ made 67% of the time while 2♠ made 32% of the time. Matchpoint advantage of 2D over 2S was 72% to 28%! IMP advantage was +2.5 vul and +1.9 non-vul.

 

May I also point out that in this hand, the major support is substantially worse and the minor support substantially better than in Bird's analysis. Unless I am missing something (always a possibility!) there is no issue that 2♥ is a misbid, at any scoring and any vulnerability.

 

The correct bid on this hand is "Pass".

[masonbarge]

double post sorry

[masonbarge]

2♥ looks kind of obvious to me.

 

Especially since partner can have six of them.

 

Do you think this is a general rule, or is it something specific? I would never rebid a minor with a six-card major suit, unless I had enough strength to jump with a 6-5. Two clubs is not forcing and for the reasons stated above, I will expect partner to pass with four-card minor support and two of my major. Therefore, rebidding a six-card major when I'm not in a game-seeking sequence is nearly mandatory.

 

If my partner bid 2 clubs here with a strong 5-card club suit and a ratty 6-card major, I wouldn't complain, as long as he doesn't complain about me passing with xx in the major and xxxx in the minor. But I think Bird's analysis might change with an 8-card major fit, at least at matchpoints.

[Phil]

Do you think this is a general rule, or is it something specific? I would never rebid a minor with a six-card major suit, unless I had enough strength to jump with a 6-5. Two clubs is not forcing and for the reasons stated above, I will expect partner to pass with four-card minor support and two of my major. Therefore, rebidding a six-card major when I'm not in a game-seeking sequence is nearly mandatory.

 

If my partner bid 2 clubs here with a strong 5-card club suit and a ratty 6-card major, I wouldn't complain, as long as he doesn't complain about me passing with xx in the major and xxxx in the minor. But I think Bird's analysis might change with an 8-card major fit, at least at matchpoints.

 

I would expect a 2♣ rebid to be made on many different types of 6-4 hands. Some are hard core about it but i still prefer it shows extras.

[brettnj]

If partner could have as much as 18+, your system is seriously flawed, as 2c is passable. At imps, I would pass 2c, and at mp's, bid 2h.

[johnu]

With 4-card support, the proper initial response is 2H, not 1NT. We use the 1H-1NT-2m-2H sequence to show 6-9 with 3-card support.

 

With due respect to Mr. Leong, David Bird completely disagrees with him and says that a 4-4 minor scores better at both IMPs and matchpoints than a 5-2 major. This must be doubly true with the risky heart raise on xx.

 

His example is ♠K2 ♥Q1074 ♦9863 ♣J96, on a similar auction, ie 1♠-1NT-2♦-?

 

On his 5000-hand simulation, 2♦ made 67% of the time while 2♠ made 32% of the time. Matchpoint advantage of 2D over 2S was 72% to 28%! IMP advantage was +2.5 vul and +1.9 non-vul.

 

May I also point out that in this hand, the major support is substantially worse and the minor support substantially better than in Bird's analysis. Unless I am missing something (always a possibility!) there is no issue that 2♥ is a misbid, at any scoring and any vulnerability.

 

The correct bid on this hand is "Pass".

 

TrumpEcho's post mentioned that 1NT was forcing in his system while the OP says his 1NT is non forcing. That changes things quite a bit. A 2♣ rebid could be a 2 card suit (4-5-2-2), or more frequently a 3 card suit. Also, as Phil points out, it could be a 6-4 hand. Your 4-4 minor fit may not be 4-4, and your 5-2 major fit may be 6-2.

 

You say the proper response with 4 card support is to immediately raise. What if you only have 3 points and 4 card support? Do you still raise? The theory is that the extra trump support balances out the lack of points (on average, obviously this may or may not be true for any specific hand).

[masonbarge]

TrumpEcho's post mentioned that 1NT was forcing in his system while the OP says his 1NT is non forcing. That changes things quite a bit. A 2♣ rebid could be a 2 card suit (4-5-2-2), or more frequently a 3 card suit. Also, as Phil points out, it could be a 6-4 hand. Your 4-4 minor fit may not be 4-4, and your 5-2 major fit may be 6-2.

 

You say the proper response with 4 card support is to immediately raise. What if you only have 3 points and 4 card support? Do you still raise? The theory is that the extra trump support balances out the lack of points (on average, obviously this may or may not be true for any specific hand).

 

I certainly raise the major in preference to bidding 1NT, since the trump support is the only feature of my hand!

[MrAce]

If partner could have as much as 18+, your system is seriously flawed, as 2c is passable. At imps, I would pass 2c, and at mp's, bid 2h.

 

You definitely got it the other way around. The biggest plus for bidding 2♥ is that it gives opener another chance incase we have game. At MP however, game bonus is not worth to sacrifice your most likely best fit.

Imo passing 2♣ is very reasonable at MP.

[m1cha]

With 4-card support, the proper initial response is 2H, not 1NT. We use the 1H-1NT-2m-2H sequence to show 6-9 with 3-card support.

 

With due respect to Mr. Leong, David Bird completely disagrees with him and says that a 4-4 minor scores better at both IMPs and matchpoints than a 5-2 major. This must be doubly true with the risky heart raise on xx.

 

His example is ♠K2 ♥Q1074 ♦9863 ♣J96, on a similar auction, ie 1♠-1NT-2♦-?

 

On his 5000-hand simulation, 2♦ made 67% of the time while 2♠ made 32% of the time. Matchpoint advantage of 2D over 2S was 72% to 28%! IMP advantage was +2.5 vul and +1.9 non-vul.

 

May I also point out that in this hand, the major support is substantially worse and the minor support substantially better than in Bird's analysis. Unless I am missing something (always a possibility!) there is no issue that 2♥ is a misbid, at any scoring and any vulnerability.

 

The correct bid on this hand is "Pass".

Thanks masonbarge, that is great data!

 

Just let me add some ideas though they are not that thoroughly backed. Firstly, one contract making and the other one not, that is certainly a worst-case scenario for the weaker contract. When both contracts fail, it's still strictly about the number of tricks but the benefit for the safer contract is less than above. When the hand is stronger and both contracts make (even if we are not talking about making a full game), the contract in a major will at some point get ahead because less tricks are needed to make the same score.

 

The hand I posted had 2 points more than yours. That should add ~ 20 % probability of making the contract (or 1 additional trick in most cases). This will reduce the advantages you reported but I am pretty sure the conclusion is still the same.

[johnu]

With 4-card support, the proper initial response is 2H, not 1NT. We use the 1H-1NT-2m-2H sequence to show 6-9 with 3-card support.

 

I certainly raise the major in preference to bidding 1NT, since the trump support is the only feature of my hand!

 

Then the range on your single raise is 2/3 to 9+. Not saying that's wrong, but the idea of going through 1NT with support is to tighten the range of the single raise.

 

As far as the auction

 

1♥ - 1NT

2m - 2♥

 

showing 6-9 with 3 card support, I don't know anybody who doesn't make an immediate raise to 2♥ with 3 trump and 6-9. You need that sequence when you just want to take a preference.

[m1cha]

I would never rebid a minor with a six-card major suit, unless I had enough strength to jump with a 6-5. Two clubs is not forcing and for the reasons stated above, I will expect partner to pass with four-card minor support and two of my major. Therefore, rebidding a six-card major when I'm not in a game-seeking sequence is nearly mandatory.

When I started learning Bridge, it was with ACOL. Then you opened 4-card majors, and your second bid in a minor suit would make it 5 cards in the major. If you had 6-4, you planned to rebid the major again in the third round.

 

After changing to opening 5-card majors not so long ago, I found there are two schools about bidding 6-4 hands (M+m). Some rebid the major immediately while others plan the ACOL style showing 5-4 first. I have followed the 5-4 school for quite a while for the reason that 54xx shows 9 cards of your hand while 6xxx only shows 6 cards, so bidding 5-4 describes your hand better. More recently I have come to doubt that last half-sentence. I see a number of reasons for bidding the 6-card major first.

 

- If you show 5-4, your partner will assume you want to play a NT contract but with 6-4 you want to play your suit. So you are suggesting the wrong contract.

- Partner will often have doubleton support because singletons and, particularly, voids are quite rare.

- The probability of exactly 5-4 in the longest two suits is 24.75 %, 6-4 has 6.03 %, 6-3 has 9.09 %. That means even if you agree that the rebid in a minor can include a 6-4 hand, you partner will assume that you haven't got one because it is unlikely (1:6). So you are suggesting the wrong information.

- Rebidding your major limits your strength within a more or less narrow limit, bidding a minor hardly does. This makes a rebid of the major actually quite a good - and particularly useful - description of the hand while

- bidding the minor can create follow-up problems as we have seen in the contributions to this topic.

 

That is to say, I agree with you but I haven't always followed that style.

[m1cha]

If partner could have as much as 18+, your system is seriously flawed, as 2c is passable. At imps, I would pass 2c, and at mp's, bid 2h.

According to the ACBL SAYC system booklet which you find here

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf

on page 3, the 2♣ rebid after a 1♥/♠ opening extends to 18 points in Standard American. Same goes for BBO's GIB playing 2/1, for ACOL (at least according to my old books) and for the official national Bridge systems in European countries such as France and Germany. If you think that all these systems are 'seriously flawed', I don't want to be in your shoes having to defend this position. Though I will not be one of those who contradict you ;) .

 

As some ways out, mgoetze in post #2 suggested Gazzilli or Precision.

[masonbarge]

Then the range on your single raise is 2/3 to 9+. Not saying that's wrong, but the idea of going through 1NT with support is to tighten the range of the single raise.

 

As far as the auction

 

1♥ - 1NT

2m - 2♥

 

showing 6-9 with 3 card support, I don't know anybody who doesn't make an immediate raise to 2♥ with 3 trump and 6-9. You need that sequence when you just want to take a preference.

Yes, and with 4-card support, as I said, you raise the major rather than respond 1NT.

[mike777]

to be fair many play constructive raises so go through 1nt with say 6-7 and 3 card support.

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

 

I fully grant that the auction: 1h=1nt=2c=2h can be a rather wide range on both sides of this auction, more so for me than for most others. :(

 

 

I am going to guess for Bird the auction/parameters are much more limited so his results are different.

[helene_t]

When I started learning Bridge, it was with ACOL. Then you opened 4-card majors, and your second bid in a minor suit would make it 5 cards in the major. If you had 6-4, you planned to rebid the major again in the third round.

 

After changing to opening 5-card majors not so long ago, I found there are two schools about bidding 6-4 hands (M+m).

You have the same two schools among acol players as well. It actually doesn't matter whether you originally showed five or not.

 

But if you play a style in which your 2c rebid can be a 3card suit then you know that partner will take preference for hearts with a hand like the one we are discussing and that makes it more attractive to rebid the minor with 6-4.

[fromageGB]

Maybe some posters are missing one of the OP parameters - "2♣ promises at least 4 cards in ♣", an agreement that is probably a tad unusual. I think this oversight is colouring some posters' instinctive preference for 2♥.

[Jinksy]

With 4-card support, the proper initial response is 2H, not 1NT. We use the 1H-1NT-2m-2H sequence to show 6-9 with 3-card support.

 

With due respect to Mr. Leong, David Bird completely disagrees with him and says that a 4-4 minor scores better at both IMPs and matchpoints than a 5-2 major. This must be doubly true with the risky heart raise on xx.

 

His example is ♠K2 ♥Q1074 ♦9863 ♣J96, on a similar auction, ie 1♠-1NT-2♦-?

 

On his 5000-hand simulation, 2♦ made 67% of the time while 2♠ made 32% of the time. Matchpoint advantage of 2D over 2S was 72% to 28%! IMP advantage was +2.5 vul and +1.9 non-vul.

 

May I also point out that in this hand, the major support is substantially worse and the minor support substantially better than in Bird's analysis. Unless I am missing something (always a possibility!) there is no issue that 2♥ is a misbid, at any scoring and any vulnerability.

 

The correct bid on this hand is "Pass".

 

Where's this data published? They don't seem to have a new book out.

[MrAce]

Maybe some posters are missing one of the OP parameters - "2♣ promises at least 4 cards in ♣", an agreement that is probably a tad unusual. I think this oversight is colouring some posters' instinctive preference for 2♥.

 

Yes, that was exactly my point.

[mikeh]

I haven't previously posted on this thread, but there are a couple of ideas that have been suggested on which I do have an opinion :D

 

I have seen the suggestion that responder can and should bid 2♠ as a good raise in clubs. I use that myself, but wouldn't think of using it on this soft 8 count. We have 3♣ as a raise, and this hand is too weak for that, imo. Has anyone not noted that we hold exactly 1 hcp in partner's suits? That is not a fact that ought to get us having warm, fuzzy feelings about committing to the 3-level opposite a hand that might look like Kxx KJ10xx x AQxx.

 

When evaluating hands mid auction one needs to pay a lot of attention to location of honours as well as number of honours.

 

So, if we are too weak for 3♣ or even if we think we are just strong enough, we can't conceive of 2♠. Here is a 2♠ bid: xx Qx Axxx QJxxx.

 

But, you argue....opener may be just short of a jumpshift...we may be cold for game!

 

I won't argue....I am someone who rants against those who overbid 17 and 18 counts as opener. The good news is that we have a compromise. We can keep the bidding alive with 2♥. Yes, this may lead to a 7 card fit, but at the 2-level, our side cards may help prevent a tap, and our club fit, weak tho it is, may let him use clubs as a surrogate trump suit. More importantly, he can rebid 3♣ with a decent 5-5, can rebid 2N with a good (17 or so) 2=5=2=4, and so on.

 

I see it is mps. I would rather be in 2♥ opposite a minimum 5=4 than in 3♣, since I may be able to scramble 8 tricks in hearts while failing in 3♣. In addition, if he has a good hand and/or the cards lie well for us, I would rather be 140 in hearts than 110 or 130 in clubs. And so on.

 

Btw, I am aware of the meaning of 2♣ :P Indeed, were it otherwise, I doubt we'd see many votes for anything other than 2♥.

[BillPatch]

Where's this data published? They don't seem to have a new book out.

David Bird. Winning Duplicate Tactics. Toronto, Master Point Press, 2014, p. 35. I think the book actually came out to the nationally on Amazon and B&N in February 2015. My favorite book on matchpoints. Good review in ACBL Bulletin, which gave it an A. Tactics using Standard bidding and play conventions, aimed at the intermediate average BBO or duplicate player, but contains useful data for superior players. This book is much better edited than the two opening lead books.

[Finch]

I am surprised at the amount of dogmatism expressed in this thread. The following four points seem both clear and uncontroversial:

 

- 2C is more likely to make than 2H

- if clubs makes one more trick than hearts (quite likely), then we still want to be in hearts unless the tricks are 7 and 8

- this hand is not strong enough to raise to 3C

- if partner has a maximum 2C bid (up to an 18-count is possible for those who like to respond light), then we will miss game if we pass

 

therefore, the only two sensible calls are either (i) pass, hoping to preserve a plus score, or (ii) 2H, hoping to improve the plus score or get to game

You have to decide the relative probability that 2C is the last making contract vs 2H or game scoring better. I don't think either pass or 2H is silly. I would bid 2H because I have sufficient high cards that I expect it to make, but I can't say that pass is wrong.

 

notes

- comparing this hand to a much weaker hand in the Bird book is irrelevant; with a weaker hand the relative probabilities and expected number of tricks in each contract are obviously different

- I doubt many of the 2H bidders think that 2C could be a 3-card suit. They are aware of the two upsides of bidding.

- saying that 'pass is a misbid at any form of scoring' or that partner won't trust us if we don't pass on this hand demonstrates a lack of understanding of matchpoints scoring and probability

[wanoff]

I am surprised at the amount of dogmatism expressed in this thread. The following four points seem both clear and uncontroversial:

 

- 2C is more likely to make than 2H

- if clubs makes one more trick than hearts (quite likely), then we still want to be in hearts unless the tricks are 7 and 8

- this hand is not strong enough to raise to 3C

- if partner has a maximum 2C bid (up to an 18-count is possible for those who like to respond light), then we will miss game if we pass

 

therefore, the only two sensible calls are either (i) pass, hoping to preserve a plus score, or (ii) 2H, hoping to improve the plus score or get to game

You have to decide the relative probability that 2C is the last making contract vs 2H or game scoring better. I don't think either pass or 2H is silly. I would bid 2H because I have sufficient high cards that I expect it to make, but I can't say that pass is wrong.

 

notes

- comparing this hand to a much weaker hand in the Bird book is irrelevant; with a weaker hand the relative probabilities and expected number of tricks in each contract are obviously different

- I doubt many of the 2H bidders think that 2C could be a 3-card suit. They are aware of the two upsides of bidding.

- saying that 'pass is a misbid at any form of scoring' or that partner won't trust us if we don't pass on this hand demonstrates a lack of understanding of matchpoints scoring and probability

 

Agree with a lot of this except the 4th point. Some 18s will bid 2nt, so 18 not that likely and even then game won't always make.

Also I'm doubtful that there are sufficient high cards to expect to make 2♥. In hearts the East hand could be a working 2 count and that coupled with the likely trump break being 4-2 makes 2♥ too risky.