compare the different bid

[patroclo]

Is there a book that compare different bidding methodes on a single hand.

To analize pro and con on some conventions and when is better one or the other.

Example with this hand

[hv=pc=n&n=st532hkt97dk74ckt&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1hp]133|200[/hv]

 

3♥ inviting

1♠ showing before the 4th in spade

2♣ Drury

3♣ Bergen raises

2♥ inviting

[billw55]

I do not consider this hand invitational. I would bid whatever constructive raise is available in my system. Bergen looks good. If that is not in use, then 2♥ simple raise (not invitational). Never 1♠, 3♥, or Drury.

[barmar]

Bill, that was just an example of the kind of exercise the book might contain, I don't think he wants to start a discussion about it.

 

There are books on hand evaluation, but I'm not sure if they would be written by comparing all the possible bids you could make.

[Phil]

With four trump, good controls, good intermediates and a ruffing value it's a minimum Drury call for me.

[patroclo]

Bill, that was just an example of the kind of exercise the book might contain, I don't think he wants to start a discussion about it.

 

There are books on hand evaluation, but I'm not sure if they would be written by comparing all the possible bids you could make.

 

Yes The meaning of my post is this

[barmar]

With four trump, good controls, good intermediates and a ruffing value it's a minimum Drury call for me.

Again, please stop discussing the example hand. He's looking for a book with general discussion of how to answer questions like this.

[Phil]

Would have been clearer to simply write the first sentence of the OP then.

[billw55]

Bill, that was just an example of the kind of exercise the book might contain, I don't think he wants to start a discussion about it.

 

There are books on hand evaluation, but I'm not sure if they would be written by comparing all the possible bids you could make.

 

Yes The meaning of my post is this

Hah, silly of me.

[fromageGB]

I've never seen one, and I doubt if there is one. So much depends on agreements, and for any single given hand while one system/method/convention may give best results, if you alter the deal even a little, a different s/m/c will give best results. It seems a very impractical idea for a book.

 

Now someone prove me wrong ...

[ggwhiz]

I'm pretty sure that there is no such book.

 

However, in my experience, when Mike Lawrence writes up a treatment he most often includes a hand where it didn't work and why as opposed to Klinger whose chosen methods ALWAYS work like a charm.

 

Other authors are like that, maybe Kantar, Pavlichek and Root but I'm guessing on them.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&n=st532hkt97dk74ckt&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1hp?]133|200|

Is there a book that compare different bidding methods on a single hand.

To analyze pro and con on some conventions and when is better one or the other

Example with this hand

3♥ inviting

1♠ showing before the 4th in spade

2♣ Drury

3♣ Bergen raises

2♥ Inviting[/hv]

It depends on your partnership understandings about 3rd/4th hand 1M. openers.

With 4+ card support for partner's major few players would bother to show another suit without a jump.

With 4+ card support and a weak-hand, most players raise pre-emptively to the 2/3/4 level,

 

Old fashioned players played 2-level non-jump responses as natural but non-forcing, 2N as a good balanced raise, and new-suit jump responses as fit-jumps. Some responded a SNAP 1N on most good hands (Strong Notrump After Passing)

 

Most top players like to "operate" 3rd in hand. Some call it "tactical bidding". If such bids are against local regulations, then they dub them "psychs" :) In a partnership, where opener is prone to such flights of fancy, you need some kind of safety net, when you have a good hand with support. Douglas Drury invented his eponymous convention, a 2♣ bid, to cater for Eric Murray's propensity for such bids. Thus, Drury is a conventional psychic-control -- unless otherwise defined by the local regulatory authority.

 

If your partnership play 3 weak-2s, you might consider using 2♦ instead of 2♣ as your "Drury" response. This frees up a natural 2♣ response, Obviously, you have less need for the 2♦ response when you could have opened a weak 2♦.. .

 

Many modern experts further refine Drury, using

• 2♣ to show 3-card support and
• 2[DI[ to show 4-card support.. .

[kenberg]

Is there a book that compare different bidding methodes on a single hand.

To analize pro and con on some conventions and when is better one or the other.

Example with this hand

[hv=pc=n&n=st532hkt97dk74ckt&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1hp]133|200[/hv]

 

3♥ inviting

1♠ showing before the 4th in spade

2♣ Drury

3♣ Bergen raises

2♥ inviting

 

I will refer to your posted hand, but I will try to keep it in the context you suggest.

 

Writing such a book of comparisons would be a huge undertaking, and reading it perhaps even more so. Let's just consider drury. There are several versions.

Maybe 2C shows 3 or more hearts. OK, then 1H-2C-2D(reverse, showing full opener)-2H could show this. A hand where game is possible, but much is needed from opener.

But maybe 2C shows exactly 3 hearts, with this hand we bid 2D. Now to show a full opener, the next hand has to go beyond 2H, and there is less room for clarification.

So it matters which version of drury.

Also, being a fourth hand opener, it is more likely not to be a particularly light opening. We would have to re-think this if it were third hand.

 

And many would play that the positive response of 2D requires a little more than a bare opener, that's sensible, but some see it otherwise.

 

It's easy to think of more issues, and we are still on drury.

 

If we were to take the N hand you give and suppose partner opens 1M, in any of four positions where M could be H or S, we could probably easily write fifty pages to compare all possibilities.

 

And then we should consider the cost of a convention.

For example, first hand uncontested: 1H-P-? Playing 2/1 it could be useful to use 3C to show a hand that would be worth 2C followed by 3C if we were not playing 2/1. If we play Bergen, that's gone.

 

 

None of this means such a book would not be useful. It would be. A really open-minded assessment of pluses and minuses could be very interesting and useful. I just doubt it exists or will be written.

[barmar]

While there may not be books like this, it's a common feature in bridge periodicals. Bridge World has Master Solver's Club, the ACBL Bulletin has It's Your Call. They give a hand, the auction so far, and then poll bridge experts on the call they would make. The respondents have to use a common bidding system (e.g. BWS for MSC) and "typical" styles by partner and opponents, so there's no "it depends on your agreement" punts.

[fourdad]

I doubt that what you are asking for is even possible.

Every conventionyou add takes something else way and the nuances of such changes are incredibly far from the obvious.

Such a book, if it could be done, would read like gibbereish to the vast majority of bridge players.

[Caitlynne]

I don't know of any book that is organized with the singular purpose of considering the relative merits of different methods in various types of bidding situations - and certainly such a book might be of appeal to some - but if you read enough bridge books, you will see these issues discussed again and again and again ...

[SteveMoe]

Is there a book that compare different bidding methodes on a single hand.

To analize pro and con on some conventions and when is better one or the other.

 

Hi Patroclo,

One book (or pair of books) by Max Hardy (2/1 Game Force) defines hand strengths and fit lengths, and recommends ways to bid them. What I haven't seen is a full comparison of major raise approaches contrasting the plusses and minuses of each approach. Have you tried searching the archives of this site for help?

[patroclo]

Hi Patroclo,

One book (or pair of books) by Max Hardy (2/1 Game Force) defines hand strengths and fit lengths, and recommends ways to bid them. What I haven't seen is a full comparison of major raise approaches contrasting the plusses and minuses of each approach. Have you tried searching the archives of this site for help?

i think that i follow the suggestion of Barman, to read description of hands in newspaper or blog of bridge.

Maybe comparing the different results in tournment played by different team

[etha]

One way to study this problem which is getting better all the time is to use a decent computer bridge program and set the options you want to compare and let it play 1000 hands or so with the methods you are looking at.

 

The best for this now is Jack which is almost good enough for this to be worthwhile. You can either have it play the hands out or dbl dummy them if you think that's valid for faster results.

 

 

with your given hand you can make it use Bergen or drury for example but I suspect you wont ever be able to tell it to bid 1 spade.

 

Another way is to use the deal program to generate the hands and bid them yourself and dbl dummy solve them again.

 

A final way would be to interrogate a database of expert level hands and look at the ones that fit, but finding out what methods were used might be hard.

[OBSugar]

Mark Horton 's " Bridge Master v. Amateur" might touch on topics like the one you have suggested. Not 100 percent sure of title.

[patroclo]

Mark Horton 's " Bridge Master v. Amateur" might touch on topics like the one you have suggested. Not 100 percent sure of title.

Many thanks. I order it

[patroclo]

Many thanks. I order it

Not a great book

[rhm]

I've never seen one, and I doubt if there is one. So much depends on agreements, and for any single given hand while one system/method/convention may give best results, if you alter the deal even a little, a different s/m/c will give best results. It seems a very impractical idea for a book.

 

Now someone prove me wrong ...

Well, there are books and documents about these issues in general.

For example many recommend that supporting partner is most likely to be what partner wants to hear, and I do not know any source recommending a 1 spade bid above.

In fact there are enough examples in literature advising to raise immediately with 3 hearts and 4 and even 5 spades.

There were those who argued that we need more ways of raising partner. e.g Hardy wrote a book about this.

One (contentious) outcome are Bergen raises and differentiations between 3 card and 4 card raises.

Drury is of course ideal when you hold a minimum limit raise like above, because you can stop at the two level.

Some have incorporated Drury in all seats, not least for this reason, but for most Drury is only available for passed hands.

 

I feel most of these issues have been discussed in the literature extensively, mostly in books for intermediate players and by examples often in quizzes.

So what the opener is aiming at is still not clear to me.

It's a myth that this is a new subject or method.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Wackojack]

The book you are looking for is Robson & Segal's "Partnership Bidding at Bridge"

Chaper 1 is "Support with support: the theory"

Chapter 2 is "Support with support in practice"

This takes you up to page 82

It goes on to page 234 on pressure bidding and competing with and without known fits.

 

It is the most influential best bridge book I have read.