what is normal in SAYC etc

[jddons]

[hv=pc=n&s=st62ha873d742cj95&w=s874hkq4dat9cat32&n=saqj5hjt6dq853ckq&e=sk93h952dkj6c8764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cd]399|300[/hv]

 

Teams. Strong NT, 5 card majors and better minor. Is Easts call completely obvious to everybody?

 

If Bridge World was still being published, what would the expert panel give to pass, 1NT and 2C?

 

I'm trying you lot before Prozac.

[hrothgar]

[hv=pc=n&s=st62ha873d742cj95&w=s874hkq4dat9cat32&n=saqj5hjt6dq853ckq&e=sk93h952dkj6c8764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cd]399|300[/hv]

 

Teams. Strong NT, 5 card majors and better minor. Is Easts call completely obvious to everybody?

 

If Bridge World was still being published, what would the expert panel give to pass, 1NT and 2C?

 

I'm trying you lot before Prozac.

 

I didn't know Bridge World had shut down publication

 

I'd rate this as

 

2C: 50

Pass: 35

1NT: 15

[pilowsky]

As a beginner playing 3+ ♣ as the opener, I would go for 3♣ as the responder. I would do this assuming that the double by North narrows my partners point range to 11-14, and we're not vulnerable, I have 7HCP and 4♣. With 18 HCP EW (at least), this makes it hard for South to make a call. Hrothgar is a much better player than me though so he's probably right. Mind you Prozac is an excellent drug: "The more amines you have the happier you are".

[hrothgar]

As a beginner playing 3+ ♣ as the opener, I would go for 3♣ as the responder. I would do this assuming that the double by North narrows my partners point range to 11-14, and we're not vulnerable, I have 7HCP and 4♣. With 18 HCP EW (at least), this makes it hard for South to make a call. Hrothgar is a much better player than me though so he's probably right. Mind you Prozac is an excellent drug: "The more amines you have the happier you are".

 

Note:

 

There are hands with 4 card club support where I would bid 3♣, however, in this case I am sitting on a defensively oriented 4333 hand and keeping things low seems best.

[pilowsky]

Thanks - that was a question that has been bugging me. Sorry about Alderaan.

[blackshoe]

If Bridge World was still being published

The Bridge World's website doesn't indicate in any way that they have ceased publication. Also, I bought a couple of books from them just recently. Not to mention I got the latest issue of the mag not long ago. So this seems like a base rumor. :(

[sfi]

what would the expert panel give to pass, 1NT and 2C?

Those are the only reasonable choices. 2C will help partner compete if we should be doing so, and we won't miss game if partner has the 18-19 balanced hand. I don't want to discourage partner from further action with this hand, so would rate 1NT as a reasonable second choice. I'd probably swap Hrothgar's last two choices:

 

2C: 50

1NT: 35

Pass: 15

[helene_t]

Without the double, 1NT would be fairly normal with this shape. Some bid 1♦ in order to rightside a notrump contract but that is not considered so important in modern bridge theory, and besides it might not work if we don't play Walsh. The downside of 1♦ is that opps find their major suit fit before we find our clubs fit.

 

So even without the double, I would prefer 2♣ if not playing inverted minors. If we do play inverted minors, I would prefer 1NT. Would not be surprised if some good players would bid 1♦ or 3♣.

 

With the double, 1♦ is even less attractive as it is now a more voluntary bid and therefore should be a real suit. Partner might raise on 3-card support if we don't play support doubles. Or correct 3♣ to 3♦ with 4-5 minors. Besides, opps are more likely to have a major suit fit, so tactical considerations become more important after the double. I think. I suppose you could argue that due to the double, opps already know what they are doing, so we can't achieve so much with preemptive bidding.

 

1NT is possible but rightsiding becomes more important after the double. Besides, pass is now an alternative, as is 2♣ even if we would have played inverted minors without the double. As is a 1♥ or 1♠ psyche.

 

I dunno about experts but I would personally give something like

80 2♣

10 1NT (but only because of the vulnerability)

5 pass (would give it a lot more if playing phony club)

5 3♣ but only because of the vulnerability.

0 1♦

0 1M - maybe not bad but I don't normally give points to psyches, even in situations where I might consider psyching.

 

BTW Bridge World doesn't use SAYC for the MSC. This matters a little bid since BWS (unlike SAYC) has support doubles, so bidding a 3-card suit becomes a bit safer.

[jddons]

Well, not even a reply from cyberyeti! What are things coming to? Like those of you above, my partner and team mates thought 2C completely normal on the hand. For the life of me, I can't understand why a hand with poor trumps and no ruffing value wants to play at the 2 level when trumps might well break 5-1. I score Pass 5, 1N 3, 2C 2, 3C -1 but then as team mates said - you don't know how to play the 3 card minor opening. At the other table 1NX made by W for -180, 2C should make.

 

As far as Bridge World is concerned, a friend gave me a large number of back numbers, the last of which (2014/15?) said that publication was ceasing. I didn't check. Loved the mag but still got a few years worth to read through! Sorry for the fake news - I blame the TRUMPS.

[Cyberyeti]

Well, not even a reply from cyberyeti! What are things coming to? Like those of you above, my partner and team mates thought 2C completely normal on the hand. For the life of me, I can't understand why a hand with poor trumps and no ruffing value wants to play at the 2 level when trumps might well break 5-1. I score Pass 5, 1N 3, 2C 2, 3C -1 but then as team mates said - you don't know how to play the 3 card minor opening. At the other table 1NX made by W for -180, 2C should make.

 

As far as Bridge World is concerned, a friend gave me a large number of back numbers, the last of which (2014/15?) said that publication was ceasing. I didn't check. Loved the mag but still got a few years worth to read through! Sorry for the fake news - I blame the TRUMPS.

 

I'm no expert in short minor auctions like this and play 2♣ still inverted over the double so not well placed to comment. I'd bid 1N playing what I play.

[Tramticket]

I'm no expert in short minor auctions like this and play 2♣ still inverted over the double so not well placed to comment. I'd bid 1N playing what I play.

 

Not my system either. We wouldn't even be in this situation as partner would have opened 1NT!

 

Inverted minors are definitely off for us and I think that it is a close call between raising to 2!c and passing. I'm not particularly inclined to bid 1NT, which would show 8-10 in this sequence for us.

[pescetom]

For us 2♣ here is strongly invitational (without double it would be GF) and barely justified, so pass gets most of the vote.

We don't have a precise definition of redouble in such situations but probably should.

[pilowsky]

Well, just fwiw while waiting for my apples to cook I pumped the options through BBO GIB here they are:

1♣ X 1NT PPP best lead for opps gives 1NT= +50 EW link

1♣ X 3♣ PPP any lead gives 3♣-1 =-50 EW link

I wasn't sure what was supposed to happen after 2♣ so here is 1♣ X 2♣ 2♥ 3♣ 3NT PPP link obviously bad

How about 1♣ 1NT PPP = +50 link

But the best news is that now I added the bridge solver add-in to Chrome: here is the link!

 

Thank you John Goacher and Bo Haglund

 

[Povratnik]

Being from another part of the world, it seems I am missing something. To me, 2♣ is clearly the worst of the three speeches. 1NT sounds as a normal and fully adequate bid; PASS sounds as an interesting and reasonable try to make better than normal result.

 

Everybody favours 2♣ without giving useful arguments. You think that lying opponents is so important that you voluntarily lie the partner. Why?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

for what's it worth, I would go with 1NT.

Unless you are too weak for a 1 NT in the uncontested auction, I dont see, why I should not

do it now.

It showes some live, and it showes some club tolerance, and it is also a bid preemptive.

 

Before I pass or bid 2C, I would go with 1D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hrothgar]

 

Everybody favours 2♣ without giving useful arguments. You think that lying opponents is so important that you voluntarily lie the partner. Why?

 

 

How am I lying to either partner or the opponents?

 

I have 4 card support for a suit that partner opened

Plenty of people (myself included) prioritize showing trump support in competitive auctions.

 

If I had a bit more shape (and the same trump support) I'd likely bid 3!C

 

Note: While partner MIGHT only have three clubs, his expected club length is significantly higher

[mycroft]

I would pass. I have no shape and minimum values. Partner has more calls, and I can show my "didn't want to bid, clubs" hand next round.

 

But if you forced me to bid, supporting partner in a competitive auction comes first. Making the safest call comes second. Bidding NT in the teeth of a double and with one suit wide open, even protecting two kings (but chances are they're in the right spot anyway, given the double) is right up there with faking a medical emergency.

 

I agree with Hrothgar here - there's no lie. I'm saying I have a minimum responding hand with club support, and lookee, I do. It's a pile, but if we have a fit, it's in clubs.

 

(Note, I may be biased in my thinking by playing so much K/S, where partner either has real clubs or 15+ BAL. Either way, 2♣ seems sensible, and I sure do (not) want to put the strong hand down as dummy, with the opening lead through her points into the doubler's.)

[Povratnik]

How am I lying to either partner or the opponents?

I agree with Hrothgar here - there's no lie. I'm saying I have a minimum responding hand with club support, and lookee, I do. It's a pile, but if we have a fit, it's in clubs.

When you say 2♣, what's your distribution?

 

Perhaps is better to ask the question different way:

You open 1♣, LHO passes/doubles, partner bids 2♣. What do you know/assume about partners distribution?

[hrothgar]

 

You open 1♣, LHO passes/doubles, partner bids 2♣. What do you know/assume about partners distribution?

 

I assume that he has a weak hand - say 5-7 HCP - with 4+ Clubs and (typically) denies a four card major

[Povratnik]

I assume that he has a weak hand - say 5-7 HCP - with 4+ Clubs and (typically) denies a four card major

Balanced or distributional?

Probabilities of 4 cards, 5 cards, 6(+) cards?

 

(All those question will also be answered by me. I can do it first, if it's helpful...)

I'll answer the questions tomorrow.

[hrothgar]

Balanced or distributional?

Probabilities of 4 cards, 5 cards, 6(+) cards?

 

(All those question will also be answered by me. I can do it first, if it's helpful...)

I'll answer the questions tomorrow.

 

Assuming that the auction starts 1♣ - (X)

 

Most likely to be balanced

 

Holding a hand like

 

♠ KJx

♥ x

♦ xxxxx

♣ Qxxx

 

I'd bid an immediate 3♣

 

For me to make a single raise on five pieces, I'd need something like

 

♠ Qxx

♥ Qxx

♦ xx

♣ Qxxxx

[mycroft]

For me, pass vs double makes a huge difference. And if it doesn't to you, you don't play the same game I do.

 

After 1♣-p, 2♣ is 10+, 5+ clubs. After 1♣-X, 2♣ is 6-9ish, at least 4 clubs (would be nice if it were 5). Like Hrothgar, with more shape, I'm likely to bid 3, but I tend to play that as weaker in high card than 2 as well (again, remember my 1♣, at least when I have 5 of them, is almost always 15+ BAL).

 

Slipping in "LHO passes/doubles" as if they are equivalent, in this situation, is either attempting to palm a card or, as I said, you play so totally a different game from me that any attempt to meet minds would be pointless.

[Povratnik]

Most likely to be balanced

If balanced, most likely 5332, or 4333? (Rhetoric question, you don't need to answer)

 

You are basically claiming that bid 2♣, in the context, isn't much of a lie (having in mind the differences between 2♣ and 3♣). And if East has a reason to bid 2♣ instead of 1NT, he can afford to do so.

 

OK, I can accept that in your niche, the lie is small and excusable (in my niche, it's huge). But you didn't say a word about the reasons. Why do you want to bid 2♣ (instead of normal 1NT) in the first place?

(mycroft is giving two very weak reasons. But at least he gave some reasons. You're acting as if 1NT card doesn't exist...)

 

PASS is very interesting, but if you want to make South silent, you can bid 1NT. Partner will get MUCH more accurate picture of your hand and will be able to make good decisions to the end of auction. If 2♣ should be bid before North's next turn - partner will do it. If 3♣ should be bid - he'll do that.

 

I'll ask you one more thing. Not for fighting reasons, I am just very curious:

What kind of hand should you have, to bid 1NT in this sequence?

[Povratnik]

It seems I ran into a tough, seasoned polemicist. Hits right away and right between the eyes!

 

For me, pass vs double makes a huge difference. And if it doesn't to you, you don't play the same game I do.

So what? By answering my question(s), you don't write for me exclusively, you write for the entire pool of readers. If I'm somehow flawed and unable to appreciate the virtues of your approach, you still have others...

I can answer in your manner:

 

For me, a dangerous vs harmless double makes a huge difference. And if it doesn't to you, you don't play the same game I do.

 

But what's the purpose?

Two out of three your paragraphs are trying to disqualify me from this discussion. But again, what's the purpose? (My opinion about the purpose of this thread could be seen in the red part of the very next paragraph)

 

It seems that any double makes a huge emotional impact on you. Not on me. But, IMHO, this thread isn't opened for mind touching of potential partners. It's opened for posting relevant opinions, backed by quality arguments. Even very incompatible players should be able to communicate using the universal language of logic...

 

****** That was procedural. Now to the content:

 

Of course that double makes a huge difference. Gadgets go on and off; conventional bids become natural; natural bids become conventional; invitational bids become preemtive...

But that's all irrelevant in the context. If I understood well, the OP wants to hear deep, sound logic in the spirit of natural system; not some scientific mumbo jumbo.

 

Another difference is very relevant - PASS becomes possible. In this case, PASS is MUCH better than 2♣, but we at least partially agree about this one.

 

Yes, a double influences the strength needed for certain bids, but what about distribution? I don't see a difference worth mentioning. If you see "a huge difference", you should elaborate - but more to the point and more in the spirit of natural system...

 

After 1♠ PASS, 2♠ tends to be balanced, 3♠ tends to be distributional. However, after 1♠ Dbl, both 2♠ and 3♠ are usually balanced, because - with more shape, I like to bid 4♠...

Are you impressed by the explanation? (3♠ is balanced, because I don't need it to be distributional, for private reasons) Yours isn't much more useful...

 

 

Slipping in "LHO passes/doubles" as if they are equivalent, in this situation, is either attempting to palm a card or, as I said, you play so totally a different game from me that any attempt to meet minds would be pointless.

They are equivalent for my question (above I claimed that a double has negligible impact on distributional meaning of the next LHO's (natural) bid).

If you claim they aren't equivalent, you should explain the natural, universal reasons. (Presence and absence of certain gadgets aren't universal reasons, they're conventional and therefore local; yours and hrotgar's affinity to jump to 3 level with possible 7 cards fit - aren't universal reasons, they're private)

You can disqualify me, but you still owe the answer to others...

[Povratnik]

For the life of me, I can't understand why a hand with poor trumps and no ruffing value wants to play at the 2 level when trumps might well break 5-1.

This is probably the most valuable sentence in this entire thread! So in short - your team mates are wrong.

I can write my own analysis, but it doesn't seem you really need it...