An annoying missed game

[AL78]

MPs, vuln against not, 5 card majors.

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sj432hadqt743c975&e=skqt87hk42dkcakt2&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1sd3sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Partner easily made 10 tricks which was worth 11%, 11 tricks are there as the clubs are 3-3, so she can throw one loser and ruff them good, only losing two aces.

 

I have started reading through Partnership Bidding at Bridge, The Contested Auction, and I picked up on something I haven't previously thought too much about. In competition, there are hands you want to pre-emptively raise, hands you want to constructively raise, and hands with a reasonable side suit you want to get across to partner, to allow him/her to judge more easily what to do if the opponents raise the bidding. It also says that some hands do not fit neatly into one category, and sometimes there is some overlap. My hand is one of the latter, it is too weak for a constructive invitational raise, but it is a bit too good for a pre-emptive raise. I chose the pre-emptive raise and it went wrong. I am not sure my diamond suit is good enough for a fit jump (if we were playing that), so my only other option would be 2NT which partner won't need to think hard about raising to 4♠.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

being red vs. green, a weak jump raise is not made on garbage.

Add to this the fact, that you have spades, i.e. it is even less important to preempt high,

you can always outbid them.

 

Having 18 HCP ( I know there is a single king ) this is an easy raise to 4S.

 

It can be argued, that the West hand is worth an invite, but 3S is not wrong.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[smerriman]

I consider 3♠ as weaker than 2♠, which is the bid I would have made. You can still compete to 3♠ next time if partner has no game interest.

[hrothgar]

Couple high level thoughts:

 

For me, responder's hand is unsuitable for a fit showing jump playing traditional methods

 

The shape is fine, but

 

1. The Diamond suit is too weak

2. The Spade suit also lacks texture

3. The hand is slightly too weak

 

I also think that the hand is too strong for a purely preemptive raise like 3!S

 

Ideally, I'd want to have some bid to show what's called a "mixed raise"

I consider this to be the best description of the hand in question.

[DavidKok]

I agree with the others above that 3♠ should show a weaker hand on this auction. Typically I will hold something like Jxxx, xx, Kxxx, xxx for that bid - almost two tricks weaker than the hand shown. The vulnerability is daunting but it is very difficult for opponents to punish us.

 

With your hand I would have settled for a 2NT raise, showing 4(+) spades. Your diamond suit is too weak for 3♦ or 4♦, and even if you do have splinters or mini-splinters in your arsenal here (surely 3♥ cannot be natural, and I think showing shortness instead of a fitbid in their suit is smart in the long run over a double) it is forbidden in my book to bid this on a singleton A or K.

 

Some people might have settled for 2♠ instead, which like smerriman mentioned above is stronger than 3♠. East will surely raise to game now, which explains why 'almost everyone else' found it.

 

As a final remark, if 2NT shows an invitational raise with 4+ spades, what are you to do with an invitational hand with only 3 spades? I personally play 2♥ as conventional in this auction, showing precisely that hand. Alternatively you could agree that 2NT shows any invitational raise, risking that you could end up too high in a meagre 5-3 fit with the points 20/20.

[Cyberyeti]

I would bid 3♦ (not liking it very much) as I prefer to show I have some values and show 9 of my cards. We play 1♠-X-1N as the constructive 3 card raise.

[Vampyr]

 

Some people might have settled for 2♠ instead, which like smerriman mentioned above is stronger than 3♠.

 

I do not think that this approach is mainstream. 2♠=3 cards that are spades and ten that aren’t is more common.

 

Transfers give you the most options.

[KingCovert]

I do not think that this approach is mainstream. 2♠=3 cards that are spades and ten that aren’t is more common.

 

Transfers give you the most options.

 

I think that 2♠ showing 3-card support may well be your understanding of the bid, but, I think that's far from consensus. Personally, I think that such an agreement/treatment is a serious mistake. I'll try explain why.

 

2♠ should clearly be more constructive than 3♠ and less constructive than 2NT (if you play Jordan here). I think if the auction 1♠-2♠ can hold something like 7 HCP and 4♠, which is the correct bid with such a hand without intereference, there is no reason why 2♠ here cannot hold 7 HCP and 4♠. It's simply the normal and correct bid.

 

The goal is to agree primary fit, and to do so while conveying the proper attitude towards this hand. Responder's hand has defense and constructive values, 3♠ is a massive underbid, as it is the weakest available bid to agree fit. The 4th spade in support is not nearly as consequential as properly conveying your attitude towards the rest of the auction, and it's often not particularly relevant/useful in making the contract. As someone who has regularly played 4-card majors, this would be a support double sequence, as I'd care about differentiating between 3-4 card support in that case, but, here it's just excessive. And, clearly, it has poisoned the thinking of many players in properly proceeding in this sequence.

 

This is an easy raise to 4♠ over a 2♠ reply, just as it would be over the auction 1♠-2♠ without interference. It's hard to fault someone passing 3♠ when in order to bid it, you'd have to be about a queen lighter than this hand is, maybe more.

[smerriman]

I do not think that this approach is mainstream. 2♠=3 cards that are spades and ten that aren’t is more common.

 

Transfers give you the most options.

Obviously if you play transfers or have a mixed raise available, they are better bids. But with "standard" bidding, you don't. You can show 3 and 4 card limit raises (standard for the former is redouble then a spade raise), and preemptive raises, but only have one bid available for a single raise, be it 3 or 4 cards.

[akwoo]

I am fine with the agreement that West bids 3♠ on this hand - it's a 'make everyone guess' agreement.

 

If you're playing that agreement though, East has to bid 4♠. Yes West will sometimes show up with a worse hand and 4♠ won't make, but if you're playing 3♠ as 0-9, 4(+) spades, game will be on with the East hand more than half the time. Since you're playing a 'make everyone guess' agreement, it means you have to make your best guess also.

[Vampyr]

I think that 2♠ showing 3-card support may well be your understanding of the bid, but, I think that's far from consensus. Personally, I think that such an agreement/treatment is a serious mistake. I'll try explain why.

 

2♠ should clearly be more constructive than 3♠ and less constructive than 2NT (if you play Jordan here). I think if the auction 1♠-2♠ can hold something like 7 HCP and 4♠, which is the correct bid with such a hand without intereference, there is no reason why 2♠ here cannot hold 7 HCP and 4♠. It's simply the normal and correct bid.

 

The goal is to agree primary fit, and to do so while conveying the proper attitude towards this hand. Responder's hand has defense and constructive values, 3♠ is a massive underbid, as it is the weakest available bid to agree fit. The 4th spade in support is not nearly as consequential as properly conveying your attitude towards the rest of the auction, and it's often not particularly relevant/useful in making the contract. As someone who has regularly played 4-card majors, this would be a support double sequence, as I'd care about differentiating between 3-4 card support in that case, but, here it's just excessive. And, clearly, it has poisoned the thinking of many players in properly proceeding in this sequence.

 

This is an easy raise to 4♠ over a 2♠ reply, just as it would be over the auction 1♠-2♠ interference. It's hard to fault someone passing 3♠ when in order to bid it, you'd have to be about a queen lighter than this hand is, maybe more.

 

I don’t agree with any of this (in a 5-card major context) where few people will be bidding 2♠ on any hand with 4-card support in an uncontested auction unless the hand is very barren. In competition, as in the hand in question, the reason 2♠ works well is because there is room for opener to make a game try, and she will. I am not a big fan of 2♠, 3♠ or 3♦ on this hand; it was not posted as a problem because it is easy. I play transfers but anyway would most likely bid 3♦, as it is reasonably descriptive.

 

I would not play 2♠; that leaves me no bid for a hopeless hand with 3♠. If the auction gets very high very soon, the fact that we have a fit will be important for partner to know.

[Vampyr]

I think that 2♠ showing 3-card support may well be your understanding of the bid, but, I think that's far from consensus. Personally, I think that such an agreement/treatment is a serious mistake. I'll try explain why.

 

2♠ should clearly be more constructive than 3♠ and less constructive than 2NT (if you play Jordan here). I think if the auction 1♠-2♠ can hold something like 7 HCP and 4♠, which is the correct bid with such a hand without intereference, there is no reason why 2♠ here cannot hold 7 HCP and 4♠. It's simply the normal and correct bid.

 

The goal is to agree primary fit, and to do so while conveying the proper attitude towards this hand. Responder's hand has defense and constructive values, 3♠ is a massive underbid, as it is the weakest available bid to agree fit. The 4th spade in support is not nearly as consequential as properly conveying your attitude towards the rest of the auction, and it's often not particularly relevant/useful in making the contract. As someone who has regularly played 4-card majors, this would be a support double sequence, as I'd care about differentiating between 3-4 card support in that case, but, here it's just excessive. And, clearly, it has poisoned the thinking of many players in properly proceeding in this sequence.

 

This is an easy raise to 4♠ over a 2♠ reply, just as it would be over the auction 1♠-2♠ interference. It's hard to fault someone passing 3♠ when in order to bid it, you'd have to be about a queen lighter than this hand is, maybe more.

 

I don’t agree with any of this (in a 5-card major context) where few people will be bidding 2♠ on any hand with 4-card support in an uncontested auction unless the hand is very barren. In competition, as in the hand in question, the reason 2♠ works well is because there is room for opener to make a game try, and she will. I am not a big fan of 2♠, 3♠ or 3♦ on this hand; it was not posted as a problem because it is easy. I play transfers but anyway would most likely bid 3♦, as it is reasonably descriptive.

 

I would not play 2♠ as constructive; that leaves me no bid for a hopeless hand with 3♠. If the auction gets very high very soon, the fact that we have a fit will be important for partner to know.

 

I also would raise to game with the East hand on the auction given.

 

EDIT: this is very useful, because I have not thought about which hands I would be showing with a fit jump v transferring to ♦ and then bidding 3♠.

[sfi]

I don't really understand either East or West's actions.

 

West has an invitational hand no matter how you evaluate it - 10 points (including 3 for a singleton) or 8 losers. A mixed raise is reasonable if you have it available, and I can live with a simple raise that competes again. But preemptive is a poor description of the hand.

 

East has play for game opposite many balanced hands with a queen or so. Maybe it's because I mostly play IMPs, but even at MPs partner should have something for the 3S bid.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sj432hadqt743c975&e=skqt87hk42dkcakt2&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1sd3sppp]266|200|

AL78 "MPs, vuln against not, 5 card majors."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

East's worry about his singleton king probably made him undervalue his hand. A singleton is still likely to be an asset, however; and an honour is better than a small card. For example, 4♠ is playable opposite

♠ x x x x ♥ Q ♦ Q x x x x ♣ x x x[/hv]

[AL78]

I don't really understand either East or West's actions.

 

West has an invitational hand no matter how you evaluate it - 10 points (including 3 for a singleton) or 8 losers. A mixed raise is reasonable if you have it available, and I can live with a simple raise that competes again. But preemptive is a poor description of the hand.

 

East has play for game opposite many balanced hands with a queen or so. Maybe it's because I mostly play IMPs, but even at MPs partner should have something for the 3S bid.

 

I don't give 3 points for a singleton, I have always used 1,2,3 for doubleton, singleton, void. I wouldn't call it eight losers either, QTxxx is almost three losers. At best the west hand is eight and a half losers, if the DT had been the jack, I would class it as invitational and respond 2NT. The problem I had at the table is this is right between invitational and pre-emptive, one is an underbid and the other is an overbid. It is unfortunate that we both took the conservative route at the table which together led to missing the game.

 

If playing mixed raises, does a jump in a new suit below the three level show a hand with near invitational values and a side suit with a feature?

[FelicityR]

I am making a psychological, or perhaps in my case a psycho-illogical (:)) bid, by redoubling here. Yes, I know that it shows about 9-10 HCPs and no support for partner with a remit to punish the opponents, but as we have the top suit ♠s, I hope that partner will get the message when I bid 3♠ later in the auction.

 

My thinking behind this is that this semi-psychic call may put the opponents off from competing further beyond rescuing the XX at the two level, and it will give partner a better idea of the strength of my hand here.

 

Given all the increasing comments posted previously about the way to show this hand, it's not that straightforward except if you are in an experienced partnership that can show a mixed raise in the bidding, a la Bergen.

[DavidKok]

If playing mixed raises, does a jump in a new suit below the three level show a hand with near invitational values and a side suit with a feature?

 

I'm speculating here, but I think the main goal of fitbid jumps (I think you mean to the 3-level instead of below, right?) is to help partner figure out if we belong in 3♠, 4♠, or something more, as well as to help them decide what to do over a possible 4♥/5♥ call the by the opponents. If this is indeed the goal then jumping with "a fit and a side suit with a feature" would be akin to lead-directing, which at this vulnerability seems like a suboptimal treatment. If the colours were reversed, however, I think this is far closer to standard.

 

Or put differently, I prefer fitbids to be particular mixed raises with concentration of points and length in a side suit. And a straight mixed raise then denies such a suit, and is often close to balanced. I think this is related to the Offense-Defense-Ratio that Robson & Segal discuss.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

If playing mixed raises, does a jump in a new suit below the three level show a hand with near invitational values and a side suit with a feature?

mixed raise strength.

[mcphee]

Idea with this hand is to be able to show a mixed raise, basically a 7 to 9 range with 4+ trumps. Not having that tool I would bid game and hope it has a shot.

[nudnikbp]

Without looking at West's actual hand, East has enough to continue to 4S.

[Vampyr]

I am making a psychological, or perhaps in my case a psycho-illogical (:)) bid, by redoubling here. Yes, I know that it shows about 9-10 HCPs and no support for partner with a remit to punish the opponents, but as we have the top suit ♠s, I hope that partner will get the message when I bid 3♠ later in the auction.

 

My thinking behind this is that this semi-psychic call may put the opponents off from competing further beyond rescuing the XX at the two level, and it will give partner a better idea of the strength of my hand here.

 

Given all the increasing comments posted previously about the way to show this hand, it's not that straightforward except if you are in an experienced partnership that can show a mixed raise in the bidding, a la Bergen.

 

The unfortunate part is that you will not be playing Bergen raises in competition.

[Vampyr]

mixed raise strength.

 

Or better.

[mikeh]

Transfers are an excellent idea after a takeout double. Here, we would bud 2H as west, showing a good raise to 2S, which is what we have. A bid of 2S, instead, would show a weak or nuisance raise.

 

However, this is an advanced technique and the OP did not have this available.

 

I like to use a process of elimination when faced with a difficult bidding decision. When no bid seems perfect, try to find the action that is least imperfect.

 

4S is simply too much. We’d want a fifth spade and that stiff Ace gives us a little too much. But 4S is not so horrible that we’d eliminate it right away. Let’s see how it stacks up to other calls

 

3S is weak. Thus is a bid we’d make if our ace were a deuce. The hand is a full trick better than a good preempt. This means partner will go wrong many times. He won’t bid game to make, as happened here, and he may take a phantom save on other layouts. We should be ever mislead partner to this extent, so we can eliminate 3S.

 

2N as a limit or better raise. We are close in playing strength. Certainly this hand is closer to a limit raise than to a preemptive raise. This reinforces rejecting 3S,

 

It also seems less committal than 4S, since it involves partner in the final decision. So I think we eliminate 4S.

 

3D fit jump. This seems very wrong to me. Our diamond suit is far too weak and fit jumps should deny aces or kings on the side. The point of the fit jump is to help partner make decisions should the opps compete, and he will expect (much) better diamonds and no heart Ace. As with 3S, we reject any call that so strongly misleads partner.

 

2S. Absent a mixed raise, or a Bergen raise (which I agree is not a good treatment over a double), this hand is either a 2S call, intending to bid again if the bidding is dying at the 3-level, or a limit.

 

The problem with 2S is that it is reasonable for responder to raise to 2S, after the double, on pure garbage with 3 spades, to take away a level of bidding. Thus opener needs to be a little more cautious in moving towards game than had south passed.

 

I think it’s very close between 2S and 2N. This is not unusual and is one reason transfers are used by many experts and quite a few advancing players.

 

For me, the deciding point is that this hand is closer to an invite than it is to a nuisance raise. Since 2S could be as weak as a nuisance raise, and my hand is far stronger than that, I opt for the slight overbid if 2N.

[PhilG007]

MPs, vuln against not, 5 card majors.

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sj432hadqt743c975&e=skqt87hk42dkcakt2&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1sd3sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Partner easily made 10 tricks which was worth 11%, 11 tricks are there as the clubs are 3-3, so she can throw one loser and ruff them good, only losing two aces.

 

I have started reading through Partnership Bidding at Bridge, The Contested Auction, and I picked up on something I haven't previously thought too much about. In competition, there are hands you want to pre-emptively raise, hands you want to constructively raise, and hands with a reasonable side suit you want to get across to partner, to allow him/her to judge more easily what to do if the opponents raise the bidding. It also says that some hands do not fit neatly into one category, and sometimes there is some overlap. My hand is one of the latter, it is too weak for a constructive invitational raise, but it is a bit too good for a pre-emptive raise. I chose the pre-emptive raise and it went wrong. I am not sure my diamond suit is good enough for a fit jump (if we were playing that), so my only other option would be 2NT which partner won't need to think hard about raising to 4♠.

 

With the West hand I go straight to 4♠ No dilly dallying I want to be in game and also to make it as difficult as possible for North the doublers partner

I also want to spare my own partner the decision whether to bid Game or not. If 4♠ does fail then it wont cost much as the

majority of the field will be in the same contract. So all bases are covered ;)

[bluenikki]

MPs, vuln against not, 5 card majors.

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sj432hadqt743c975&e=skqt87hk42dkcakt2&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1sd3sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Partner easily made 10 tricks which was worth 11%, 11 tricks are there as the clubs are 3-3, so she can throw one loser and ruff them good, only losing two aces.

 

I have started reading through Partnership Bidding at Bridge, The Contested Auction, and I picked up on something I haven't previously thought too much about. In competition, there are hands you want to pre-emptively raise, hands you want to constructively raise, and hands with a reasonable side suit you want to get across to partner, to allow him/her to judge more easily what to do if the opponents raise the bidding. It also says that some hands do not fit neatly into one category, and sometimes there is some overlap. My hand is one of the latter, it is too weak for a constructive invitational raise, but it is a bit too good for a pre-emptive raise. I chose the pre-emptive raise and it went wrong. I am not sure my diamond suit is good enough for a fit jump (if we were playing that), so my only other option would be 2NT which partner won't need to think hard about raising to 4♠.

 

The west hand is *not* too weak for a constructive limit raise. It has 11 Goren dummy points: 3 for singleton, 1 point promotion for the trump jack. In terms of losing trick count, it covers 4 potential losers: 3 in hearts and 1 in diamonds.