An annoying missed game

[dsLawsd]

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.

 

I like your style! XX did occur but I prefer (if available)a mixed raise else being an over-bidder I probably would bid 4S right away here.

[hamtowngb]

I don't play a lot of sophisticated (3D "tranfer" in this case) conventions. The way I show an invitational hand (like W) is to cuebid. S doubled to presumably show H's. A 2H bid couldn't be natural, but to show an invitational hand in support of spades. Maybe I'm missing something.

[bluenikki]

I don't play a lot of sophisticated (3D "tranfer" in this case) conventions. The way I show an invitational hand (like W) is to cuebid. S doubled to presumably show H's. A 2H bid couldn't be natural, but to show an invitational hand in support of spades. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

It is disaster-prone to rely on the alleged meaning of an opponent's bid for the meaning of your own bids.

[msjennifer]

Sirs,

I ,personally ,think that the 3S bid made here is an easy bid for those who play the LTC when a good 8 card fit or A nine card fit is found.It is the easiest method to describe a hand which exchanges valueble information about the number of losers in either hand and makes it easier to decide the level of contract if opponents compete.,Assuming that the 2nd hand opening of one spade can have normally not more than 7 losers (when a 5 cars long suit is held as in the present case),it is much easier to bid this hand.One strictly remember that the LTC method denies (does not guarantee) the DEFENSIVE WINNERS..The method can be equated with the Law of total tricks and the principle of fast arrival.

2)coming back to the present hands there are 3S losers,2D losers, and 3 C losers.That counts to 8 losers.Adding the 7 losers in the opening hand the total is 15 losers .When we deduct this from 18 we get the exact contract of THREE SPADES.The opener has 1S,2H,1D and 1C losers that is a total of 5 losers.ADD to the 8 losers announced by the responder and deduct from 18 and we get 5 i.e. a contact of 5S which is what would have happened .

3)After the TOD by RHO various meanings can be formulated to the bids of redouble1NT,,2NT.2H,2S,3H and for that matter a simple Artificial forcing bid of 2C. in order to describe responding hands with predestined attacking and/or defensive strength and 3/4 card good/bad support.These bids which I have listed are the least confusing ones.Thanks

[CodeByJim]

I watch as these hands are frequently underbid or if a strong hand is held by East, a slam is seldom found. My partner and I play a forcing Club opener showing 13 plus high card points and asking for a major. With 0-8 high card points partner will bid a diamond to keep it open so I can set the suit for a 1 bid. In this case I would bid 2 no trump indicating 18+ high card points. This is semi forcing! Partner knows that we have game points and bids 3 diamonds to which I would respond 3 spades. She then sets the obvious 4 spades contract. As for the double, we ignore it since it is in our favor to know where the ops power lies. Best of all, we don't have to remember any fancy conventions to be successful with this hand as it is based strictly on HCP bidding. Also, the responder is the one who sets the contract as it should be. Opener should never set the contract for this type of hand. I know it's not standard bidding today, but it has worked well for 60 years. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. Maybe they should be reconsidered.

[msjennifer]

I watch as these hands are frequently underbid or if a strong hand is held by East, a slam is seldom found. My partner and I play a forcing Club opener showing 13 plus high card points and asking for a major. With 0-8 high card points partner will bid a diamond to keep it open so I can set the suit for a 1 bid. In this case I would bid 2 no trump indicating 18+ high card points. This is semi forcing! Partner knows that we have game points and bids 3 diamonds to which I would respond 3 spades. She then sets the obvious 4 spades contract. As for the double, we ignore it since it is in our favor to know where the ops power lies. Best of all, we don't have to remember any fancy conventions to be successful with this hand as it is based strictly on HCP bidding. Also, the responder is the one who sets the contract as it should be. Opener should never set the contract for this type of hand. I know it's not standard bidding today, but it has worked well for 60 years. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways. Maybe they should be reconsidered.

Sir,

I would like to make an humble polite remark on your post.Pardon me ,but your suggested scheme means taking the present bridge back by at least EIGHTY(80) years.And SORRY for this comment.

[bluenikki]

Sir,

I would like to make an humble polite remark on your post.Pardon me ,but your suggested scheme means taking the present bridge back by at least EIGHTY(80) years.And SORRY for this comment.

 

In fact, there was never in the history of bridge a period when constructive bidding followed high-card points.

 

Culbertson was dogmatic in restricting the use of point count to notrump auctions.

 

Goren had a hard time getting acceptance of the high-cards-plus-distribution count for suit bidding.

 

And for good reason.

 

Axx

x

Kxxx

Axxxx

 

facing

 

x

Axx

Axxxx

Kxxx

 

If the other hands have no singleton, you make 7 of either minor.

 

If they have no void, you make 5 of either minor.

[TylerE]

It really doesn't matter what W showed - that's a matter of agreement. E's pass of 3♠ is a matter of cardiac arrest.

[helene_t]

With Shogi I play this style also, 3♠ is trash so this hand has a 2♠ bid.

 

I don't think it's a good style, though. With a lousy hand with 3-card support, I want to bid 2♠, and then this hand is maybe too strong for 2♠. So I think it's better to play 3♠ as something like this, and then 2♠ could be trash with 4-card support OR some 5-8 points with 3-card support. Better hands with 3-card support can either redouble (old-fashioned style) or make a 2♥ transfer raise (modern style).

[FelicityR]

I like your style! XX did occur but I prefer (if available)a mixed raise else being an over-bidder I probably would bid 4S right away here.

 

It's not quite my style :)

 

I'm just reading - again! - at the moment Peter Fredin's excellent book, Master of Bridge Psychology. It's made me, even as a non-expert, think about our beautiful game in a different way. The not-so-obvious becomes a possibility in both the realms of bidding and play. Throughout the book, which is an easy read and well set out, some of the bids and plays are made with the intention of deceiving the opponents and encouraging them to make their own mistakes.

 

I actually had the pleasure of seeing Peter Fredin play live on BBO with his Scandinavian friends some weeks ago and saw him make one of his deceptive plays at the table. How would you play the following suit to try to gain the maximum number of tricks (I can't remember if it was a suit contract or no-trumps).

 

He held QJxxxx and dummy A9x. Without batting an eyelid he led small and inserted the 9. I'm sure most of us would have led the Q here. When the 9 held, one of his opponents, a Swedish world-class player with KTx over him remarked "Cute".

[cherdano]

If you don't play anything artificial here, then it's MUCH MUCH better imo to play 3♠ as a mixed raise - exactly the sort of hand West has. Mixed raises are both more frequent AND more useful when they come up.

 

But if you play 3♠ as weak, you've got to bid 2♠ expecting to have to follow up with 3♠ - not the end of the world. If you change the hand to Jxxx x AQTxx xxx, I'd be happy to gamble 4♠.

[Cyberyeti]

If you change the hand to Jxxx x AQTxx xxx, I'd be happy to gamble 4♠.

 

Isn't that an easy 3♦ for most people

[cherdano]

Isn't that an easy 3♦ for most people

Sure but it's not obvious to me that this is better than 4♠. 3♦ is usually better when the crucial decision is about bidding 4♠ over 4♥, helping partner. (Even so, partner will sometimes get it wrong when he can't infer our heart shortness.) 4♠ is much better when the crucial decision is about bidding 5♥ over 4♠, in which case 3♦ would be helping opponents.

 

Let me put it this way: Playing with a partner who jumps to 4♠ on such hands can be frustrating - going down when you should be plus. But playing against opponents who jump to 4♠ on such hands is also quite uncomfortable. I have no idea what matters more.

[Cyberyeti]

Sure but it's not obvious to me that this is better than 4♠. 3♦ is usually better when the crucial decision is about bidding 4♠ over 4♥, helping partner. (Even so, partner will sometimes get it wrong when he can't infer our heart shortness.) 4♠ is much better when the crucial decision is about bidding 5♥ over 4♠, in which case 3♦ would be helping opponents.

 

Let me put it this way: Playing with a partner who jumps to 4♠ on such hands can be frustrating - going down when you should be plus. But playing against opponents who jump to 4♠ on such hands is also quite uncomfortable. I have no idea what matters more.

 

I think there are hands partner will have where you're not getting rich out of 5♥ and you're making 5♠, and you want him to know that with AKxxxx, xx, (KJxx, x) in one case he bids, in the other he passes or doubles. Even worse he might lead his singleton to 5♥ and allow it to make on the double fit.

[KingCovert]

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.

 

I'd suggest that you read MikeH's response in between yours and this one. We disagree on 2S vs 2NT, but, the process is clearly correct. You have to define bids within the context of available options. 3S is weak and to some extent preemptive. It does not inherently guarantee 4 spades, but, most bids of 3S without 4 spades are insanity, especially vulnerable. Nonetheless, 4 spades is not a requirement, even though it's clearly advisable and this is fundamentally why we won't agree on this.

 

If you want to say that you play different meanings for 2♠ and 3♠ given that you have fit jumps or transfers available, that's absolutely fine, but, it's also a pointless argument. When talking about what's standard, there's no value in bringing in non-standard treatments, even if I do agree they are effective treatments.

 

If 2S shows 0-9 and 3♠, 3S shows 0-9 and 4♠, and 2NT shows all limit raises, well that's a horrible set of agreements. Sounds like a great way to play losing bridge.

[Douglas43]

I'd suggest that you read MikeH's response in between yours and this one. We disagree on 2S vs 2NT, but, the process is clearly correct. You have to define bids within the context of available options. 3S is weak and to some extent preemptive. It does not inherently guarantee 4 spades, but, most bids of 3S without 4 spades are insanity, especially vulnerable. Nonetheless, 4 spades is not a requirement, even though it's clearly advisable and this is fundamentally why we won't agree on this.

 

If you want to say that you play different meanings for 2♠ and 3♠ given that you have fit jumps or transfers available, that's absolutely fine, but, it's also a pointless argument. When talking about what's standard, there's no value in bringing in non-standard treatments, even if I do agree they are effective treatments.

 

If 2S shows 0-9 and 3♠, 3S shows 0-9 and 4♠, and 2NT shows all limit raises, well that's a horrible set of agreements. Sounds like a great way to play losing bridge.

 

Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. I usually play 4 card majors, so helpful to see the thinking involved with 5CM. For what it's worth my partnership responds 2NT as Jacoby when unpassed / uninterrupted and 2NT = sound / hcp based raise to 3 or more when passed, after doubles and after overcalls. Even then a direct raise to 3 has to be playable opposite a 4 card suit so normally 8 losers and say 6 /7 hcp. We lose some pre-emption compared to 5 card majors, but it seems to average out