Cheaper minor -- 4- total points; North gets me again

[pilowsky]

You get the hand below, counting winners and losers, you optimistically upgrade your hand to 2♣.

Hmm, maybe not that optimistic KNR gives this.

The following bidding takes place.

What does Norths bid mean in humanspeak? The word 'Cheaper' is the most confusing bit for me.

I'm reasonably confident that if I alerted and described a bid this way FTF there would be a request for clarification.

[hv=pc=n&s=s8haj85dak9752cak&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dp3dp3n(cheaper%20minor%20--%204-%20total%20points)p]133|200[/hv]

[johnu]

What does Norths bid mean in humanspeak?

I don't know about humanspeak, but in GIBspeak it means if you open 2♣ with that hand, this is what you are going to get!

[TylerE]

Hamman's law time.

 

Do I have an active reason to not play 3N?

 

No?

 

Then I'm playing 3N.

[thepossum]

You get the hand below, counting winners and losers, you optimistically upgrade your hand to 2♣.

Hmm, maybe not that optimistic KNR gives this.

The following bidding takes place.

What does Norths bid mean in humanspeak? The word 'Cheaper' is the most confusing bit for me.

I'm reasonably confident that if I alerted and described a bid this way FTF there would be a request for clarification.

[hv=pc=n&s=s8haj85dak9752cak&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dp3dp3n(cheaper%20minor%20--%204-%20total%20points)p]133|200[/hv]

 

Strange use of cheaper minor. My inclination would be to take a coffee and find another partner. There is a thread on Bridgewinners about it where someone reckons there is no bidding room for cheaper minor over 3D as you have noticed. In No Trumps I'm counting 5 tricks. In diamonds maybe 1 or 2 more :)

 

Possum Sim gives average number of tricks in diamonds 9.6 and No trumps by North 7.2 and the variance doesnt look good in NT either

[pilowsky]

Tragically, here's what happened to me.

There were 25 people playing. 1 person made 5DS= - not actually possible.

Another person caught west in 4SxW-2.

One person made 2NT+1 - not possible.

And there were variable amounts of suffering elsewhere in the field.

Sort of Shakespearean rather than Hammanean.

[DavidKok]

Opening 1♦ with hands like this is almost perfectly safe. Someone has the spades and wants to show them, so you get to bid again. If that someone is partner you can force to game, if not you can make some aggressive jump overcall, or double followed by repeating your diamonds.

[thepossum]

Seeing that hand of North, surely it needs to pass

 

But according to said Bridgewinners thread. Link easily found in Google its best not to open 2C with a hand like that I wouldnt have known that until now :)

 

EDIT Just thinking about losers. North has a fit and not quite the worst hand possible with 11 losers + your 3-4 (it thinks). That means pass

 

EDIT 2 I checked a few bridge programs and systems (2/1, SAYC, Acol) and different opening bids (1D or 2C) - most ended in 5D, one in 3NT and one in 3D :)

 

EDIT 3 With North's hand opposite the 2C and 3D the chance of 3NT is around 27% and chance of 5D is around 25% - that means pass in my book

[spotlight7]

You get the hand below, counting winners and losers, you optimistically upgrade your hand to 2♣.

Hmm, maybe not that optimistic KNR gives this.

The following bidding takes place.

What does Norths bid mean in humanspeak? The word 'Cheaper' is the most confusing bit for me.

I'm reasonably confident that if I alerted and described a bid this way FTF there would be a request for clarification.

[hv=pc=n&s=s8haj85dak9752cak&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dp3dp3n(cheaper%20minor%20--%204-%20total%20points)p]133|200[/hv]

 

Kaplan opened 2C* with a minor holding 10+ winners using his KS system.

 

Some players use 2C-2D-3M* to show 4M and a primary D suit.

[spotlight7]

You get the hand below, counting winners and losers, you optimistically upgrade your hand to 2♣.

Hmm, maybe not that optimistic KNR gives this.

The following bidding takes place.

What does Norths bid mean in humanspeak? The word 'Cheaper' is the most confusing bit for me.

I'm reasonably confident that if I alerted and described a bid this way FTF there would be a request for clarification.

[hv=pc=n&s=s8haj85dak9752cak&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dp3dp3n(cheaper%20minor%20--%204-%20total%20points)p]133|200[/hv]

 

Kaplan opened 2C* with a minor holding 10+ winners using his KS system.

 

Some players use 2C-2D-3M* to show 4M and a primary D suit.

[AL78]

North's bid means "Based on what you have told me about your hand, I want to play in 3NT". Therefore you should pass.

 

I would have opened 1♦ as South. The chance it gets passed out when you have game on is minimal, and you can show the heart suit on the next round.

[Cyberyeti]

Tragically, here's what happened to me.

There were 25 people playing. 1 person made 5DS= - not actually possible.

Another person caught west in 4SxW-2.

One person made 2NT+1 - not possible.

And there were variable amounts of suffering elsewhere in the field.

Sort of Shakespearean rather than Hammanean.

 

I don't know why you think 5♦ is impossible (unless you mean double dummy), all you need is not to get a trump lead (or a spade and a trump switch), because E has QJ tight, you can overruff W in hearts losing only a spade and a heart.

[Zelandakh]

1. The hand is worth an Acol 2 opening. If you have a Strong 2♦, Benji 2m or Multi 2♦ opening that includes that type then it would be ok to use it; otherwise open 1♦

2. Having opened 2♣ I recommend a response structure that includes an immediate negative, typically 2♥.

3. This has come up quite recently on BBF but after 2♣ - 2♦, my suggestion would be to play that a 3♥ rebid shows a hand like this one with 4♥ and longer ♦.

4. In humanspeak, this 3NT rebid is the equivalent of an immediate 2♥ negative response whereas a 3M rebid would be semi-positive. My view is that it is an extremely poor bidding system to arrive at game level with one player having shown only 5 of their cards and the other having shown no distribution whatsoever. The fact that this system appears to be forced makes the original decision to open 2♣ seem even poorer. In other words, either play better methods or learn to work around the ones you have.

[mycroft]

"I have a 4 loser hand. I must open 2♣!"

"I'm at 3NT, and have no clue where or how high to play (except it's probably lower than 3NT!)"

Funny, that.

 

And that's without the opponents coming in and finding their spades. And you got very lucky that the diamonds are such that you didn't have a loser there either (and that they have 2 diamond losers in spades).

 

Strong bids aren't good bids, they're necessary bids. You should not stretch to put hands into your strong bid, especially when it's as space-wasting as this auction will be. 2NT is known as the "slam-killer" for a reason, and this hand is going to "open" even higher than that. Swap the pointeds, there's a case, especially playing "cheapest 3" rather than "2♥ ultra-negative".

[pilowsky]

"I have a 4 loser hand. I must open 2♣!"

"I'm at 3NT, and have no clue where or how high to play (except it's probably lower than 3NT!)"

Funny, that.

 

And that's without the opponents coming in and finding their spades. And you got very lucky that the diamonds are such that you didn't have a loser there either (and that they have 2 diamond losers in spades).

 

Strong bids aren't good bids, they're necessary bids. You should not stretch to put hands into your strong bid, especially when it's as space-wasting as this auction will be. 2NT is known as the "slam-killer" for a reason, and this hand is going to "open" even higher than that. Swap the pointeds, there's a case, especially playing "cheapest 3" rather than "2♥ ultra-negative".

 

This is a very useful and helpful point. I rarely bid 2♣ for the same reason that I don't make a 2/1 bid or an FSF bid without careful thought.

I find it a problem that there is no opening bid that forces a response but allows you stop below game.

I know that's just me - inexperience talking - but I quite like the Benjamin 2 approach because the 2♣ bid occupies that space. I am aware that decent players have better systems to cope with this - I'm not one of them.

 

My specific issue here was not the problem that I know about (my general level of incompetence) but the problem of how to interpret my CHO's bid.

 

I have copies of Dunning and Kruger's articles. I am quite literate on the topic of incompetence, but there are so many gaps it is often hard to decide which one to fill first.

 

In this post, the question concerns the meaning of the alerted 3NT, but your advice about the opening bid is well-taken. Thank you.

[mycroft]

Thank you for your response.

 

The issue about "what does 3NT mean after 2♣-2♦; 3♦" is that, given there has to be a way to slow down a "almost-game-forcing" opener from looking for slam, and given that (at least at Matchpoints) it's really important not to bypass 3NT without good reason, and you need to keep 3M open for "6-point, 5-major" hands, 3NT is almost forced to be the "cheapest minor" bid.

 

Knowing that, it becomes critical to avoid this auction unless either it's absolutely necessary (+190 is such a great score); or you're comfortable being in 3NT with a random bust; or you're comfortable leaving 3NT behind opposite a random bust (which gets back to "+190 (okay, +170) is such a great score").

 

Which brings me back to my point, which is that upgrading hands into 2♣ is something to think about avoiding; upgrading primary-diamonds hands into 2♣ should be actively avoided (to the point of "downgrading" what would be "clear" 2♣ openers with any other suit). You'll note in my history that other kinds of strong hands (in particular two-suiters, in extra particular two-suiters with longer minors) I suggest keeping out of 2♣ as well (because while +170 is a bad score on the right 3 count, it's still better than -100 on the wrong one).

 

Note also that I am a proponent of avoiding upgrading into a Precision-style 1♣ as well; although it's the opponents taking away the 1 and 2 levels in that situation, not my system.

 

I am also not the best player, or the best bidder in the world. But I am a semi-reformed "system freak", and I have learned that while it's fun to pull out your gadget, stretching to do so frequently comes back to bite you. And that applies just as much to 2♣ Strong and Artificial as it does to 1NT overcall for weak takeout, or Flannery, or...

 

If you have a problem with "I can't get out below game with my 'I almost have game in my hand' opener", then you've learned one of the reasons players play something other than Standard openers; whether it's Benjamin 2-bids, or Romex, or Strong/multi-way 1m systems, or even "no artificial forcing opener".

[johnu]

North's bid means "Based on what you have told me about your hand, I want to play in 3NT". Therefore you should pass.

Did you read the description for 3NT??? It says cheaper minor..4- total points. It does not show stoppers, or distribution.

[AL78]

Did you read the description for 3NT??? It says cheaper minor..4- total points. It does not show stoppers, or distribution.

 

I glossed over it and didn't register it. That's a new one on me, how do you bail out into 3NT when it's right if it means that?

[sfi]

I glossed over it and didn't register it. That's a new one on me, how do you bail out into 3NT when it's right if it means that?

You don't. It's a bad agreement which is made worse if partner opens 2C on inappropriate hands.

[blackshoe]

2!C is an accident of history. Personally, if I have to play something like 2/1, I'd much prefer to play Romex. In that system 2!C is very strong, as in 2/1, but hands with primary diamonds do not open 2!C; they open 2!D.

[Zelandakh]

2♣ is an accident of history. Personally, if I have to play something like 2/1, I'd much prefer to play Romex. In that system 2!C is very strong, as in 2/1, but hands with primary diamonds do not open 2!C; they open 2!D.

Culbertson also had some rather colourful words to describe a strong, artificial 2♣ opening, Despite such criticism, it has grown to dominate the world's "natural" bidding systems.

[pilowsky]

Culbertson also had some rather colourful words to describe a strong, artificial 2♣ opening, Despite such criticism, it has grown to dominate the world's "natural" bidding systems.

 

I don't like it much either, although 2♣ does seem to mean forcing for at least one round in most situations.

What do you suggest as an alternative? There seems to be an entrenched dislike for Benjamin two's. What does one open with hands that look like these?:

• K&R (AK983 AJT43 A2 A) = 24.45 DK 22- or
• K&R (AK983 A9843 A2 A) = 23.20 DK = 20 or worse
• K&R (AK983 A9843 A2 2) = 19.80 DK = 16

These hands give newbies like me nightmares. Too big, wrong shape, very annoying.

[Stephen Tu]

What do you suggest as an alternative? There seems to be an entrenched dislike for Benjamin two's. What does one open with hands that look like these?:

 

Just open 1 of a suit, 1S with your example hands. First hand might be an upper limit, a tad stronger 2♣ can be justified. Most of the time someone scrapes up a bid, and you are generally better off having started describing your suits a level lower, particularly if the opps bid a large # of a minor. Yes, occasionally it gets passed out, it turns out you had game in hearts but partner didn't bid with a near broke hand. If this bothers you, you can try some strong club systems that will find some of these, but come with their own set of problems on other hands.

 

Keep in mind your opponents are facing the same problems you are. If your 1S gets passed out and misses a heart game, *their* 1S is likely also missing that game. Or if they are going to open 2c light on these, they will probably get to some good heart games that you won't. But if they choose 2c, they will also force themselves to various hopeless 3nt/4M games when partner is broke and misfit, while you comfortably make 1S with an overtrick or two. Or their partner may not let them out short of slam after opening 2c, expecting them to have more, and ending up overboard. You just need to be profitable on a net basis.

[DavidKok]

In this post, the question concerns the meaning of the alerted 3NT, but your advice about the opening bid is well-taken. Thank you.

 

What do you suggest as an alternative? There seems to be an entrenched dislike for Benjamin two's. What does one open with hands that look like these?:

• K&R (AK983 AJT43 A2 A) = 24.45 DK 22- or
• K&R (AK983 A9843 A2 A) = 23.20 DK = 20 or worse
• K&R (AK983 A9843 A2 2) = 19.80 DK = 16

These hands give newbies like me nightmares. Too big, wrong shape, very annoying.

I was planning to not discuss general opening philosophy after that first remark, but here we go anyway.

 

It is a boring truism that no bridge system is perfect, and all have downsides. To the best of my knowledge historically bidding systems have set out to minimise the chance of missing a making game - this is for example why traditionally people opened with 13 points (since if neither player in a partnership has 13 or more points, the partnership has 24 at most and probably does not belong in game), and by choosing to respond with at least 6 (or 7 a century ago) this means that if we hold at least ~20 points we need a stronger bid, because partner may pass with 5 while game is on (and that's why we have a 20-22 or 20-21 2NT). You can immediately try to improve on this by including shape into your evaluations, or using some more accurate point count method than the Milton Work count.

 

However, I think it is much more important to acknowledge that the guiding thought in all this is at best a good approximation of what we want out of a bidding system. Bidding and making games is very important for a good IMP score, but not to the extent that all else should be sacrificed for it. Some other desiderata of a system include winning the partscore battle, investigating slams, putting pressure on the opponents and helping partner on defence by describing your hand or asking for a lead. While constructive game-going auctions are one of the most important aspects of most bidding systems, it is valuable to realise that with limited bidding space you, as the master of your bidding system, are trading some of your ability to achieve this particular goal against all the others. And in a world of decreasing return on investments it is good (percentage) bridge to at some point say "Stop, this is getting too constructive. If I miss a game every once in a blue moon so be it, but I'll be getting all those other goals in return so it will be a good trade-off."

 

All of the above applies to the extreme with strong shapely hands. If you open 2♣ you will certainly get to game if partner has an ace or so, but in return you are behind on all other goals by not bidding your suit(s). Cheeky opponents may even preempt your auction, leaving you with impossible guesses at the 3- or 4-level. Furthermore, by introducing your shape, instead of your strength, it is much easier for partner to take action in contested auctions. And if you are staring at a singleton or void the odds of the auction becoming contested are overwhelming, especially with aggressive bidders all around. This last point supports opening on the 1-level in a second way: if the opponents intervene then you will get to bid again, so game need not be missed. I've happily opened 1♦ on a 23-count and all was well (on that particular hand my LHO was kind enough to jump to 2♠).

 

In general I think informing partner of your hand shape should take priority over informing partner of your strength (within limits, but still). This argument is typically used by aggressive bidders who want to get in early and often, but it also applies to very strong hands. If you really have some 2-suited battleship of a hand you more than likely need all the bidding space available to inform partner that their two kings and out are priceless, but only if they are in the correct suits. On balance opening hands like that on the 1-level (and risking missing game) beats opening them with some artificial 2-level bid (and risking not having space to show your shape). This is part of the reason why I disagree with the solutions offered by blackshoe, Zelandakh and even mycroft's suggestion for a short list of possible agreements to capture hands like this. mycroft correctly points out that you should not stretch to use a 2♣ gadget, but I think it is wise to go even further and stretch to avoid it. On balance it is good to risk missing game if that means you get to show your shape at the 1-level. Most conventions introduced to solve this problem at the 2-level, including a wide set of response structures to a strong 2♣, are likely anti-percentage, and I prefer accepting that some hands are troublesome to bid over playing those conventions (and in return I get to play other methods at the 2-level).

[Zelandakh]

What do you suggest as an alternative?

I have come up with a number of alternatives but they generally involve a level of artificiality that puts them beyond basic play. My top one uses the age-old solution of a strong, artificial 1♣ opening (18+ or 8PTs) meaning that #1 and #2 can open 1♣ and then rebid 2♠ (showing an Acol 2) while #3 just opens a pedestrian 1♠. The previous idea was 2-under transfer openings where #1 and #2 would open 1♦ and rebid 2♠ while #3 would open 1♦ and rebid 1♠ (assuming a 1♥ relay).

 

In natural methods, I have played Benji, Reverse Benji, 3 Weaks, Multi + Muiderberg and a few others a little more off the beaten track such as Culbertson's natural Strong Twos. All have their advantages and disadvantages. My current partner likes normal Benji so we do that. Even within the 2♣ field there are differences. If you want to include Acol 2M openings here, my view is that the best way is probably to use ParadoX responses. In all honesty though, most players simply overuse their strong openings so it makes sense to me to keep the minimum higher rather than lower. That's really the biggest issue I have with Benji, not "an entrenched dislike" of the method itself.

 

So my 2♣ structure is pretty simple - it is GF or balanced; 2♦ is a relay and an immediate 2♥ shows weakness; and 2♣ - 2♦; 3M shows 4M and longer diamonds. Easy. Everything else you open normally. The rare gains you get from adding a large amount of additional complexity here are generally not going to be worth it for typical club players.

[mycroft]

As you would expect, I agree with Stephen about those both-major 2-suiters - open them 1♠. If it gets passed out, it gets passed out. Frequently that's a good score, because the spades break badly and partner has no entry. Frequently it's a bad one, because partner has just enough (♥K. ♥Q might even be enough) to make game and the people who open 2♣ get there.

 

Like everything else in bridge, Perthing's Nofect. Anything you do in the auction will fail sometimes. But opening hands that are "well, if it doesn't go All Pass, I'm great" 2♣ just so it won't go all pass wins when it would and is way behind almost every other auction. Hands you would think about upgrading into 2♣ are hands where there's more material out there for someone to have a call over 1♠, so the lose case is less probable.

 

The current trend in North America is for some form of immediate double negative, whether it be point count steps (No! Do Not Use! not all 4-6 points are alike opposite a non-balanced 2♣ opener!), or control steps (better), or "2♦ GF, 2♥ immediate double negative, 2NT=hearts", or "2♦ 1+ controls, 2♥ no A or K" (but could be 12 high). As with everything else, there are advantages to this, and disadvantages, and it affects which hands should (not) be opened 2♣.

 

The current trend (I think) also is to avoid 2♣ for non-"1-bid" hands (big balanced or single-suited) if possible, even opening 25 high at the 1 level if the 2♣ auction would be ugly, hoping to survive. Similar to the minimum for "double-and-bid", especially with non-1-suiters, going up and up.