missed game

[AL78]

On the wrong end of a huge hand bias for the third time running (partner declared once in 24 boards) I picked up this hand:

 

East

♠AKJT8

♥AQ5

♦Q7

♣832

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1sp2spp3c3sppp]133|100[/hv]

 

Our system is 5 card majors, strong NT. Opposite 1M, we play 3♣ as 10-12HCP, 3 card support, 3♦ as 8-11 HCP, 4 card support, and 3M as a pre-emptive raise. Although I held 16 HCP I felt that partner likely had a nine loser hand, so game was very unlikely save for the perfect hand opposite.

 

Partner did have the perfect hand:

 

West

♠7542

♥K83

♦KT852

♣6

 

A spade was led which picked up Qxx on my right, +200 which was a top at the time, no-one else found the game.

 

Should I have been more ambitious?

[bluenikki]

On the wrong end of a huge hand bias for the third time running (partner declared once in 24 boards) I picked up this hand:

 

East

♠AKJT8

♥AQ5

♦Q7

♣832

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp1sp2spp3c3sppp]133|100[/hv]

 

Our system is 5 card majors, strong NT. Opposite 1M, we play 3♣ as 10-12HCP, 3 card support, 3♦ as 8-11 HCP, 4 card support, and 3M as a pre-emptive raise. Although I held 16 HCP I felt that partner likely had a nine loser hand, so game was very unlikely save for the perfect hand opposite.

 

Partner did have the perfect hand:

 

West

♠7542

♥K83

♦KT852

♣6

 

A spade was led which picked up Qxx on my right, +200 which was a top at the time, no-one else found the game.

 

Should I have been more ambitious?

 

Partner definitely has fewer than 9 losers. A 9-loser hand with 4 trumps would have bid 3♠ directly, wouldn't it?

 

It seems to me that putting HIGHCARD point requirements for the 3♦ response has little utility. This hand as at least 9 dummy points.

 

Carl

[mw64ahw]

I posted a similar hand recently The mixed raise - BBO Discussion Forums (bridgebase.com) which had an 8.5 Modified Loosing Trick count.

 

I've incorporated the mixed raise into the the major suit responses such that.

 

1M-3M-1 shows the support plus an 8.5MLT, but without the hcp count required to show a limit raise.

[AL78]

I posted a similar hand recently The mixed raise - BBO Discussion Forums (bridgebase.com) which had an 8.5 Modified Loosing Trick count.

 

I've incorporated the mixed raise into the the major suit responses such that.

 

1M-3M-1 shows the support plus an 8.5MLT, but without the hcp count required to show a limit raise.

 

Do you think playing the jump raise as mixed is better in the long run than playing it as a pre-emptive raise with 4 card support?

[Cyberyeti]

4 trumps and a singleton plus 2 kings is a very decent hand, worth more than 2♠

[mw64ahw]

Do you think playing the jump raise as mixed is better in the long run than playing it as a pre-emptive raise with 4 card support?

I play the jump raise as preemptive, 2M+1 as Limit+,3+ and 2M+2 to 3M-1 as various mixed raises.

[AL78]

4 trumps and a singleton plus 2 kings is a very decent hand, worth more than 2♠

 

Do you think it is worth a 3♦ response based on the system I stated in my OP?

 

I'm wondering if I should have worked out partner would not bid 3♠ without extras such as club shortage and I should have raised to game.

[Cyberyeti]

Do you think it is worth a 3♦ response based on the system I stated in my OP?

 

I'm wondering if I should have worked out partner would not bid 3♠ without extras such as club shortage and I should have raised to game.

 

What does an initial 3♠ look like to you ? The second 3♠ just looks like 4 spades rather than 3 and non minimum, but I'm not sure it needs the singleton, same habd 4342 bidding to the level of the fit.

[bluenikki]

Do you think it is worth a 3♦ response based on the system I stated in my OP?

 

I'm wondering if I should have worked out partner would not bid 3♠ without extras such as club shortage and I should have raised to game.

 

Certainly, partner promised (not just happened to have) a better hand than you thought they did.

 

But still they only had and promised covers for potentially 4 losers. Since you had 7, you needed all potentials to be actuals.

 

A hand that potentially covers 5 losers should itself commit to game.

 

Carl

[bluenikki]

4 trumps and a singleton plus 2 kings is a very decent hand, worth more than 2♠

 

Well yes, but the system forces the underbid.

[Cyberyeti]

Certainly, partner promised (not just happened to have) a better hand than you thought they did.

 

But still they only had and promised covers for potentially 4 losers. Since you had 7, you needed all potentials to be actuals.

 

A hand that potentially covers 5 losers should itself commit to game.

 

Carl

 

They cover potentially a bit more than 4 losers, the 4th trump may cover a trump loser over and above the ruffs, give partner AKxxx, Axx, QJ, xxx and you're in really good shape, ♦Qx you're not in bad shape

[Lovera]

You have always to consider also the N/S bidding (they are in an initial sacrifice).North had not bidded 4♣ because it pulls you in game (and infact the bidding is stopped at 3♠).Rightly as told the partner bidding shows 9-11 points and four cards in support.(Lovera)

[DavidKok]

We would have bid the same but West would have bid 3♦ over 3♣. The West hand is a perfect mixed raise, so if you have a way to show that (e.g. with a direct 3♠) you can bid it. If not, you have to bid 2♠ and hope that the auction doesn't die out.

[apollo1201]

Do you play a forcing or semi-forcing NT over 1M opening?

 

In that case, 2M is a more constructive raise, and passing 2M is really pessimistic with the hand, despite its unattractive shape and dubious doubleton Q. Even playing MPs, you need to act.

 

If playing IMPs, regardless of what 2M covers, acting rates to gain more than it could lose, so I’d ask partner’s opinion about 4S, which is enthusiastically approved (and then when dummy hits table, we see if it is to make or not!).

 

If 2M can be a non-appealing 6-count such as Qxx Jxx Jxx Qxx, at MPs, passing the raise has some charms.

 

Overall, I understand that your system is:

- 3D invitational with 4 trumps

- 3C invitational with 3 trumps

- 3M (very) weak with 4 trumps

 

Then I guess that 2M has to include the hands with 4 trumps between 3D and 3M, ie exactly what your partner had (the « mixed » raise, too strong to preempt but too weak to invite). And which explains the further 3S bid.

 

A bit of unluck, though, here, because partner had the C sg, of which you couldn’t be sure of. The « asking and punting » would have driven you to game (while with 4342, partner might have rejected the game try).

 

Maybe other tables had a 1NT followed by Stayman (intending to drop partner in 2D or 2M). If opps remain silent, the auction dies lower.

[Lovera]

We would have bid the same but West would have bid 3♦ over 3♣. The West hand is a perfect mixed raise, so if you have a way to show that (e.g. with a direct 3♠) you can bid it. If not, you have to bid 2♠ and hope that the auction doesn't die out.

 

What complicates things a little is that S did not immediately bid the ♣ but in the second round. Now the system I use changes the bids when is interferred becoming preventive and allowing 3 ♠ meaning 6-11 points (otherwise it means strong balanced hand 14-18) and, therefore, what previously said is for me right.

[mikeh]

Fwiw, and in answer to a question posed by the OP in a later post, my understanding is that there is a trend amongst some of the top players to use the jump as mixed rather than weak.

 

This has attractions, even though the weak raise can occasionally steal a contract or lead to a good save.

 

One attraction is obvious here…opener bids 4S opposite a mixed raise.

 

Others: sometimes the weak raise catches opener with enough that the opps can’t bid/make anything but not enough/the right stuff to make 3M, turning what ought to be a plus into a minus

 

Also the weak raise can guide the opps both in the auction and the play/defence. The mixed raise may do much the same, but the mixed raise has some values, making it less relevant.

 

I’m going to be discussing this change in my partnerships after I get home. I’m in an event where we can’t readily change methods mid-event so can’t do it now.

[AL78]

Do you play a forcing or semi-forcing NT over 1M opening?

 

No, and yes, a single raise could be a poor six count.

 

It is becoming apparent there is a hole in our methods to handle the mixed raise hands.

 

I probably would have bid game at IMPS after partner bid 3S, but it is not as desirable to bid thin games at MPs, as the fact I got a top from everyone else also being in the part score, because I got a favourable lead to make the extra overtrick illustrates.

[nullve]

This hand as at least 9 dummy points.

Yes, so using the Goren system I learnt as a beginner, the 2-handed auction would go:

 

P-1♠

2♠(1)-3♠(2)

4♠(3)-P

 

(1) 6-10 dummy points

(2) invitational

(3) 8-10 dummy points

[Lovera]

No, and yes, a single raise could be a poor six count.

 

It is becoming apparent there is a hole in our methods to handle the mixed raise hands.

 

I probably would have bid game at IMPS after partner bid 3S, but it is not as desirable to bid thin games at MPs, as the fact I got a top from everyone else also being in the part score, because I got a favourable lead to make the extra overtrick illustrates.

 

I would suggest that you may read what Robson & Segal say in their book on partnership play in tournaments about it (average middle support of 5 cards and support for the strongest game at the fourth level i.e. 4 ♦ for 4 ♠).Pay aptention that you should be in "game zone" with 25 / + points (you can divide HCPs by 5 and you would have the rule of 8).

[Lovera]

Yes, so using the Goren system I learnt as a beginner, the 2-handed auction would go:

 

P-1♠

2♠(1)-3♠(2)

4♠(3)-P

 

(1) 6-10 dummy points

(2) invitational

(3) 8-10 dummy points

 

Yes, usually inviting is it so with a max. But you can divide your points using alternatively direct an delayed raise so 1♠-1NT(=6-8) then 2♠(del. raise) or 2♠(=9-11) as direct raise (and so on).

[DavidKok]

What complicates things a little is that S did not immediately bid the ♣ but in the second round. Now the system I use changes the bids when is interferred becoming preventive and allowing 3 ♠ meaning 6-11 points (otherwise it means strong balanced hand 14-18) and, therefore, what previously said is for me right.

I don't understand at all. What is your system over 3♣? The ranges you are discussing are not compatible with the actions on the previous rounds.

 

Fwiw, and in answer to a question posed by the OP in a later post, my understanding is that there is a trend amongst some of the top players to use the jump as mixed rather than weak.

 

This has attractions, even though the weak raise can occasionally steal a contract or lead to a good save.

 

One attraction is obvious here…opener bids 4S opposite a mixed raise.

 

[..]

 

I’m going to be discussing this change in my partnerships after I get home. I’m in an event where we can’t readily change methods mid-event so can’t do it now.

I thought the mixed raise typically had 9 losers, so it is not immediately clear that opener should raise to 4♠ (although of course I would anyway, down one is good bridge). I think the two arguments for mixed over preemptive are frequency and discouraging the opponents to compete at the 4-level, and I do think it is the superior agreement. That being said, I play preemptive jump raises in my 2/1 partnership, and wide-ranging destructive raises in my new Precision partnership.

 

Do you play a forcing or semi-forcing NT over 1M opening?

 

In that case, 2M is a more constructive raise, and passing 2M is really pessimistic with the hand, despite its unattractive shape and dubious doubleton Q. Even playing MPs, you need to act.

This is not at all clear - in fact I think the constructive 2M raises are bordering on the silly, and I strongly dislike them regardless of how you play 1NT.

 

It is becoming apparent there is a hole in our methods to handle the mixed raise hands.

This is an extremely common problem. In standard methods, responder typically wants to show at least 6 types of raises below the 3M level:

1. Simple raise - ~6-9 with 3-card support.
   
2. Mixed raise - ~6-9 with 4-card support.
   
3. 3-card limit raise.
   
4. 4(+)-card limit raise.
   
5. GF raise (you can even split this in 3-card and 4(+)-card support)
   
6. Preemptive raise - ~0-5 with 4(+)-card support.
   

People have taken to allocating 2M, 2NT, 3M and then even 3♣ and 3♦ for these hands, but you can't fit 6 types in 5 bids unambiguously. Furthermore, I personally dislike Bergen raises, so now the options are even more limited. This is, to a certain extent, an unsolvable problem. You have to bunch some of these hands together or accept that you cannot show some of them. Some people prefer to stick a couple of them in delayed raises, but personally I do not like this at all. I think current expert preference is to drop the preemptive 4-card raise completely, bunch the 3- and 4(+)-card limit raises into a single bid (and optionally even stick the GF raise in there, although you can start with a 2/1 auction for those instead) and then the rest fits in a good raise scheme.

[nullve]

I think the constructive 2M raises are bordering on the silly, and I strongly dislike them regardless of how you play 1NT.

Is this partly because you believe

 

down one is good bridge

?

[DavidKok]

No. It is because it is precisely on the weak hands with support where you should put maximum pressure on the opponents. Taking an extra round to show your support while leaving the entire 2-level free for the opponents goes contrary to this. The "down one is good bridge" thing is a joke, of course.

I'm also a big fan of an aggressive opening style (though not as aggressive as some), which means partner will frequently open with shapely but low HCP hands. It makes a world of difference to them whether you have 5HCP and 3-card support or 8HCP with 2-card support, and bidding 1NT then rebidding 2M with both can be very costly. I support with support, even if that means I have to over- or understate the strength of my hand. If you have to fib, drop the bean counting, not the shape.

 

Let's say you picked up ♠KQ9xxx, ♥Ax, ♦Jxx, ♣xx and opened 1♠. If partner raises to two, you now know that you likely want to sacrifice (or "compete") over the opponents' 3-level contract, and you may as well do it immediately (you might even want to sacrifice at the 4-level, depending on partnership style and vulnerability. In fact, you might want to do that immediately!). If partner bids 1NT which may be weak with 3-card support you are in no-mans land when 3♣ or 3♥ (or even 3♦) comes back the other way - and you even made it easier for the opponents to get in to boot!

[Lovera]

I don't understand at all. What is your system over 3♣? The ranges you are discussing are not compatible with the actions on the previous rounds.

 

It is so:1♠-(3♣), 3♠ is preempt by partner with 6-11 points; whilest 1♠-(pass), 3♠ as partner's answer in the system show 14-18 points in a balanced hand. Than as bidding is at table the answer of 2♠ show 9-11 points being a direct raise and not 6-11 how when the bidding is interferred as i.e. 1♠-(2Cl), 2♠/3♠(=6-11)