[microcap]

So the significant majority bids 2♠, which is fine [though neither player did at the table].

So you are committing yourself to the 3 level with a possible 21 points and 8 card trump fit---is this a problem or not?

Does it make a difference if you are NOT playing Flannery?

BTW, i think jdonn has it exactly wrong. I think this is a relatively complex exercise in tactics and hand evaluation in a seemingly simple auction at a low level. [hence the title] At matchpoints, I actually think it is a better problem as the IMP swing is likely to be small even if you guess wrong here.

[Fluffy]

Somebody said the *F* word!

[whereagles]

Fluffy, on Mar 3 2007, 01:44 PM, said:

2♠ show support before it is too late, could live with 2♥ but I don't think it is the hand for.

That's funny.. I think this is exactly the hand for it

The reason: ♠Kx is good, but there's too much concentration in hearts and the minor suit values are soft, with suits not establishable and ♣Q unlikely to be of much use.

If pard can't make a move over 2♥, we probably won't have a game.

[Winstonm]

Quote

At matchpoints, I actually think it is a better problem as the IMP swing is likely to be small even if you guess wrong here.

Agree. There is much more reason to take a low-road approach at MPs, but at IMP you have to take into account that partner, with a hand like xx AJxxx, xx, AKxx, won't make a game try over 2H.

[glen]

Winstonm, on Mar 4 2007, 09:31 AM, said:

... xx AJxxx, xx, AKxx ...

Are you saying the opponents are going to let you play 2♥ when partner holds this hand?

[Winstonm]

officeglen, on Mar 4 2007, 09:38 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 4 2007, 09:31 AM, said:

... xx AJxxx, xx, AKxx ...

Are you saying the opponents are going to let you play 2♥ when partner holds this hand?

I am simply suggesting that no matter how the auction progresses, bidding 2H has little chance of getting you to game.

[glen]

Your hand example does not suggest this, as the opponents would be quite likely to bid over 2♥ with their 9 card ♠ fit, 18 HCP, and working ♦ values (or they are opponents that will repeatedly allow part score swings against them). So on example hands where opener has just 2♠s, responder, having simply bid 2♥ will usually have another chance to try for game, and this bid does not just have to be 3♥.

Using your example, we could have 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠--Pass*-Pass-3♣ as the next bid.

* assuming opener does not like to compete with the weak doubleton ♠

[Double !]

officeglen, on Mar 4 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

So on example hands where opener has just 2♠s, responder, having simply bid 2♥ will usually have another chance to try for game, and this bid does not just have to be 3♥. 
Using your example, we could have 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠--Pass*-Pass-3♣ as the next bid.

The logic behind this eludes me.
How can one make a bid that was initially not even invitational and could have been relatively weak with support, and then suddenly make a bid that says "hey, P. I'm interested in a possible game?" Is this a commonly agreed understanding that 3C at this point shows a game try in hearts, perhaps a help-needed or whatever you choose and says "thank you opps for competing with 2S so I might make this game try?" Maybe this bidding dinosaur is not only obsolete but virtually extinct.

dhl

[jdonn]

microcap, on Mar 4 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

BTW, i think jdonn has it exactly wrong.  I think this is a relatively complex exercise in tactics and hand evaluation in a seemingly simple auction at a low level. [hence the title]  At matchpoints, I actually think it is a better problem as the IMP swing is likely to be small even if you guess wrong here.

I still don't get it. We have heart support we haven't shown, a hand that falls squarely into a particular range (perhaps debatable without interference, but 10000% clear after the overcall given our spade holding), and a bid that shows heart support and exactly that range. Meanwhile we are not so flat that we would consider bidding notrump instead of supporting partner. So what is the problem? Have we now reached the point where every bid in bridge becomes a torturously complex tactical dilemma in case partner has opened some 11 count? Even then the best 11 counts make 10 tricks (Axx JTxxx x AJxx oops sorry just a 10 count and maybe 11 tricks) and most make 9 tricks, and when they don't the opponents could likely make 2♠ anyway.

I completely agree that no matter how long you play, new and interesting problems will arrive in seemingly innocuous situations. This just does not seem like one of those times

[Winstonm]

Quote

Using your example, we could have 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠--Pass*-Pass-3♣ as the next bid.

Using your example, we could also have 1H-1S-2H-3S-P-P-? or 1H-1S-2H-2S-P-3S-? With a 9-card fit, it's doubtful opps will let you make any 3-level game try.

BTW, this is also the argument against negative double, as you have not shown the heart support and your next turn to call could be at the 4-level - either 2S or 2H is better than X, IMO.

[glen]

True, I was just saying your hand example was not likely to be a quiet passout of 2♥, which I gather you now agree.

Likewise, using another hand example offered up, I don't think the bidding is going to stop at 2♥ if opener had decided to open Axx JTxxx x AJxx

[jdonn]

I agree completely that the auction wouldn't die if you bid 2♥ opposite that. Which is all the more reason to bid your hand now while you still have a chance, rather than intentionally underbid it for reasons I still don't comprehend and then hope to show values you have already denied at some later point.

[Winstonm]

officeglen, on Mar 4 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

True, I was just saying your hand example was not likely to be a quiet passout of 2♥, which I gather you now agree.

Likewise, using another hand example offered up, I don't think the bidding is going to stop at 2♥ if opener had decided to open Axx JTxxx x AJxx

The only point I have been making is pretty self-evident - it's easier to get to game opposite a limit raise than a simple raise, regardless of how the auction starts or progresses.

Another advantage of making a 2S limit raise is it may shut our LHO's simple spade raise - he may not have the hand for 3S, whereas 2H allows 2S.

But everyone is entitled to their concepts of limit raises - mine is simply a hand with enough values to have a reasonable expectation of a plus score at the 3-level.

[glen]

Winstonm, on Mar 4 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

The only point I have been making is pretty self-evident - it's easier to get to game opposite a limit raise than a simple raise, regardless of how the auction starts or progresses.

Sure, and it is even easier to get to game by just bidding it, so if the "only point" you are making is that some bids make it easier to get to game than others ("regardless of how the auction starts or progresses"), it is not developing much here.

[Winstonm]

officeglen, on Mar 4 2007, 12:10 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 4 2007, 12:06 PM, said:

The only point I have been making is pretty self-evident - it's easier to get to game opposite a limit raise than a simple raise, regardless of how the auction starts or progresses.

Sure, and it is even easier to get to game by just bidding it, so if the "only point" you are making is that some bids make it easier to get to game than others ("regardless of how the auction starts or progresses"), it is not developing much here.

O.K., then I am of the opinion that the nature of this hand is in the realm of hand evaluation, and that is why I chose 2S and reject 2H.

The auction suggests that the Kx of spades has risen in value, while the KQx of hearts in a minimum of an 8-card fit have also risen in value. The interiors of the hand are decent, with two 10-spots, and there is 3rd round control of the enemy suit. The hand is worth more than its 10 HCP.

When you compare to this hand: Kx, Kxx, Qxxx, Qxxx you can see that card positioning and interiors change the valuation considerably.

So it does get back to my original contention, that the basis to answering the question of what to bid is simply whether or not one evaluates the hand as worth a limit raise. My evaluation says the hand is worth a limit raise - the low end.

[glen]

Yes, excluding that "only point", you are making a number of good points, including:

- 2♠ is an accurate representation of the value of the ♥ raise (and thus should reach games when games should be reached);
- it leaves the partnership well positioned for the future bidding.

I wanted to focus on the 2♥ alternative and was trying to point out the major problem with it is not about partner passing when game will make. It is that since 2♥ is an underbid (or as I qualified it, "technically an underbid"), the question mark for the bid is how will the partnership cope with further competitive bidding, as you question in an example that had a 3♠ jump over 2♥. I believe that this can be done, but didn't want to discuss this until we were off the 2♥ getting passed out is the problem.

[jdonn]

What is the difference between "an underbid" and "technically an underbid"? I called you a bridge lawyer in the past, I apologize for that and do not believe it is true. But I would certainly believe you could be a regular lawyer

I think you might shift the focus off partner passing 2♥ when game will make, and adjust it to game not being reached when game will make.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Mar 4 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

Using your example, we could also have 1H-1S-2H-3S-P-P-? or 1H-1S-2H-2S-P-3S-? With a 9-card fit, it's doubtful opps will let you make any 3-level game try.

I dunno, this just seems silly to me.

Why am I so worried about them bidding 3S? Why should I concentrate on whether we should stretch for 420 when they're handing us a 500? They're vulnerable, we're not. If they want to jump to 3S, they're doing the 'suicide squad' attack from Monty Python and the Life of Brian. I suppose it's possible that there's 18 trumps here (though it seems very unlikely), but I seriously doubt that there's 18 tricks. No purity, no double-double (if partner can't find a 4m response to my X), no ruffing value in dummy....looks like most likely, we'll get 5 hearts + defensive tricks. If we can make 4, we'll set them 2.

If I bid 2S, I'm worried that partner will end up turning a +500 into a -50 because he doesn't realize how defensive my hand is. This is not a hand where I'm worried about a race with the opponents...if they want the contract, they're welcome to it.

[Double !]

I am clearly not grasping something here. It sounds like part of the discussion involves how to bid the hand so that we might buy the hand in some heart contract when the opps can theoretically out-bid us in spades. To me, the idea of initially underbidding and then trying to catch up is specious at best. If one wishes to play psychological tactics here, one might also try bidding one's values and then confidently bid one's game contract, especially at unfavorable where the opps might be more likely to take a save to avoid a double-game swing. This has been known as "bumping". Partner might just confidently bid the game with the expectation and hope that the opps take a save.

I was taught early on, during the Jurassic period i believe, to try to describe one's hand in as few bids, as quickly as possible in order that the partnership can judge approximately how high to go and in what strain to go. Two Spades describes this type of hand (decent 3-card limit raise), and permits for more co-ordinated partnership discovery and decision-making. Granted, I do not play unusually light initial action (although, Glen, I must admit that I am still fascinated by your ETM TOPS system), so I usually have something close to my initial bids. The sooner I am able to draw my partner into the joint decision-making process, IMO, the better. (He's a much better player than I, and he will assume that I do NOT have this hand if I make any bid other than 2S.)

dhl

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Mar 4 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 4 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

Using your example, we could also have 1H-1S-2H-3S-P-P-? or 1H-1S-2H-2S-P-3S-?  With a 9-card fit, it's doubtful opps will let you make any 3-level game try.

I dunno, this just seems silly to me.

Why am I so worried about them bidding 3S? Why should I concentrate on whether we should stretch for 420 when they're handing us a 500? They're vulnerable, we're not. If they want to jump to 3S, they're doing the 'suicide squad' attack from Monty Python and the Life of Brian. I suppose it's possible that there's 18 trumps here (though it seems very unlikely), but I seriously doubt that there's 18 tricks. No purity, no double-double (if partner can't find a 4m response to my X), no ruffing value in dummy....looks like most likely, we'll get 5 hearts + defensive tricks. If we can make 4, we'll set them 2.

If I bid 2S, I'm worried that partner will end up turning a +500 into a -50 because he doesn't realize how defensive my hand is. This is not a hand where I'm worried about a race with the opponents...if they want the contract, they're welcome to it.

This is a good point and I admit I didn't even look at the vulnerability when considering my response.

Having done so, I still prefer 2S (although I think it a closer call now) for a couple of reasons: it takes the 2S raise away from LHO, and it gets my values off my chest in one bid, which is always preferable.

I don't buy your arguement, though, that partner will turn a plus into a minus; I would think just the opposite, that he is in a better position to judge what to do knowing my hand value is 10-12 rather than 5-10. I do not see where you find this hand all that defensive, either, as the Kx can be either, the KQx of hearts are more likely offensive, while the Q10xx of the minor are neutralish. I view this hand as more offensive than defensive, although I certainly wouldn't mind playing 3S X'd, I've seen this kind of hand blow up in my face, too.

Strong opponents are not crazy, and when they bid 3S vulnerable against NV they have compensating values with their 16-18 HCP. A9xx, x, Kxxxxx, xx is the kind of hand I see. And overcaller holds QJ10xx, xxx, AQ, xxx.

But you are certainly correct that this vul makes it less likely to have to deal with a 3S bid.