[jtfanclub]

Double !, on Mar 4 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

 

Quote

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.

Good God. We're at the one level, you have an 11 count defensive hand, and you're trying to decide how to prevent them from bidding a double-game swing. If they bid 4♠. you just got 800. Try not to spend it all in one place.

Quote

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.

I was tought to do it at as low a level as possible, not as quickly as possible. If there's no more interference, it should be clear that X will allow you to describe this hand far more fully than 2♠. X followed by 2♥ (if partner responds 1NT) or 3♥ should show this hand.


Edited to add- After seeing Winston's point, against good opponents, what partner is going to do after 3♠ is moot. You can figure out the probability that the opponents are going to say 3♠, and it's so close to 0 I wouldn't worry about it.

2♠ may be 'accurate', but only because it's impossibly vague. Tell your partner about 8 cards you have in your hand, not 3.

[jdonn]

He cares a lot more about those 3 cards than the other 10 combined. Do you also double when 0544? Why do you want to emphasize your minor suits to partner anyway with 2 points in them combined, it will end up making his decision less accurate when he decides something like Qx of diamonds has real value. There is so much to be said for quickly telling your partner what he wants to know.

I do agree with you that all this talk of double game swings and such seems quite presumptuous.

[Winstonm]

Quote

2♠ may be 'accurate', but only because it's impossibly vague. Tell your partner about 8 cards you have in your hand, not 3.

You make a good case, but I don't believe the description of "impossibly vague" is accurate. I may be wrong, here, but it seems you value the concept of the 9-card fit as of utmost importance. Where I would judge Axxx, xxxx, Axxx, x to be a limit raise, I would also judge Kx, KQx, 10xxx, K10xx to be one also, basing my opinion on the concept that as the fit worsens the high-card strength improves and vice versa. In either case, your partner should know you hold a hand that justifies a raise to the 3-level, which is more than is known in a 1-2 auction.

I agree that 9-card fits are highly prized, but sometimes overly so. A 9-card fit in a hand with no shape is not worth any more than an 8-card fit in a hand with shape. To my knowledge, there is no other card that can so affect the percentages of a making a contract as that little fourth x in a suit: Axxxx verses Kxxx as opposed to Axxxx verses Kxx. What was hopeless for zero losers jumps to a 40% chance.

The problem I have with your argument is - unless playing specialized bids - the wide range of the 2H bid verses the narrow range of a 2S limit raise. I'm not certain you can make the case for showing 3-card support when a hand such as Kx, xxxx, xxx, Kxxx would bid 2H in the given auction.

I agree with your assessment that given the vul, it is a close call between 2H and 2S, actually closer in a non-contested auction where the value of the spade K is more suspect. This is the kind of 2 1/2 to 2 3/4 raise that I like to use Bergen "mixed" raise on even without a 4-card fit. IMO, it is more important to be able to seperate raises into bad, average, goodish, and limit than to simply show 4-card verses 3-card support.

So my response to the initial question should have been: 3D, Bergen mixed raise over 1S.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Mar 4 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

Quote

Where I would judge Axxx, xxxx, Axxx, x to be a limit raise, I would also judge Kx, KQx, 10xxx, K10xx to be one also, basing my opinion on the concept that as the fit worsens the high-card strength improves and vice versa.

But that was my point. If both of those were limit raises, how can your partner possibly know what to do in a contested auction, particularly with this vulnerability?

Quote

The problem I have with your argument is - unless playing specialized bids - the wide range of the 2H bid verses the narrow range of a 2S limit raise.

This is not a 2♥ hand. I'm not going to lie about my hand, not when I have two honest bids that describe it. X followed by hearts will show this shape and this hcp, although unfortunately, as jdonn points out, it makes it sound like my hcp are concentrated in the minors.

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Mar 4 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 4 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

 

Quote

Where I would judge Axxx, xxxx, Axxx, x to be a limit raise, I would also judge Kx, KQx, 10xxx, K10xx to be one also, basing my opinion on the concept that as the fit worsens the high-card strength improves and vice versa.

But that was my point. If both of those were limit raises, how can your partner possibly know what to do in a contested auction, particularly with this vulnerability?

Quote

The problem I have with your argument is - unless playing specialized bids - the wide range of the 2H bid verses the narrow range of a 2S limit raise.

This is not a 2♥ hand. I'm not going to lie about my hand, not when I have two honest bids that describe it. X followed by hearts will show this shape and this hcp, although unfortunately, as jdonn points out, it makes it sound like my hcp are concentrated in the minors.

What I am saying in the first case is that these are eqivalent hands - where one lacks in high card strength it makes it up in playing strength and vice versa. Both hands have the same amount of quick tricks, AA verses K, KQ, K. I don't follow your reasoning as to how partner will have a hard time knowing what to do in a contested auction - 1H-1S-2S the opps have to bid 3 to contest. I really don't see the problem - if your range is 10-12 for a limit raise, partner knows you hold on average a hand valued at 11, either AA and shape or better HCP with worse shape and less trumps. Knowing an 8 or 9-card fit is held, and partner holding an average of 11, that seems quite a lot of knowledge to make a decision. Once you have shown the range of your hand, partner's further bidding will be based on his offensive/defensive potential, not on what your hand shows.

I have sympathy for your second point, although this is why I prefer the "mixed" Bergen raise over double; if you are going to double and then support hearts it seems better to me to support hearts first and leave the double as being minors only. With support, I always have some bid that shows a reasonable approximation of my strength, but with no support I have nothing but a negative double.

Or it may be that I only prefer the easy memory work of consistency, as what you suggest seems to have to change based on vulnerability - Red vs White brings into account the very real prospect of having to describe your hand after X-3S-P-P.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Mar 4 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

He cares a lot more about those 3 cards than the other 10 combined.

Here's what I don't understand about that argument. Playing something close to standard, were you not going to bid 1NT forcing, followed by 3♥? So unless you're expecting a double game swing auction to pop out of nowhere, why is it suddenly of a higher priority?

To me, an X followed by 3♥ and a 2♠ bid forcing to 3♥ both show the same range, the same hcp, and 3 card support. Unless you like Splintering in your partner's suit, what else could X followed by 3♥ mean? In my mind, the obvious division is 'limit raise and defensive' for X followed by 3♥, vs. 'limit raise and offensive' for an immediate 2♠ cue. You could use something else- hcp, defensive tricks, balanced vs. unbalanced. But X followed by 3♥ should have some specified meaning here, and 2♠ should explicitly exclude that meaning.

[hotShot]

This is all way to complicated for me. Trump KQ8 is much better than some 4 card supports i have had. So I simply bid 3♥.
Can anybody point out what useful informations I could get from partner, over my 2♠ bid?
I want him to bid 4♥ with extra values, which I know will be outside ♥.

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Mar 4 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 4 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

He cares a lot more about those 3 cards than the other 10 combined.

Here's what I don't understand about that argument. Playing something close to standard, were you not going to bid 1NT forcing, followed by 3♥? So unless you're expecting a double game swing auction to pop out of nowhere, why is it suddenly of a higher priority?

To me, an X followed by 3♥ and a 2♠ bid forcing to 3♥ both show the same range, the same hcp, and 3 card support. Unless you like Splintering in your partner's suit, what else could X followed by 3♥ mean? In my mind, the obvious division is 'limit raise and defensive' for X followed by 3♥, vs. 'limit raise and offensive' for an immediate 2♠ cue. You could use something else- hcp, defensive tricks, balanced vs. unbalanced. But X followed by 3♥ should have some specified meaning here, and 2♠ should explicitly exclude that meaning.

Your point is valid in that there could be this type of seperation used - it is a matter of what you believe most important.

But you may want to consider this: xxx, Kx, AQxx, Axxx
1H-1S-X-2S
3C- P- ?

Might it not be more important to use 3H as a forcing false preference than to seperate weaker hands? If you play that negative double denies 3-card support for opener's major, this becomes possible; without this agreement, you are basically stuck with an all-purpose 3S or some type of club raise - and the best game might be 4H.

I think one thing you will find in bidding at the highest levels of the game is the flexibility to find a playable 5/2 or 4/3 fit when that is the better contract.

[the hog]

hotShot, on Mar 5 2007, 08:12 AM, said:

This is all way to complicated for me. Trump KQ8 is much better than some 4 card supports i have had. So I simply bid 3♥.
Can anybody point out what useful informations I could get from partner, over my 2♠ bid?
I want him to bid 4♥ with extra values, which I know will be outside ♥.

Mnay people play that 3H is pre emptive and 2S is a cue raise. You don't have a pre emptive raise.

[gwnn]

KQ8 is a BAD 3-card support. I'd have xxxx (and 5 hcp elsewhere) any day instead of KQ8 in trumps. (yea I know, partner will be reluctant to bid with his axxxx - the point is, most of the time I have xxxx pard doesn't have axxxx). Or am I tragically missing something here?

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on Mar 4 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

KQ8 is a BAD 3-card support. I'd have xxxx (and 5 hcp elsewhere) any day instead of KQ8 in trumps. (yea I know, partner will be reluctant to bid with his axxxx - the point is, most of the time I have xxxx pard doesn't have axxxx). Or am I tragically missing something here?

Depends on partner's holding, which we can't know.

KQ8 opposite Jxxxx, played properly and assuming no opposing ruffs, will play for 1 loser about 75% of the time.

Kxxx opposite Jxxxx will be one loser when the suit breaks 2/2 with the A onside, some 20%.

Without ruffing values, the 4-card support is only extremely valuable when it is precisely Axxxx opposite Kxxx, as this raises the prospects of no losers from 0% to 40%.

It really depends on the type of hand it is - if you have sources of tricks via outside suits it is important to have a good 8-card trump suit than hold a 9-card fit.

If ruffs are critical then 9 and 10 card fits are critical.

So to say KQ8 is not as good of support as xxxx depends entirely on the type of hand and shouldn't be considered a blanket statement of fact.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Mar 4 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 4 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

He cares a lot more about those 3 cards than the other 10 combined.

Here's what I don't understand about that argument. Playing something close to standard, were you not going to bid 1NT forcing, followed by 3♥? So unless you're expecting a double game swing auction to pop out of nowhere, why is it suddenly of a higher priority?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think you are essentially asking why I am interested in showing my limit raise in one bid here when without interference it would have taken me two bids? The auction is already competitive, which gives a far far higher priority to supporting partner quickly. It doesn't have to be based on a double game swing, why can't it just go 3♠ p p or similar back to me, now I have to guess whether to overbid 4♥ in case partner has a little something, or pass and partner had some decent hand with no bid. In any case, if there were two ways available (playing basic 2/1) without interference to show the hand and one takes 1 bid and one takes 2 bids, of course I'll take the first, but there is only one way without switching everything around so what choice is there?

Quote

To me, an X followed by 3♥ and a 2♠ bid forcing to 3♥ both show the same range, the same hcp, and 3 card support.  Unless you like Splintering in your partner's suit, what else could X followed by 3♥ mean?  In my mind, the obvious division is 'limit raise and defensive' for X followed by 3♥, vs. 'limit raise and offensive' for an immediate 2♠ cue.  You could use something else- hcp, defensive tricks, balanced vs. unbalanced.  But X followed by 3♥ should have some specified meaning here, and 2♠ should explicitly exclude that meaning.

I do not like starting with a negative double ever when I have support, maybe there is some exception but I haven't come across it. When the auction is competitive you are correct about my view, support first ask questions later. Also I don't see why there must be a definition for that bidding sequence (or any in particular) when there is already a way to show the hand, and even if there were I don't see why it would have to be that definition. Another thing is partners occasionally pass negative doubles for penalty anyway (extremely unlikely at the 1 level I admit, but say he is 4513 with a good hand) which is another reason not to do it with support.

[glen]

One aspect of the trump support is what is it going to be used for - that is, for example, to take ruffs in the short hand, or to allow for the drawing of trumps and then use a source of tricks. If KQ8 has to handle two ♠ ruffs, partner's ♥ suit is going to need to be decent.

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Mar 4 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 4 2007, 02:11 PM, said:

He cares a lot more about those 3 cards than the other 10 combined.

Here's what I don't understand about that argument. Playing something close to standard, were you not going to bid 1NT forcing, followed by 3♥? So unless you're expecting a double game swing auction to pop out of nowhere, why is it suddenly of a higher priority?

It is ALWAYS more important to show fits early when you are in a competitive auction. The other difference is that now you CAN show a limit raise with 3-cards immediately. It is more of a drawbacks of 2/1 that you can't do this without competition.

The other problem is obviously that you don't know that the auction will play out so that you can make a free bid of 3♥. Someone might have bid 3♠ before you. Say it goes 1H 1S X 3S 4D P, are you sure 4H is still a limit raise in hearts, or is it a suggestion to play based on Hx, or is it a cue for diamonds?

Quote

To me, an X followed by 3♥ and a 2♠ bid forcing to 3♥ both show the same range, the same hcp, and 3 card support.  Unless you like Splintering in your partner's suit, what else could X followed by 3♥ mean?  In my mind, the obvious division is 'limit raise and defensive' for X followed by 3♥, vs. 'limit raise and offensive' for an immediate 2♠ cue.  You could use something else- hcp, defensive tricks, balanced vs. unbalanced.  But X followed by 3♥ should have some specified meaning here, and 2♠ should explicitly exclude that meaning.

Whatever meaning you associate to X-then-3♥, it can only be hands that know what to do over 3♠ (or 4♠), and so they won't help clarifying the immediate 2♠ much.

Anyway, back to the original question: This is a 2♠ bid, and I was really surprised to see such a long thread about it.

Arend

[glen]

jdonn, on Mar 4 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

What is the difference between "an underbid" and "technically an underbid"? ...

To answer your question (the difference...):

As to why I qualified it "technically an underbid" is because I think I will get another bid on most hands where opener has fewer than four spades and not enough points to try for game. So I bid 2♥ now expecting to be able to bid again, and this two-step approach thus is more than it might appear. Effectively, I’m trying to play a four person game here, or at least protect us when opener has 4♠s.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think you are essentially asking why I am interested in showing my limit raise in one bid here when without interference it would have taken me two bids?

No, the question is, is 2♠ so specific that partner can actually do something useful over it? Or is the bid so vague that more often than not will end up using a coin to make is decision?

I think the odds of a 3♠ call on your left, combined with 3♠ X being a bad board for you are so low that you can discount it. I cannot recall ever, with this auction (which is not uncommon) and this vulnerability, bidding 3♠. When was the last time you took that kind of position in a non-fit auction, where down 1 doubled is looking an awful lot like a 0? Add in those cases where you raised partner to 4 of a minor, vul. vs. not, when the opponents haven't shown a fit.

I don't think 'limit raise' is going to tell partner enough for him to determine the contract if they keep bidding. For example, if I bid 2♠ and they were to bid 3♠ (much safer in a fit auction), would partner go with a 2-6-3-2 12 count? I would expect so. Would we make it? I seriously doubt it. It would be awful nice to be able to tell partner that I need him to have a little extra and six cards, not a little extra or six cards.

Quote

Another thing is partners occasionally pass negative doubles for penalty anyway (extremely unlikely at the 1 level I admit, but say he is 4513 with a good hand) which is another reason not to do it with support.

Ok. Partner has, I dunno...

QJTx
ATxxx
AK9
x

looks like we just missed game. And they're going to get what, five tricks, tops? 1♠X scores better than 4♥. And that's a darn iffy conversion at the 1 level. A more typical leave-in would net us 800.

How about I phrased it as, instead of saying that X followed by 3♥ is a defensive-minded limit raise, that it showed a hand that didn't mind a leave-in of the X at the one level? To me, that's the same hand.

[mikeh]

There has been a surprising (to me) lot of dscussion about this hand: with all kinds of splitting-the-hair analysis about whether to bid 2♥ or 2♠.

Had RHO passed, I'd have made a constructive 2♥ bid happily. After the 1♠ overcall, two things have happened.

The first is that I have lost the ability to distinguish ranges for my 2♥ raise: the low end of my range is now very low, while in a silent auction it is at least a Q higher.

The second is that my Kx of ♠ is now worth more than it would be had RHO passed.

While 2♠ is aggressive, and I hold a minimum for the bid, it is, to me, clear. All this stuff about partner trying for game over 2♥: give me a break. I could/would/should bid 2♥ with Jxx Kxx xx Qxxxx....or even a tad less... and partner will judge his game try accordingly. That example is not in the same family as the hand I hold and so should not be bid in the same manner.

As for the negative double, count me out unless LHO has sworn a vow of silence. I have support: I have great support... it is the central feature of my hand: my mior suits are not. I can afford one agressive call, not two. Support with support, unless strong enough to do a two-step.

[cherdano]

jtfanclub, on Mar 5 2007, 12:17 AM, said:

Quote

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think you are essentially asking why I am interested in showing my limit raise in one bid here when without interference it would have taken me two bids?

No, the question is, is 2♠ so specific that partner can actually do something useful over it? Or is the bid so vague that more often than not will end up using a coin to make is decision?

I think the odds of a 3♠ call on your left, combined with 3♠ X being a bad board for you are so low that you can discount it. I cannot recall ever, with this auction (which is not uncommon) and this vulnerability, bidding 3♠. When was the last time you took that kind of position in a non-fit auction, where down 1 doubled is looking an awful lot like a 0? Add in those cases where you raised partner to 4 of a minor, vul. vs. not, when the opponents haven't shown a fit.

I don't think 'limit raise' is going to tell partner enough for him to determine the contract if they keep bidding. For example, if I bid 2♠ and they were to bid 3♠ (much safer in a fit auction), would partner go with a 2-6-3-2 12 count? I would expect so. Would we make it? I seriously doubt it. It would be awful nice to be able to tell partner that I need him to have a little extra and six cards, not a little extra or six cards.

1. Over 2♠, partner doesn't have to decide immediately whether to accept game, he can make a game try. So he has definitely more room to explore than after double-and-3♥.

2. I can't remember the last time the auction (1H)-1S-(X) came up, but of course I would bid 3♠ with 4 trumps, shape, and some strength. Your point about non-fit auction is completely backwards, it is way more useful to preempt opponents when opponents haven't found their fit yet (which you know they have, given your own 9-card fit).

3. If they bid 3♠ over 2♠, then they would do the same over double (see above), and OF COURSE you are better placed than after a double. I am assuming you will double 3♠ again, and partner will be very badly placed to make a decision when you haven't shown him 3-card support AND that half your points are in his suit.

4. So, if partner has a 2632-shape (you carefully picked his worst possible shape with a 6-card suit) with a 12-count, I would still prefer him to bid 4♥ than to pass 3♠X. 4♥ will have some play, and 3♠X, too (as LHO's 3♠ bid will have some shape). If opponents can't bid 3♠, he can make a game try of 3♦ over our 2♠, whereas X-(2♠)-P-(P)-3♥ will leave him no room to do that.

Arend

[whereagles]

jtfanclub, on Mar 5 2007, 06:17 AM, said:

Ok. Partner has, I dunno...

QJTx
ATxxx
AK9
x

looks like we just missed game.

The spade ten happens to help a lot here. Without it, you'd have a bit of work to do....

[gwnn]

yea. I was a bit categorical in my last post. of course it depends on the hand.

btw, bridge has never seemed simple to me. and reading posts by light years' better players than me leads me to think this will remain so for a long, long time.