BBO Discussion Forums: Opener's bid after NMF - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Opener's bid after NMF

#21 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,836
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2014-August-01, 10:18

I'm with the 2 bidders in theory, and in practice as well.

While Hardy (a terrible bridge writer imo) may have written this up, my first recollection of seeing this sort of hand type being discussed was in the MSC in the Bridge World: not surprising, since the whole idea of the MSC (at least in the late 1970's to the 1990's) was to create hands that fell in the seams of BW Standard, a method fairly close to mainstream 2/1 as it was then played (well, earlier versions were closer to SA than to 2/1, but that evolved).

The notion, as I recall, was that when one had no call that actually 'fit', one should try to use the call that was the least distortion, and that partner should realize (even without you breaking tempo :P ) that this 'least distortion' call was suspect.

Here, 2 showing 3 is simply too valuable, imo, to use as the least distortion bid. Not only does it suggest (show) 3 hearts, but it also shows (suggests) very short diamonds, and that may cause too big an issue, should partner, for example, hold a good hand with xxx in diamonds.

So if we accept that notion, and I can see why some might disagree, then the next cheapest candidate is 2. I think this has to be correct because it maximizes bidding space: it is far, far easier to work things out after 2 than it is after, say, 3. What if partner was forcing based on clubs? Over 3 he has to bid 4, which we can't possibly be happy to see, with xxxxx in our trump suit, having already promised 5 with our 1 call.

2N is a possibility, as noted by Timo for one. I don't have an issue with playing 3N with xx opposite xxx when we have 9 winners on the side and no better game, but I really don't like playing 3N with xx opposite xx or with having a lead come through partner's Kx(x) at trick one.

2 is no panacea, but I think that bridge logic dictates that in ambiguous situations, this type of call has to be taken cautiously by partner. Partner shouldn't insist on spades without 4 of them.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#22 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2014-August-01, 11:39

View PostTWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-July-30, 08:03, said:

1S ostensibly showed 5c/4s ( Walshish ) :

1C - 1H
1S - 2D! ( EDIT: 4th Suit GF; not NMF )
??



Let's go back to square one.

Am I correct that, in this particular sequence, opener's 1 rebid playing Walsh does NOT guarantee an unbalanced hand?

I understand that the OP said "Walshish" in his initial post, and he may play that the 1 rebid does promise an unbalanced hand. But I am still curious. I was taught that one had to bid 1 over 1 even on a balanced hand or a 4-4 spade fit could be lost.
0

#23 User is offline   TWO4BRIDGE 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,247
  • Joined: 2010-October-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 2014-August-01, 16:27

View PostArtK78, on 2014-August-01, 11:39, said:

Let's go back to square one.

Am I correct that, in this particular sequence, opener's 1 rebid playing Walsh does NOT guarantee an unbalanced hand?

I understand that the OP said "Walshish" in his initial post, and he may play that the 1 rebid does promise an unbalanced hand. But I am still curious. I was taught that one had to bid 1 over 1 even on a balanced hand or a 4-4 spade fit could be lost.

At the time I was playing with someone who said 1S here would show the unbalanced 4s and longer .
With a 4-4, you bypass a rebid and bid 1NT . I agree with you ... as I have seen suit "lost" .
Don Stenmark
TWOferBRIDGE
"imo by far in bridge the least understood concept is how to bid over a jump-shift
( 1M-1NT!-3m-?? )." ....Justin Lall

" Did someone mention relays? " .... Zelandakh

K-Rex to Mikeh : " Sometimes you drive me nuts " .
0

#24 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,836
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2014-August-01, 17:03

View PostTWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-August-01, 16:27, said:

At the time I was playing with someone who said 1S here would show the unbalanced 4s and longer .
With a 4-4, you bypass a rebid and bid 1NT . I agree with you ... as I have seen suit "lost" .

So have I, yet I remain to be convinced that this issue offsets the very significant benefits of the method.

Btw, and without attempting to deny that there is a net cost to missing the 4-4 spade partial (one will never miss a 4-4 game or slam if proper methods are used over the 1N rebid), in real life the cost is modest and infrequent, and offset to some degree from the pickups when 1N proves to be a better contract than the 2 or 3 contracts reached once the fit is found. Indeed, as I think I have said before on this forum, the first time I talked a good friend, and expert, into playing this method, we scored a top by getting a spade lead into our 1N contract, costing the defence a trick in the suit and a tempo on the defence. Everyone else 'found' spades and went down, while we made an overtrick.

Here may not be the place to discuss all the benefits of the method, but briefly, they include:

1) responder's rebid problems after a non-walsh 1 rebid, especially with hands such as 6-10 hcp, 3=4=3=3 or 2=5=3=3 or 3=5=2=3.

Does responder bid 1N, and find that the diamonds run and we have a 5-3 club fit, or does responder bid 2 and find opener with 4=3=3=3, or 4324/4324, where 1N is clearly superior?

2) finding the right game, or (indeed) evaluating game prospects. Will/should responder explore a club contract or opt for 3N? Knowing, early on before having to make descriptive bids, that opener is at least 4=5 blacks or, on the other hand, is NOT shapely, can impact responder's decisions and influence the amount of information given to the opps

This can include staying out of game when a misfit becomes immediately apparent.

3) finding the right slam, or indeed any slam. Sometimes the key is the ability not merely to count losers but also, having determined that one has only one or zero fast losers, to count tricks. Knowing that opener has shape may allow an early determination to probe for a low hcp slam.

There are other gains as well, such as making balancing decisions over our 1N far more dangerous when opener may hold a 4 card spade suit, especially after a 1N rebid is passed around to 4th chair.

It is an error to simply identify what is admittedly a cost of the method. One has to identify all costs and all gains and then determine where the balance lies. I haven't regretted the move to 1N doesn't deny spades at any time in the more than 20 years I have played the method. None of the partners with whom I played it for any significant period have since, as far as I know, given it up.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
1

#25 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2014-August-02, 02:54

I made a sim on that sometime ago. If I recall correctly, skipping spades leads to playing 1NT when 2S was a better contract in like 3-4% of the time.

Personally I do it all the time, but I've heard stories of an italian junior team coach "firing" a pair for doing it LOL.
0

#26 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,029
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2014-August-02, 16:17

All of what Mikeh posted about the 1S vs. 1N rebid with balanced hands is certainly well presented, and covers the position of that camp.

Speaking for the other camp: we have two things.

1) Regardless of the low frequency where the others might miss a 4-4 Spade fit which might be the right place to play at the 2-level, we never miss those..and are willing to pay off if NT would have scored as many for the extra 10 points.

2) On a checkback auction after the NT rebid, Spades are conveniently out of the mix as a possible strain ---making the continuations much more efficient as to exact strength and shape at once. It completely eliminates any need we might have for 2-way checkback, leaving the old minor as a natural bid.
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#27 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,836
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2014-August-02, 20:10

View Postaguahombre, on 2014-August-02, 16:17, said:

All of what Mikeh posted about the 1S vs. 1N rebid with balanced hands is certainly well presented, and covers the position of that camp.

Speaking for the other camp: we have two things.

1) Regardless of the low frequency where the others might miss a 4-4 Spade fit which might be the right place to play at the 2-level, we never miss those..and are willing to pay off if NT would have scored as many for the extra 10 points.

2) On a checkback auction after the NT rebid, Spades are conveniently out of the mix as a possible strain ---making the continuations much more efficient as to exact strength and shape at once. It completely eliminates any need we might have for 2-way checkback, leaving the old minor as a natural bid.



I don't see the decision to not play 1 way nmf as a plus in any sense. Old fashioned new minor, which requires extra rounds of bidding to show game force and which requires opener to jump with good hands is horrible, and I don't understand why anyone would prefer that method over 2 way, even if playing up the line.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#28 User is offline   wank 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,866
  • Joined: 2008-July-13

Posted 2014-August-02, 21:42

2h. if i had 3 and a weak hand i'd have raised directly. if i have 3 with extras i can jump now.

i like to open 1c with good 5-5 hands in the blacks, not that 2s now should show this, but our current shape with weaker reds.
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users