Help
Maybe some posters are missing one of the OP parameters - "2♣ promises at least 4 cards in ♣", an agreement that is probably a tad unusual. I think this oversight is colouring some posters' instinctive preference for 2♥.
(What) to bid?
#42
- Experimental biddicist
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,909
- Joined: 2010-January-02
- Gender:Male
Posted 2015-March-13, 14:33
masonbarge, on 2015-March-12, 11:32, said:
With 4-card support, the proper initial response is 2H, not 1NT. We use the 1H-1NT-2m-2H sequence to show 6-9 with 3-card support.
With due respect to Mr. Leong, David Bird completely disagrees with him and says that a 4-4 minor scores better at both IMPs and matchpoints than a 5-2 major. This must be doubly true with the risky heart raise on xx.
His example is ♠K2 ♥Q1074 ♦9863 ♣J96, on a similar auction, ie 1♠-1NT-2♦-?
On his 5000-hand simulation, 2♦ made 67% of the time while 2♠ made 32% of the time. Matchpoint advantage of 2D over 2S was 72% to 28%! IMP advantage was +2.5 vul and +1.9 non-vul.
May I also point out that in this hand, the major support is substantially worse and the minor support substantially better than in Bird's analysis. Unless I am missing something (always a possibility!) there is no issue that 2♥ is a misbid, at any scoring and any vulnerability.
The correct bid on this hand is "Pass".
With due respect to Mr. Leong, David Bird completely disagrees with him and says that a 4-4 minor scores better at both IMPs and matchpoints than a 5-2 major. This must be doubly true with the risky heart raise on xx.
His example is ♠K2 ♥Q1074 ♦9863 ♣J96, on a similar auction, ie 1♠-1NT-2♦-?
On his 5000-hand simulation, 2♦ made 67% of the time while 2♠ made 32% of the time. Matchpoint advantage of 2D over 2S was 72% to 28%! IMP advantage was +2.5 vul and +1.9 non-vul.
May I also point out that in this hand, the major support is substantially worse and the minor support substantially better than in Bird's analysis. Unless I am missing something (always a possibility!) there is no issue that 2♥ is a misbid, at any scoring and any vulnerability.
The correct bid on this hand is "Pass".
Where's this data published? They don't seem to have a new book out.
The "4♥ is a transfer to 4♠" award goes to Jinksy - PhilKing
#43
- VIP Member
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,971
- Joined: 2009-November-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:Houston, TX
Posted 2015-March-13, 15:50
fromageGB, on 2015-March-13, 05:58, said:
Maybe some posters are missing one of the OP parameters - "2♣ promises at least 4 cards in ♣", an agreement that is probably a tad unusual. I think this oversight is colouring some posters' instinctive preference for 2♥.
Yes, that was exactly my point.
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity has no such boundaries!"
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#44
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 12,855
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2015-March-13, 17:09
I haven't previously posted on this thread, but there are a couple of ideas that have been suggested on which I do have an opinion 
I have seen the suggestion that responder can and should bid 2♠ as a good raise in clubs. I use that myself, but wouldn't think of using it on this soft 8 count. We have 3♣ as a raise, and this hand is too weak for that, imo. Has anyone not noted that we hold exactly 1 hcp in partner's suits? That is not a fact that ought to get us having warm, fuzzy feelings about committing to the 3-level opposite a hand that might look like Kxx KJ10xx x AQxx.
When evaluating hands mid auction one needs to pay a lot of attention to location of honours as well as number of honours.
So, if we are too weak for 3♣ or even if we think we are just strong enough, we can't conceive of 2♠. Here is a 2♠ bid: xx Qx Axxx QJxxx.
But, you argue....opener may be just short of a jumpshift...we may be cold for game!
I won't argue....I am someone who rants against those who overbid 17 and 18 counts as opener. The good news is that we have a compromise. We can keep the bidding alive with 2♥. Yes, this may lead to a 7 card fit, but at the 2-level, our side cards may help prevent a tap, and our club fit, weak tho it is, may let him use clubs as a surrogate trump suit. More importantly, he can rebid 3♣ with a decent 5-5, can rebid 2N with a good (17 or so) 2=5=2=4, and so on.
I see it is mps. I would rather be in 2♥ opposite a minimum 5=4 than in 3♣, since I may be able to scramble 8 tricks in hearts while failing in 3♣. In addition, if he has a good hand and/or the cards lie well for us, I would rather be 140 in hearts than 110 or 130 in clubs. And so on.
Btw, I am aware of the meaning of 2♣
Indeed, were it otherwise, I doubt we'd see many votes for anything other than 2♥.
I have seen the suggestion that responder can and should bid 2♠ as a good raise in clubs. I use that myself, but wouldn't think of using it on this soft 8 count. We have 3♣ as a raise, and this hand is too weak for that, imo. Has anyone not noted that we hold exactly 1 hcp in partner's suits? That is not a fact that ought to get us having warm, fuzzy feelings about committing to the 3-level opposite a hand that might look like Kxx KJ10xx x AQxx.
When evaluating hands mid auction one needs to pay a lot of attention to location of honours as well as number of honours.
So, if we are too weak for 3♣ or even if we think we are just strong enough, we can't conceive of 2♠. Here is a 2♠ bid: xx Qx Axxx QJxxx.
But, you argue....opener may be just short of a jumpshift...we may be cold for game!
I won't argue....I am someone who rants against those who overbid 17 and 18 counts as opener. The good news is that we have a compromise. We can keep the bidding alive with 2♥. Yes, this may lead to a 7 card fit, but at the 2-level, our side cards may help prevent a tap, and our club fit, weak tho it is, may let him use clubs as a surrogate trump suit. More importantly, he can rebid 3♣ with a decent 5-5, can rebid 2N with a good (17 or so) 2=5=2=4, and so on.
I see it is mps. I would rather be in 2♥ opposite a minimum 5=4 than in 3♣, since I may be able to scramble 8 tricks in hearts while failing in 3♣. In addition, if he has a good hand and/or the cards lie well for us, I would rather be 140 in hearts than 110 or 130 in clubs. And so on.
Btw, I am aware of the meaning of 2♣
Indeed, were it otherwise, I doubt we'd see many votes for anything other than 2♥.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#45
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 457
- Joined: 2009-August-31
- Gender:Male
- Location:Hilliard, Ohio
- Interests:income taxes, american history, energy
Posted 2015-March-14, 04:25
Jinksy, on 2015-March-13, 14:33, said:
Where's this data published? They don't seem to have a new book out.
David Bird. Winning Duplicate Tactics. Toronto, Master Point Press, 2014, p. 35. I think the book actually came out to the nationally on Amazon and B&N in February 2015. My favorite book on matchpoints. Good review in ACBL Bulletin, which gave it an A. Tactics using Standard bidding and play conventions, aimed at the intermediate average BBO or duplicate player, but contains useful data for superior players. This book is much better edited than the two opening lead books.
#46
- Limit bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,482
- Joined: 2004-November-02
- Gender:Female
- Location:England
- Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those
Posted 2015-March-15, 05:00
I am surprised at the amount of dogmatism expressed in this thread. The following four points seem both clear and uncontroversial:
- 2C is more likely to make than 2H
- if clubs makes one more trick than hearts (quite likely), then we still want to be in hearts unless the tricks are 7 and 8
- this hand is not strong enough to raise to 3C
- if partner has a maximum 2C bid (up to an 18-count is possible for those who like to respond light), then we will miss game if we pass
therefore, the only two sensible calls are either (i) pass, hoping to preserve a plus score, or (ii) 2H, hoping to improve the plus score or get to game
You have to decide the relative probability that 2C is the last making contract vs 2H or game scoring better. I don't think either pass or 2H is silly. I would bid 2H because I have sufficient high cards that I expect it to make, but I can't say that pass is wrong.
notes
- comparing this hand to a much weaker hand in the Bird book is irrelevant; with a weaker hand the relative probabilities and expected number of tricks in each contract are obviously different
- I doubt many of the 2H bidders think that 2C could be a 3-card suit. They are aware of the two upsides of bidding.
- saying that 'pass is a misbid at any form of scoring' or that partner won't trust us if we don't pass on this hand demonstrates a lack of understanding of matchpoints scoring and probability
- 2C is more likely to make than 2H
- if clubs makes one more trick than hearts (quite likely), then we still want to be in hearts unless the tricks are 7 and 8
- this hand is not strong enough to raise to 3C
- if partner has a maximum 2C bid (up to an 18-count is possible for those who like to respond light), then we will miss game if we pass
therefore, the only two sensible calls are either (i) pass, hoping to preserve a plus score, or (ii) 2H, hoping to improve the plus score or get to game
You have to decide the relative probability that 2C is the last making contract vs 2H or game scoring better. I don't think either pass or 2H is silly. I would bid 2H because I have sufficient high cards that I expect it to make, but I can't say that pass is wrong.
notes
- comparing this hand to a much weaker hand in the Bird book is irrelevant; with a weaker hand the relative probabilities and expected number of tricks in each contract are obviously different
- I doubt many of the 2H bidders think that 2C could be a 3-card suit. They are aware of the two upsides of bidding.
- saying that 'pass is a misbid at any form of scoring' or that partner won't trust us if we don't pass on this hand demonstrates a lack of understanding of matchpoints scoring and probability
#47
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 354
- Joined: 2012-February-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Birmingham,UK
Posted 2015-March-15, 06:51
FrancesHinden, on 2015-March-15, 05:00, said:
I am surprised at the amount of dogmatism expressed in this thread. The following four points seem both clear and uncontroversial:
- 2C is more likely to make than 2H
- if clubs makes one more trick than hearts (quite likely), then we still want to be in hearts unless the tricks are 7 and 8
- this hand is not strong enough to raise to 3C
- if partner has a maximum 2C bid (up to an 18-count is possible for those who like to respond light), then we will miss game if we pass
therefore, the only two sensible calls are either (i) pass, hoping to preserve a plus score, or (ii) 2H, hoping to improve the plus score or get to game
You have to decide the relative probability that 2C is the last making contract vs 2H or game scoring better. I don't think either pass or 2H is silly. I would bid 2H because I have sufficient high cards that I expect it to make, but I can't say that pass is wrong.
notes
- comparing this hand to a much weaker hand in the Bird book is irrelevant; with a weaker hand the relative probabilities and expected number of tricks in each contract are obviously different
- I doubt many of the 2H bidders think that 2C could be a 3-card suit. They are aware of the two upsides of bidding.
- saying that 'pass is a misbid at any form of scoring' or that partner won't trust us if we don't pass on this hand demonstrates a lack of understanding of matchpoints scoring and probability
- 2C is more likely to make than 2H
- if clubs makes one more trick than hearts (quite likely), then we still want to be in hearts unless the tricks are 7 and 8
- this hand is not strong enough to raise to 3C
- if partner has a maximum 2C bid (up to an 18-count is possible for those who like to respond light), then we will miss game if we pass
therefore, the only two sensible calls are either (i) pass, hoping to preserve a plus score, or (ii) 2H, hoping to improve the plus score or get to game
You have to decide the relative probability that 2C is the last making contract vs 2H or game scoring better. I don't think either pass or 2H is silly. I would bid 2H because I have sufficient high cards that I expect it to make, but I can't say that pass is wrong.
notes
- comparing this hand to a much weaker hand in the Bird book is irrelevant; with a weaker hand the relative probabilities and expected number of tricks in each contract are obviously different
- I doubt many of the 2H bidders think that 2C could be a 3-card suit. They are aware of the two upsides of bidding.
- saying that 'pass is a misbid at any form of scoring' or that partner won't trust us if we don't pass on this hand demonstrates a lack of understanding of matchpoints scoring and probability
Agree with a lot of this except the 4th point. Some 18s will bid 2nt, so 18 not that likely and even then game won't always make.
Also I'm doubtful that there are sufficient high cards to expect to make 2♥. In hearts the East hand could be a working 2 count and that coupled with the likely trump break being 4-2 makes 2♥ too risky.