[awm]

Suppose that partner and I have no 8-card fit, and something like 18-23 high card points. How will our results compare if we normally play in:

(1) Notrump
(2) A 5-2 major suit fit.
(3) A 4-3 major suit fit.

I think this is interesting, because there are several methods in use that tend to prefer 7-card major fits in one way or another, and it would help in evaluating the effectiveness of these methods. Some examples:

(1) Forcing 1NT response. A lot of times this means you get to play 5-2 major fit instead of 1NT. Is this usually better or worse? How much so? If forcing 1NT wasn't needed to make the rest of the system hold together (i.e. 1NT response always 6-9) should we still play it?

(2) Keri over 1NT. This structure often leads to playing 2M in a 4-3 instead of playing 2NT. Is that an improvement? Worse? About the same?

(3) Raising partner's response on three cards. If I routinely bid 2♥ on auctions like 1♣-1♥ on three cards, we will play some moysian heart fits when others are in 1NT. Are we likely to score better or worse doing this, assuming best play and defense?

(4) Correcting to 2M after partner's 1NT rebid. Suppose we hear 1♣-1♥-1NT. Assuming that partner almost always raises on three cards and almost never rebids 1NT on stiff, should I bid 2♥ frequently on a five-card suit? What will happen to my score if we do?

Seems like some double dummy simulations could give good answers to these.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Sep 22 2005, 11:26 PM, said:

(3) Raising partner's response on three cards. If I routinely bid 2♥ on auctions like 1♣-1♥ on three cards, we will play some moysian heart fits when others are in 1NT. Are we likely to score better or worse doing this, assuming best play and defense?

Part of the reason to aggressively raise with 3 card support is to ensure that we DON'T get best defense...

[Beto]

awm, on Sep 22 2005, 06:26 PM, said:

(1) Forcing 1NT response. A lot of times this means you get to play 5-2 major fit instead of 1NT. Is this usually better or worse? How much so? If forcing 1NT wasn't needed to make the rest of the system hold together (i.e. 1NT response always 6-9) should we still play it?

In this case it is usually better to play in 1NT

However you must almost always play in 2M because you will win a lot more in 2/1 auctions than you will loose by playing 2M instead of 1NT.

[pbleighton]

(1) Forcing 1NT response. A lot of times this means you get to play 5-2 major fit instead of 1NT. Is this usually better or worse? How much so? If forcing 1NT wasn't needed to make the rest of the system hold together (i.e. 1NT response always 6-9) should we still play it?


I have read that someone did a simulation and found that 5-2 major suit fits play as well as 1NT, in those contracts. Of course, there are other contracts which play worse. FWIW, I don't think NT fording is a good idea if you don't need it.


(2) Keri over 1NT. This structure often leads to playing 2M in a 4-3 instead of playing 2NT. Is that an improvement? Worse? About the same?

I haven't played Keri, but I have played a 4cM system where we always raised on 3, and played in a lot of Moysians. I think 2M on a Moysian is a little better than 2NT.

(3) Raising partner's response on three cards. If I routinely bid 2♥ on auctions like 1♣-1♥ on three cards, we will play some moysian heart fits when others are in 1NT. Are we likely to score better or worse doing this, assuming best play and defense?

See Richard's response.

(4) Correcting to 2M after partner's 1NT rebid. Suppose we hear 1♣-1♥-1NT. Assuming that partner almost always raises on three cards and almost never rebids 1NT on stiff, should I bid 2♥ frequently on a five-card suit? What will happen to my score if we do?

Your score will vary

I would look at suit quality.

I think that simulations are of limited use on this subject, though they would certainly be interesting. Complaring 1NT to 2M (either 5-2 or 4-3) begs a lot of questions:

Are you allowed to play in 1NT?

Is there a difference in the defense?

And most importantly, what does the 2M bid do to the opps bidding. Very tough to simulate.

I think that Moysians are "theoretically" unsound, but are quite practical at the table.

Peter

[kenrexford]

Double dummy analysis will not solve this problem. You also must assess the actual end contract and the effect of the auction on getting to that actual end contract.

Simple stuff first. The stop at 1NT occasionally is not a stop. The opponents may very well compete over 1NT. This may enable them to locate a minor fit, not otherwise found. If this competition forces us to compete into the 5-2 or 4-3, the opponents now have more lead-directive info and now know of the weakness of our fit, whereas more rapid bidding might leave them in the dark.

Second, the skipping past of 1NT to an immediate raise (or back to the 5-2) sometimes will not end the auction either. The opponents often think you have an 8-fit anf compete, without law protection. Even after a forcing NT, some think you might be 5-3 with very weak values, and compete.

Although the analysis would be interesting, it is not all telling.

[inquiry]

Beto, on Sep 22 2005, 04:37 PM, said:

awm, on Sep 22 2005, 06:26 PM, said:

(1) Forcing 1NT response. A lot of times this means you get to play 5-2 major fit instead of 1NT. Is this usually better or worse? How much so? If forcing 1NT wasn't needed to make the rest of the system hold together (i.e. 1NT response always 6-9) should we still play it?

In this case it is usually better to play in 1NT

However you must almost always play in 2M because you will win a lot more in 2/1 auctions than you will loose by playing 2M instead of 1NT.

This statement is true if you play in openers 5 card major... but if you wiggle into responders five card major in a 5-2 fit that is better than 1NT in the long run.

[tysen2k]

I can look into it, but besides the points that everyone else brought up, 1NT is the contract where DD results and single-dummy real players differ the most. The defense tends to blow the most tricks against 1NT. Therefore my prediction is that the DD results will tend to say playing in suits is better, but in real life 1NT could be the right answer.

[inquiry]

1) 5-2 fit versus 1NT...

I raise directly with 3 cards (not so much points) and use an artificial 2♣ and invitational jump shifts over 1M. This means my "forcing" 1NT is only "semi-force"..(yes, I know no such thing as semi-force, so lets say not forcing but can be unbalanced). I ahve gotten a lot of nice results when opener is weak in his five card suit and scattered values elsewhere passed. And when he has good five card suit, and weakness elsewhere, bidding on to the 5-2 fit tends to be better.

2) Keri

Wasn't that a gymnist or something? Don't play it.. but I like 4-3 fits as long as hand with three is short somewhere.

3) I have just learned to live with raising partners major after 1m-1M with three card support. A side benefit, if they balance thinking we found a fit, they are often sorely disappointed in their chocie. BTW, my 1m=1M-2M is very limited.

4) correcting to 2M. I do it, sometimes even with five card suit, but usually with six. It is NOT EVEN remotely invitational.

[kfgauss]

For item (3), that is 1m-1M;2M, a simulation should probably just look at balanced and semi-balanced hands with a doubleton (ie not 4333) -- or at least, include this as an item as well. Also, it should differentiate between hands where the doubleton has an honor and hands where it doesn't (and perhaps when it does, what the honor is and maybe exclude hands with two honors).

My current style is to raise with 3 cards on balanced hands whenever the doubleton is xx, and sometimes when it has an honor and the hand looks suitish.

Andy