BBO Discussion Forums: Major confusion - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

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

Major confusion

#21 Guest_Jlall_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2006-February-07, 09:39

kenrexford, on Feb 6 2006, 10:22 PM, said:

The more posts I read, the more convinced I am that bidding logic is a rare novelty.

The more of your know-it-all posts I read, I am convinced that Fred was right about your attitude. Maybe when EVERYONE disagrees with you, you are wrong and everyone else is right? Or does that thought never enter the equation?

Quote

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was criticism of a 1S bid holding 5332 pattern and GF values, after a 1H opening from partner.  Isolating fit and strength is too important to go messing about looking for double fits, and cuebids are far too important to sacrifice for this same idea.


The object is not to search for a double fit. The object is to give a good description of your hand and enable partner to evaluate correctly. If you are inventing 3 card minor suits in preference of 5 card spade suits, how is this a good description? Partner will not know what holdings in his hands are good, what shortnesses are good etc. If we happen to find a 5-4 fit instead of a 5-3 fit though, I do not think this is a bad thing. If you want to make 2C an artificial GF relay, fine, but this has nothing to do with SAYC or 2/1. In SAYC or 2/1 (note which forum this is) I think that bidding 2 of a minor on a 2 or 3 card suit instead of bidding my 5 card suit is complete and utter nonsense. But I guess I don't understand your sophisticated "bidding logic" that does not enable hand evaluation.

Quote

If I happened to hold three spades and five hearts, I am far better off bidding a minor 2/1.  If partner happens to bid 2H next, I switch gears.  If not, I have a trump fit which is fine.  So, I see no advantage to bidding 2H with three spades and five hearts.  UNLESS, that is, I would prefer hearts as trumps opposite three, in which case showing the double fit is not particularly useful.  It seems far more useful to be able to simply agree hearts and then cuebid values in spades for partner to know whether his source of tricks is useful.


Again, you really see no merit in bidding your suits that actually exist and not distorting your hand needlessly? Very logical.

Quote

Consider a spade holding for partner.  Something like, say, KJxxx.  If we can agree on hearts as trumps, with me having five, does he care whether I have Qxx, Qx, or stiff Queen THAT much?  If 1S-P-2H-P-3H-P-3S cannot be bid unless you have a double fit, then neither partner can ever cue spades below game in hearts.  The most likely side source of tricks falls to the side.  How does this make sense?


Let's see. KJxxx opp Qxx is just worth 2 extra tricks than opposite stiff Q. So yes, I think he cares very much. I know you're more interested in cuebidding, but I like to know where I'll get my tricks from. Perfect fit hands with lots of tricks and not many HCP are hard to diagnose, especially if you never show the second fit. Besides, spades may just play better. Most hands it won't matter, but the times it does partner will know. Especially if you are going to bid a slam, it is important to be in the right trump suit.

Quote

This discussion seems akin to the question of what to do with four spades and three hearts when partner opens 1H.  EXCEPT, at least the theory of playing in a 4-4 versus a 5-3 justifies the thought to bid 1S.  However, isolation of fit and strength supports the vast majority of experts I know in electing 2H, planing to find spades later if needed.  The same argument lacking for deciding between 5-3 alternatives, I see no sense to the 3S call as double-fit establishing.


No, these two auctions are not akin. Do you see why? In this auction, supporting immediately is NOT an option. You HAVE to bid a side suit first. Your "theory" is to bid 2 of a fake minor instead of bidding your real suit. None of these options includes supporting immediately. Also, you cannot bid 1S planning on showing 3 card support later if you dont have at least game invitational values. Your simple preference over 2 of a minor would show TWO card support. With a game forcing hand you CAN show your suit and THEN show 3 card support. Do you see why these auctions are not akin yet?

To summarize, here is my primative bidding logic:

I bid with the goal of describing my hand accurately until one partner is able to place the contract or otherwise take control

I am no cuebidding theorist and I don't bid 3 card suits in preference to 5 card suits. Few people do. But then again, everyone is wrong and you are right. You are the rare example of the person who has bidding logic.
0

#22 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2006-February-07, 14:12

I must congratulate Gerben on a well chosen title, lots of confusion proves to exist in this area.

I'm also in the "bid what you have" camp... at least I try to be.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#23 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2006-February-07, 17:53

kenrexford, on Feb 7 2006, 10:17 AM, said:

If you want to keep spades as the focus, no matter what, then do not bid 2H. If you want hearts to be the focus IF Opener has four-card support (but not three), then bid 2m and raise 2H from Opener.

with 3/5 in the majors, how can you possible know what the focus should be? is bidding a 3 card minor in lieu of the 5 card major likely to help?

honestly, that's the first time i've ever heard anyone recommending *not* bidding a 5 card heart suit with a game force hand, holding 3 spades and partner opening 1S... there's no way to know which major is the better trump suit, even (especially) when both are 5/3... you seem to be saying that with a 3532 game force hand you'd not respond 2h to 1s, because a later bid of 3s would be a cue and deny 3 cards.. i can't agree with that "logic"
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#24 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2006-February-07, 21:36

I must concede that Justin is right as to my tone. I apologize for the manner of presentation and for the attitude shown. I realize that perhaps my views are not mainstream and therefore not indicative of supreme knowledge and wisdom.

I undoubtedly lost you and perhaps others by advocating theory with blinding sarcasm. Maybe I should try again, with a better tone.

It is entirely accurate that 3532 or 3523 presents a strange "problem" when partner opens 1S. Bridge is oriented toward major fits, and suddenly two major fits presentthemselves as possible, the known and the possible. If one starts the auction with 2H, several realities play out.

First, no fit can be established below 3H. Partner will either raise hearts (3H) or rebid something else, the latter forcing a spade preference at 3S. This obstructs cuebidding, but it also obstructs pattern bidding, if that is your style.

Second, if Opener raises hearts, bidding 3S to show a useful spade card seems vastly more important than showing three-card support. It seems like finding missing honors is usually more important than finding three-card support, especially is that support might be xxx as plausibly as AKJ.

Third, 1S-2H-3H creates a problem for Responder, who cannot set trumps in anything but hearts. Even if 3S reverts trumps back to spades, Responder could have predicted this problem at 2H. Thus, the auction is pre-determined to one major or the other at the point of the 2H call.

Fourth, the raise to 3H says nothing about heart length, except 3+. Thus, the act of bidding 2H reduces the chances for Responder to know the length of the heart fit. Granted, partner may know, but partner will not decide the trump suit in this auction.

With all of these issues, bidding 2H seems to commit, in a sense, to Responder taking charge of the auction, at a higher level, with insufficient information. Bidding the three-card minor, however, seems to be sound tactics, when spades is pre-determined to be the fit, for three main reasons.

First, it increases the odds of the ultimate decision-maker (Responder) of knowing that Opener HAS four-card support. Hence, there is useful information exchange for changing partnership direction.

Second, the minor call increases the chances of establishing fit and strength at the two-level.

Third, ambiguity between partners as to strain is eliminated.

The only problem with this approach seems to be pattern distortion. However, this objection is illusory. Pattern is only distorted if the partnership rules out the possibility of bidding a minor on 3532 or 3523 pattern. If not, then pattern is not distorted. It is no more distorted than is a minor opening on three cards with two four-card majors a distortion. Theory often calls for bidding shorter suits over longer suits. How many would bid a two-card minor after a forcing NT when 4522, to avoid a reverse? Would not partner expect that you might be 4522?

Many might find this position akin to masterminding. Thethought might be that not describing your hand removes partner from the equation and reduces him to a puppet. This is far from the purpose. As I tried to point out, any auction starting 1S-P-2H requires Responder to pick strain, if hearts are raised. Preparing for that decision by deciding immediately is not masterminding. Far from this, the mastermind usually wants to declare also. This type of bidding ensures that partner declares, whether in spades or in a re-emerging heart contract on a 5-4 fit. The purpose is to facilitate unambiguous partnership discussion at a lower level.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
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