[Badmonster]

Fit bids?

Yes?
No?

YesNoYes?

[kenrexford]

yes

[Badmonster]

kenrexford, on Apr 8 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

yes

Because? And you give up? But you gain?

[awm]

I'm all for fit-showing jumps. After all, there aren't a lot of sensible uses for jump shifts in competition. Making a weak jump on a hand where there's no apparent fit seems like a good way to go for a number (this doesn't really effectively pressure the opponents because they've heard three suits being bid). Strong jumps would be even more rare with opponents bidding. And the fit jump certainly helps partner evaluate.

On the other hand, I'm not a big believer in "fit non-jumps." If you play these, it becomes very hard to introduce a suit naturally in certain auctions. If you're the sort who would always open any six-card suit with a preempt that may be fine, but I've found there are many hands where it pays to pass in first seat and try to introduce a suit later. There's also a lack of clarity about which particular bids are fit non-jumps and which are not (mostly because there are too many possible sequences to discuss them all) and the accidents resulting from misunderstandings can be pretty expensive.

[luke warm]

i don't mind fit bids in competitive auctions, but there are a lot of (imo) better ways to raise partner in constructive auctions

[kenrexford]

Several varieties of "fit bids" exist.

First, slam auctions. That is rather simple and probably not the focus here.

Second, third- and fourth-seat openings. The justification for these is that alternatives have little frequency.

Third, competitive advances. Lead-direction and deal fit, for defense, determining level of offense, and enabling penalty doubling seems more important than new strain exploration.

Fourth, competitive awareness in general. A good book which explains my shared thinking is found at this link:

http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/

Look for "Robson/Segal's "Partnership Bidding in Bridge" - the best study of competitive bidding; with permission from the authors"

[Badmonster]

kenrexford, on Apr 8 2006, 11:08 PM, said:

Several varieties of "fit bids" exist.

First, slam auctions. That is rather simple and probably not the focus here.

Second, third- and fourth-seat openings. The justification for these is that alternatives have little frequency.

Third, competitive advances. Lead-direction and deal fit, for defense, determining level of offense, and enabling penalty doubling seems more important than new strain exploration.

Fourth, competitive awareness in general. A good book which explains my shared thinking is found at this link:

http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/

Look for "Robson/Segal's "Partnership Bidding in Bridge" - the best study of competitive bidding; with permission from the authors"

I'm reading that now, which gave rise to my questions about fit bids. I'm afraid to add more conventions, until I feel like I understand basic bidding perfectly. But then I also want to consider what I might add eventually and be sure I'm not missing anything that's totally crucial, or just hot. Still it's nice to read about new things. And I know it helps me fix what I'm reading about to discuss it. So, here we are.

[kenrexford]

Based on what you are seeking, this link should be invaluable. In find that many books on bidding and play lack in serious analysis of the "why we do this" part of the game. That aspect is very present in this book.

[Badmonster]

Thanks Ken.