[joshs]

jdonn, on Apr 28 2006, 11:50 AM, said:

Quote

Well I definitely disagree here. Comparing a NT opening bid with a NT rebid is not a fair comparision.

Would anyone open 1N on x AKxx Axxx KQxx? Would anyone rebid 1N  with x AKxx Axxx Qxxx after 1D-1S? The difference is:
you have information about partner's hand, so you have two distinct objectives:
1. describe your hand type for best exploration of strain and level
2. take the most tricks possible in your Final contract- here wrongsiding a contract is a concern, as is finding a playable part score if thats where you belong is also a concern

While in the case of the 4441, 1N is a misdiscription, its not that clear that 2C isn't also somewhat of a misdiscription, so bidding the cheap playable spot of 1N is a reasonable bid, although hardly clear (if partner later bids a slam expecting his AKQxxx of spades to be running, its "your fault" for bidding 1N).

In this hand after opening 1D you have information. The information you have is that, since partner has more (or equal) hearts than spades, that spades are a major weakness for NT, and you definitely don't belong in NT from your side. So you have to weigh
a. misdescribing your hand by 1 card (value a)
for
b. increasing the number of tricks you will take in a NT contract if thats in fact the strain you belong in.

I think jump shifting and then showing 3 hearts is reasonable since the point of it is to get to NT from partner's side if possible. I don't think jumping in hearts is reasonable, since we might belong in 3 other strains. I also think bidding 2N is fine but its ironic to be strongly suggesting a strain (jumping in it) when you know its wrong to be playing that strain from your side.....

If you held AQxx xx Jxx AQxx
And the auction went  with the opps silent 1C-1D-1S(flexible stlye, can rebid a major or 1N with a balanced hand)-2H-> no one would be arguing about a 3D bid here even if it implies 4135. Yes our actual auction does more than imply a 5431, but still you are lying about only 1 card because your other rebid really is flawed as well.

Comparing a notrump rebid with a notrump opening my not always be fair but is fair in this case, because I am only discussing the distinction as it pertains to holding xx of a suit and the rightsiding concerns that flow from that. You said it yourself, with 1444 shape all rebids are something of a misdescription. With a 2344 18-19, a 2NT rebid is not a misdescription. When you hold 16 balanced with a small doubleton, you have the same concerns about rightsiding the hand as dealer that you do on this hand after 1♦ 1♥. In both cases, there is a clear systematic choice.

Sure, I also don't like 3♣ because it complicates the auction, and doesn't let us stop short of game like 2NT does. But it is absolutely masterminding. Opening a minor suit denies a balanced 15-17. Opening a minor suit and failing to rebid 2NT denies a balanced 18-19. The fact that there may be an undesirable aspect to your systematic bid or certain advantages to other bids is simply tough noogies, you aren't entitled to fish around for a spur of the moment made up solution. Well you are entitled since you paid your entry fee, but I think from a partnership and systematic aspect this is a judgement that neither player should be entitled to make.

Likewise with your example at the end. It's one thing to misdescribe when all bids misdescribe. That is not the case on the original hand.

2N does misdecscribe. It suggests playing in NT from yourside, which is something you don't want to do. I don't see why the natural meaning of 2N "I want to invite game in NT" is less important than the hand type meaning.

If you opened 1D on Ax Kxx AQxxxx Ax and raised a 1N response to 2N, are you masterminding? I just think you are inviting game in NT and happen to be 1 card away from normal shape. If you miss your diamond game or slam because of it, oh well. Is 2N or 3D the % bid? I personally think 2N is the % bid, but its very close. I don't consider either to be masterminding.

[joshs]

BTW, if you held 2344 shape with 2 small spades and a balanced 16 count and you somehow knew that partner had more hearts than spades (for instance if both opponents hearts and spade holdings each fell on the table but while the other opponent was away from the table), I think opening 1N is a mistake. If you played a weak NT and partner responded 1H to 1D I think rebidding NT is a clear error....

[DelfinoD]

1) 2♥

2) 2♣, but if we can't show 9-11 with fit later I would bid 2♥

3) pass, I have really nothing for my p.

4) for me its 40/60. Neg. double is bad, but 5♣ is also an overbid.

5) 100% E. He could have passed 1♦. 4♥ should be understood as a natural will to play. E should pass.

[joshs]

Jlall, on Apr 28 2006, 12:21 PM, said:

joshs, on Apr 28 2006, 12:00 PM, said:

2N does misdecscribe. It suggests playing in NT from yourside, which is something you don't want to do. I don't see why the natural meaning of 2N "I want to invite game in NT" is less important than the hand type meaning.

Most bids tell, they do not ask when partner is unlimited. If you think 2N asks partner to bid game in NT if hes max, you are wrong. Partner is unlimited, and we are still in the process of describing our hand.

The way bridge is, we have 1 way to bid 18-19 balanced with no primary fit. Balanced hands bid NT. There is no way to bid that shows 18-19 balanced with anti-positional values. You either show your 18-19 balanced, or you don't.

Can you really not see why showing this hand type is MUCH more important than distorting your shape in hopes that partner can bid NT AND it will matter?

Quote

If you opened 1D on Ax Kxx AQxxxx Ax and raised a 1N response to 2N, are you masterminding? I just think you are inviting game in NT and happen to be 1 card away from normal shape. If you miss your diamond game or slam because of it, oh well. Is 2N or 3D the % bid? I personally think 2N is the % bid, but its very close. I don't consider either to be masterminding.

2N here is not a descriptive bid. Do you see why? Partner is limited in both values and major suit holdings. 2N will be bid with various shapes and hand types, and just requests that partner bid 3N with a max, and either pass or sign off in a minor with a minimum. Compare this to when partner bids 1 of a major, where he is unlimited in both of those areas. Now you must define our hand type.

Thats an interesting theory, and it happens to be one that I mostly subscribe to, but thats all it is, its a theory. I am waiting to see you open 1N on Ax Qxx AQxxxx Kx opposite an unpassed hand or 2N on AQ KQxxx KJxx AJ. Since your contention is that all bids tell opposite a hand that hasn't limited himself. I contend that all bids tell within the context of what is known about partner's hand, and the meaning of all bids depends somewhat on what partner has shown. For instance, when 3 suits have been bid, NT bids tell. They say someting about stoppers in the 4'th suit, and sometimes strength. They do not tell about shape.

In general I see the following tednancy: players have no problem taking a hand without NT shape and bidding NT on it, but seem to have a problem taking a hand with NT shape and bidding suits with it. I don't completely understand this, and I am one of the biggest advocates of showing hand type at your first opportunity.

So maybe I think the problem here is that we disagree about what a 2NT rebid shows? I think it shows a hand worth 18-19 (e.g. inv) that is balanced and has stoppers in the unbid suits. It is sometimes bid on hands that are close to this (semi-balanced, stiff honor, no stopper or partial stopper in a suit, etc.) but that is a decision that that is the lessor of some number of evils, but is not what the bid shows. Some hands are imperfect for any action....

Next you are going to tell me that after 1D-(1S)-x-(P) you all are going to rebid 2N because you happen to be 18-19 balanced.... (I think 2N might be a better bid in this auction with the stopperless 2 card spade suit that when the opps haven't bid, since partner's stopper, if he has one, probably remains a stopper with LHO likely having the spade values).

[joshs]

I just disagree what the "more normal agreement" is. If everyone agreed that 2N was just 18-19 balanced this hand type wouldn't appear in master solvers club every other year. The reason that many hand type keep re-appearing in MSC is that the set of meaning for bids is not exaustive so there are occaisonally hands that are imperfect for any action. the modern majority style is to rebid 2N on this hand type, but raise 1H to 2H on a 2344 13 count with 2 small spades and Hxx in hearts (is that a distortion? 100% of french players would call that a major distortion). But both are far from universal, and what you do with certain hand types doesn't mean that thats part of the meaning of the bid, it just might be the closest thing.
30 years ago, 2N would have been a minority rebid on this hand type, but styles have changed.

As to the integrity of jump shifts, what integrity? We frequently JS on 3 card suits, and sometimes 2 card suits. Again 30 years ago, JSing on 4-4 was common. But why is 6-3 OK, but 4-4 not? 4-4 isn't a common JS hand type today, so its usually a question of percentages. For which "distortions" can you handle the auction effectively, at least most of the time.

As to what I play, I play a lot of very regid systems, that force you to show hand type (e.g. general shape) at bid 2 indpendant of honor location. I consider this rigidity to be a weakness (For instance AKQxx xx AKx xxx has to be shown as balanced in my club system, I can't just show 5S and then wing it) but is the price I play for methods where every bid shows something very specific, often via ART means. Just because I play these regid methods, doesn't mean that I don't recognize there are weaknesses assocaited with them....But its also very rare in my methods to be showing balanced hands at the 2N level, since the main point of showing a balanced hand type is to let partner pattern out, so the balanced hand can evaluate his honors ("the balanced hand principle"). Its hard to be able to pattern out over 2N rebids.

[joshs]

Lets say we had this auction:
xx AKx Kxxx Kxxx
Jxx Qxxx Q9x AQJ

1D-1H-2H(you with me so far?)-2N(Forcing)-
and now, sadly, you don't have a way of showing a balanced 3 card raise, so you opt for 3C showing 3 hearts and 4+ clubs (so either 1354 or 1345) and here we are with the same problem again (since your only choices were to show 4 card raises or 3 card raises with a singleton)....

Maybe in the context of the system 2H is wrong. But when your partner orginally said he wanted to play those responses to 2N, and you objected saying that you frequently raise on 3 cards and a balanced hand, he said well then just describe the closest thing.... (This was a real partnership of mine, with a player who has won a national championship, admittely it was the fast pairs...)

So what can I say? Hopefully a system can handle the vast majority of hands it sticks in a particular bucket...