[foo]

jdonn, on May 8 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

foo, on May 8 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

As to the dangers of the 2card 2D Reverse; let's note up front that I said it was lying and did =not= say I was in favor of it.  Just like making a Support X on KQ tight when GOP is more likely to have 4 rather than 5+, it smacks of masterminding.

Why in the world is partner more likely to have four hearts than 5+? Fair enough that 2♦ is not your choice, though you obviously don't mind it. But it's funny the spin people put on their own choices. Doubling when short one card is 'masterminding', but bidding 3♣ when short one card is a 'book bid'. Right.

There is no spin on my part here.
Do the math. CHO is more likely to hold 4 H's rather than 5, and certainly more so than 6, given your hand and this auction.

OTOH,
a) the odds are far better that CHO has 3+C rather than 6+H, and ♠A542♥KQ♦64♣AKQT8 has such good C's that you have multiple reasons for wanting to emphasize them:
They are more than 1/2 of the expected tricks in your hand.
c) They are good enough that they may be the better playing 52 even if there is a 52 fit in both H's and C's.
d) ATM, the most likely Games and slams are in NT and C's. And GOP doesn't know it. Might be nice to get their help/cooperation in picking the right strain and level don't you think?

I =never= said any bid was the book bid. I said 2N and 3C were the closest to the book bid given the hand. (If you want to pick a fight in public, at least quote people accurately!)

..and of course, the prosaic 2N rebid is still reasonable (given the percentage of my hand that is in C's, the 3C rebid still stands out; although I hate the space taken up by it.)

Quote

foo, on May 8 2006, 03:33 PM, said:

So just how bad is  1C-pa-1H-1S;2D-??  Let's see, assuming 2nd seat passes:
...
In sum, we can handle the auction no matter what after the Captaincy seizing bid of a Reverse to 2D.  Might not be as bad as you think.

How about if he raises to 4♦ on a good hand (and why shouldn't he if he has good trumps and slam interest, or so he thinks)? Or how about if he misjudges the later auction based on his diamond holding? And isn't seizing captaincy a lousy idea when you, as you sort of admit, don't know what to do after one of his likely bids, 3♦?

You have misquoted and/or distorted my words again.

I never said "I don't know what to do over a 3D response.". I said it was "the response I don't want to hear". I also said I knew =EXACTLY= what to do if GOP bid 3D... ...bid 3N. Again, if you want to pick a fight in public, please get your facts correct.

The Jump Raise to 4D should be nigh unto non-existent in this auction if everyone has had their bids so far, but if it does occur We have the values for 6N or possibly 7N.

Again, I am not advocating this "artificial reverse", although The Blue Team and Kaplan+Sheinwald are historically known for having used it effectively with reasonable regularity. What I am saying is that the 2D Reverse is just as much a non-partnership bid as a Support X is here, and it is significantly less dangerous than a Support X is here.

A Support X lies about a feature in your hand that you do not have, it does not tell GOP what strength your hand is, and it completely ignores the feature of your hand that makes up more than 1/2 your expected tricks.

As for trusting or not trusting books, cliches, etc. "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."- Sir Isaac Newton

Some very bright people have given us the benefit of their experience, knowledge, and wisdom. I find it prudent and profitable to assume they are worth listening to as a starting point and then look upon going counter to that gestalt only after very careful study and experiment.

YMMV.

[jdonn]

I certainly don't mean to pick a fight, I actually find the discussion of the hand quite interesting.

Also I absolutely don't mean to misquote you, you are right you did not say 3♣ is the book bid, you said 3♣ and 2NT are "so close to the "book bid" description of this hand it is surprising that everyone is considering all these other contortions." That seems close enough in spirit as far as I'm concerned, but I should have made the distinction so I'm sorry.

It does still seem to me like you 'sort of admitted' (those were my words, I was hardly making a strong statement) that if the auction continued 2♦ p 3♦ p you didn't know what to do. You said the 3♦ bid is "not what you want to hear", so you will "shrug your shoulders" and choose either of two bids, all of which sounds pretty noncommital to me. You now say you knew all along you would bid 3NT in that situation (given 2♦, which I know is not your first choice), fine of course I believe you but look at what you originally wrote, you didn't say then what you would bid. So I apologize if you feel misrepresented, but I tried to be fair and simply save some words.

I suppose we may just have to agree to disagree about the likelihood of partner bidding 4♦, but it's not at all unlikely in my best partnerships. Many a good slam is reached by strongly setting trumps early and by a player showing good trumps in an encouraging fashion, in my opinion. We had a similar thread a few weeks ago on the auction 1♣ p 1♥ p 2♠ p 3/4♣, where it became clear before long that jumping to 4♣ on the hand in question made a slam auction a LOT easier. It's true that there are a number of players who would just never bid 4♦, but it's a perfectly valid bid and I think the best choice on many hands, and thus worth worrying about.

I still for the life of me don't see how four hearts is more likely than five+ hearts. You seem to have tried to shift that to saying four is the most likely number of hearts, which is a different statement altogether. Yes, four hearts is more likely than five, and four hearts is more likely than six, etc. But four hearts is not more likely than the combined likelyhood of five or six or seven... (that is what 5+ means, no? which is what you originally said.) I don't feel inclined to do the math, but trust that this isn't really a controversial claim. It hardly matters in any case, I don't see how we will end up in hearts if partner has four. I am not passing if he bids 2♥, I have essentially similar choices between 2♠ 2NT and 3♣ that I had a round before, but having given what I consider appropriate enthusiasm toward hearts on the way.

I have no huge problem with bidding 3♣ to emphasize the great suit, it's a very reasonable choice! I objected originally because I thought (and still think) the hand is too good (for example, 3NT opposite 2443 with the heart ace and heart or club jack), but that's a different issue and debatable in any case as there are certainly unsuitable hands opposite that don't make game. Clubs may well be a more likely suit than hearts for slam, but I think hearts are a more likely suit for game. Also worth noting is that your clubs will be useful in a heart contract, but the hearts may not be if in a club contract. That is just my take on some of the bridge issues for whatever they are worth, if I have failed to change your mind then so be it. It would hardly be the first time someone thought I was nuts about something!

I would not pick a fight with Mr. Newton, he is a hero of mine Of course the phrase "out of context" comes to mind. I'll stick with using my brain for better or worse, thank you. I'm not so sure either of us has seen that much farther than others in any case Oh well, let the journey continue.

Help me out with my own shortcoming before we go. GOP = ? (I know you mean partner, obviously). YMMV = ?

[foo]

Fair enough. It was beginning to look like things were evidently getting a bit more heated then they actually were. Thankfully

"GOP" is short for "Good Old Partner" in a Bridge context.
"CHO" is sometimes the other term for partner...

"YMMV" is an old internet chat / news abbreviation: "Your Milage May Vary".
It expresses the fact that our experiences color our perception of Truth, and that truth (small t) is very often context dependent and personal.

My apologies if I was not clear enough as to my reaction to 1C-pa-1H-1S;2D-pa-3D.
My intent was to point out that if you were playing "up the line" you would know that GOP had 5+H and 4+D and therefore could still choose to play 4H rather than 3N if you felt strongly about being Dummy and/or We having better chances in 4M rather than 3N. Regardless, GOP's D raise opposite a Reverse promises GF HCP and therefore We should have reasonable play for Game.
(Given that you have ♠A542♥KQ♦64♣AKQ108 , GOP must have 8+ HCP from the set {K,Q,J; A,J; A,K,Q,J; J} Give GOP 4+H and 4+D and 8+ HCP from that set and I think you will see that the vast majority of the time 3N has decent play.)

As for the math, grinding out the calculations to show that the the most likely number of H's for GOP is 4, then 5, then 6 is tedious but not particularly challenging.
the point was that the odds are very much against Us having a H fit as opposed to a m suit fit. Especially a C fit.

The safest games on the deal with the information we have in descending order of probabilty are 3N, 5C, 5D, 4H. By far the most likely slams if there is a slam present are 6C and 6N.

Choosing Support X over other calls risks inappropriately emphasizing H's and missing the more likely opportunities of the deal.

Note that I can see myself at some point in the future being ironically forced to make a Support X holding HH tight because it is the best of the miserable choices I have at that point. Bidding is =not= an exact science for all that theorists try to make it so.

I just do not think that this is the deal where Opener is backed into such a corner.

YMMV. Peace.

[Winstonm]

As was pointed out, both hands hold the heart Q so these were not facing hands nor the actual hands that started the discussion. It was odd that after playing all this time together a situation came up of which we had never discussed - what to do with a big hand and is pass semi-forcing a la negative doubles. The actual hands were even stranger, and due to the good spots and partner holding the right pair of jacks slam was cold.

Scoring: IMP

The actual and ugly auction was:

1C-P-1H-1S
P-P-2S-P
3S-P-3N-P
4C-P-4D-P
4N-P-P-P.

---

[foo]

Winstonm, on May 9 2006, 12:48 AM, said:

As was pointed out, both hands hold the heart Q so these were not facing hands nor the actual hands that started the discussion.  It was odd that after playing all this time together a situation came up of which we had never discussed - what to do with a big hand and is pass semi-forcing a la negative doubles.  The actual hands were even stranger, and due to the good spots and partner holding the right pair of jacks slam was cold.

Scoring: IMP

The actual and ugly auction was:

1C-P-1H-1S
P-P-2S-P
3S-P-3N-P
4C-P-4D-P
4N-P-P-P.

---

20 HCP hands, especially semi-balanced ones, can be difficult to bid.

It might be useful to consider opening 2N= 20-21 more often with these sorts of hands.

Now at least a 12 HCP Responder knows to think about slam immediately:
(...and They tend not to dive into Our 2N auctions...)

2N-3D+;3H-4D= ?55? or ?54? with slam interest.

..and now you can have an thoughtful auction or blast if you feel like it.

[Winstonm]

foo, on May 9 2006, 01:05 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 9 2006, 12:48 AM, said:

As was pointed out, both hands hold the heart Q so these were not facing hands nor the actual hands that started the discussion.  It was odd that after playing all this time together a situation came up of which we had never discussed - what to do with a big hand and is pass semi-forcing a la negative doubles.  The actual hands were even stranger, and due to the good spots and partner holding the right pair of jacks slam was cold.

Scoring: IMP

The actual and ugly auction was:

1C-P-1H-1S
P-P-2S-P
3S-P-3N-P
4C-P-4D-P
4N-P-P-P.

---

20 HCP hands, especially semi-balanced ones, can be difficult to bid.

It might be useful to consider opening 2N= 20-21 more often with these sorts of hands.

Now at least a 12 HCP Responder knows to think about slam immediately:
(...and They tend not to dive into Our 2N auctions...)

2N-3D+;3H-4D= ?55? or ?54? with slam interest.

..and now you can have an thoughtful auction or blast if you feel like it.

I certainly agree that many 5422 patterns are better opened 2N, but I cannot find fault with partner's 1C opening on such a strongly suit-oriented hand so rich in controls - 2N also kills a lot of club slams.

Suffice it to say we need to figure out some kind of agreements on continuations if playing support doubles.

[foo]

Winstonm, on May 9 2006, 01:10 AM, said:

I certainly agree that many 5422 patterns are better opened 2N, but I cannot find fault with partner's 1C opening on such a strongly suit-oriented hand so rich in controls - 2N also kills a lot of club slams.

Suffice it to say we need to figure out some kind of agreements on continuations if playing support doubles.

Please do not misunderstand. I did not mean any criticism of your pard's judgement!

I am also well aware that 2N=20-21 is sometimes called "the slam killer".

My POV is that in my studying and experience suggest:
1) You should open as many 20-21 HCP hands 2N as possible so that
a) 1foo is more of a Limit Bid (showing 11-19 the vast majority of the time)
b ) 1foo when strong is also shapely helping with rebid problems
c) you get maximum utility out of your 2N Response Structure

2) This hand type is a Problem weather you play Support X's or not.
Let's say you =don't= play Support X's:
♠A542♥KJ♦A4♣AKJ93

1C-pa-1H-(1S);-??

You are still utterly stuck.
X as penalty is not going to compensate you for a missed slam, and may very well not compensate you for a missed Game.
A 2D Reverse is a lie with regards to shape.
2S! is probably your best bet, but neither shows your strength nor your value placement.
3C definitely does not do this 20 HCP =4225 justice
etc.
You basically do not have a decent rebid.

Uncontested, the plan was probably 1C-1H;2S , and I can easily see that Opener was not expecting a S overcall!

OTOH, opening this 2N=20-21 solves all the potential rebid problems at the price of eating the one and two levels.

On the balance, it looks like opening this hand 2N works out better than opening it 1C.

[Codo]

Hi Winston,

your pd had been lucky to find you as pard or to find so many HCPS in your hand, that you did not pass 1 Spade.

I cannot believe, that so strong hands should pass over 1 Spade. Bid 2 Spade and if Pd denies a stopper, bid 3 NT anyway, then he will nearly "know" your hand.

Quite hard to reach the slam, but the bidding from your opponent should make the play much easier, as he is supposed to have the missing High Cards. But I doubt, that it is easy to reach this slam without a fit and 32 HCPs. With a third Heart f.e. the slam had been great and surly found.


Besides: I think, that this hand surely qualifies for a 2 NT opening, as both short suits are well covered.

[keylime]

Forgive my hazy language in advance; this is my mental exercise for the day following my zap treatment.

I am not a fan of opening 2NT, with a hand that offers great play for 5 or 6 clubs. The clubs are the prominent feature of the hand, NOT the quality doubletons. The fact that my opp overcalled 1♠ before my rebid I feel HELPS me more than hurts me. I can bid 2♠ freely knowing partner can now limit their hand. What happens if pard is on a six bagger in hearts? With a relatively medium hand slam in two/three strains are possible.

Opening 2NT, after a transfer into hearts, might go like this:

2NT-3D
3H-3NT.

Not good bridge. I think this hand is BETTER than 2NT to begin with, and opening 1C is the most practical solution, since opening 2C is icky.

[jdonn]

Nothing was wrong with opening 1♣, but it is an error to pass over 1♠ with a hand that good, partner could easily pass out 8 or 9 counts with no convenient bid. I would have cuebid 2♠ planning on bidding 3NT next, there just doesn't seem to be any other reasonable alternative. After the 2♠ bid south would probably bid 3NT himself, there is no point in messing around when partner didn't make a support double or anything. North has a little extra for his cuebid which could have been on 18-19 balanced and would bid 4NT, and south has enough for 6NT opposite the cuebid then 4NT bid, which must show at least 20.

A 2NT opening is not the most accurate bid, though sometimes it pays to simplify the auction at the cost of a little accuracy. I wouldn't do it though, Ax is a bad holding to have in one of the doubletons for opening 2NT with a shape like this. On the expected auction this hand would have been easy to bid, 1♣ then 2♠ then 3NT. You don't expect much competition at all when you have a balanced 20, and you certainly don't expect it in one of your long suits!

[foo]

Hi Dwayne!

I completely understand the fear of 2N-3D+;3H-3N or 2N-2D+;4H! and perhaps missing a slam.

However, Responder knows that the average 20-21 HCP balanced hand will have ~7 1/3 (20 HCP) or 7.5 (21 HCP) controls.

Usually 10+ controls are needed to be in a slam.

Any Responding hand with 3+ controls or 2+ controls and significant values and/or shape for the auction should not let the auction die in just Game.

I also agree with jdonn's comments that Opener should do =something= strong sounding and that should "wake up" Responder.