[mr1303]

---

Bidding went: 1S 1NT 2D 3S. Result was 2 off, for around 0% of the matchpoints.

What went wrong?

[SoTired]

bad trump break? because it looks like you only have 5 losers.

responder does not have a limit raise. responder has a single constructive raise and should make an immediate 2S bid. you got a 0 because everyone else was in 2S. Limit raises start at 10+. Although this hand has 10hcp and 2 aces, all three honors are separate and the hand is 4333. This is a lousy 10hcp 3-card raise.

[mike777]

mr1303, on Jul 7 2006, 08:28 AM, said:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ AKxxx ♥ QJx ♦ xxx ♣ QJ ♠ Qxx ♥ Axx ♦ Axxx ♣ xxx

Bidding went: 1S 1NT 2D 3S. Result was 2 off, for around 0% of the matchpoints.

What went wrong?

this hand is only worth a constructive raise.

9 loser trick count at best, yes?
2.5 losers in spades + 2 losers in H + 2 losers in D + 3 losers in C
adjustments:
zero for only 8 card trump fit
minus .5 losers for honors
zero or plus .5 losers for 4333 shape?



I assume a 3 card limit raise shows an 8 loser trick hand?

[hatchett]

I agree, I would make a constructive single raise on the 4333 ten count.

[Echognome]

I don't think a whole lot went "wrong". I would just chalk it up to system loss. This happens more often than you might think as long as you are playing anything different to the field. (Note: I don't know what field you were playing this in.) Playing weak vs strong NT might arbitrarily have one hand play NT instead of another and lead to a different lead (could be system win or loss depending on the opponents' hands).

I personally dislike the 10-12 3 card raise in 2/1. Some might argue that it is "solved" by just using judgment. However, it doesn't fit in very well with aggressive openings (and I'm sure it can be argued that 2/1 in general relies on somewhat sound openings). But, there is a gadget that Han showed me that I like where you can package these raises in a multi-way 2♣ bid that I find works pretty well.

As far as the "judgment" aspect of this hand, you have the big negative of 4333 shape as responder. However, two aces and the Q of trumps are all pluses as far as I'm concerned (everything is working). So I wouldn't fault the judgment of calling this the "limit raise" with 3-card support.

[pbleighton]

"responder does not have a limit raise. responder has a single constructive raise and should make an immediate 2S bid."

This depends on your agreements.

"I don't think a whole lot went "wrong". I would just chalk it up to system loss."

I agree.

If I was playing constructive 1M-2M raises (which I dislike, but which work nicely in this case), I would raise to 2S.

If not, I would wind up in 3S, whether playing in SA or 2/1. This isn't a good 10 hcp raise, but it isn't bad either - 2 aces and the trump Q make it reasonable in spite of the shape.

Why was your score so low? Were others able to make 8 tricks, or did everyone stop at 2?

Peter

[inquiry]

South over-evaluated his hand. Playing 2/1, 1S-2S is constructive and that would have been the correct bid as others pointed out.

However, imagine if you were "lucky" enough for North to open in 3rd chair, and you played drury or reverse drury? South could bid 2♣ partner would show very minimum opening etc, and you land in 2♠. There is a growing number of people who use 2♣ even after a first or second seat opening bid as a two (or three way) bid: either some form of drury or true 2/1 GF with clubs.

Such an agreement does a few things. First is allows 1S-2S to be weaker (never constructive, use drury), second it keeps you out of 3S on hand like this, third it means 1S-1NT-2any-2S is never 3 card support.

[mike777]

If you are ever going to pass with 13 hcp and a 5 card major in first seat, this is the hand for it. Not sure this is allowable in this Century.

[pbleighton]

"If you are ever going to pass with 13 hcp and a 5 card major in first seat, this is the hand for it. Not sure this is allowable in this Century."

It's not. The WBF has declared it a war crime.

Peter

[mikeh]

I agree with the consensus that S overbid by showing a limit raise. I do not agree that 'limit raises start at 10+'... we have all held 9 counts that were worth an invite... but for suit contracts, shape is important especially when holding a minimum hand in terms of hcp. 4333 is a horrible shape and the hand should be devalued accordingly, to be a maximum single raise.

Style matters as well: consider the types of hands on which North will move to invite game after a single raise. Consider whether North is prone to opening a strong NT with a 5 card ♠ suit. If North is average to aggressive with his invites, or if North routinely opens 15-16 5332 hands 1N (5♠) then all the more reason to bid a quiet 2♠ as south.

[luke warm]

i agree with matt... but if not playing a weak nt, it actually was just a matter of judgement... the south hand has 4 controls and a 10 count, but 3334 dist, so you have to do what looks right... sometimes you're right, sometimes not... overall, i doubt if you'd be wrong very often by evaluating downward with that shape

[Winstonm]

Only thing that went wrong was the evaluation of the south hand due to the poor shape.

[Walddk]

mr1303, on Jul 7 2006, 03:28 PM, said:

What went wrong?

Lack of judgement and evaluation of a hand.

1.
Qxx
Axx
Axxx
xxx

The actual hand: 10 hcp, 9 losers.

.....

2.
xxx
A
Kxxxx
xxxx

A different hand: 7 hcp, 8 losers.

I think we agree that 2. is not an invitational hand, but perhaps a constructive 2♠ raise. If we agree, how can 1. be invitational?

Roland

[Double !]

Echognome, on Jul 7 2006, 08:43 AM, said:

I personally dislike the 10-12 3 card raise in 2/1. Some might argue that it is "solved" by just using judgment. However, it doesn't fit in very well with aggressive openings (and I'm sure it can be argued that 2/1 in general relies on somewhat sound openings). But, there is a gadget that Han showed me that I like where you can package these raises in a multi-way 2♣ bid that I find works pretty well.

I am a strong advocate of 1NT forcing dating back to my old K-S days in late 60's. However, I have always felt that 1NT farcing followed by 3M to show a 3-card limit raise is a weak part of the convention.) I, too,like the idea of a multiple-meaning 2C response. We used to do this eons ago whereby 2C was initially treated as and responded to as one would respond to rev drury until responder's rebids indicated one of a few different types of hands.

In your (Matt's) post, I believe that you (Matt) are talking about using a 2C response as either a 3-card limit raise, a balanced invitational hand, or natural with clubs. Or, are you using 2C to show any type of invitational hand?

DHL

[neilkaz]

Having a flat 4333 hand is a major downgrade for a suit contract as there likely is nothing to ruff in dummy. OK you have 10 scattered HCP, but that is all you have. You might like your aces and they are worth an upgrade of sorts, but I don't see any 10's in your hand and you should be dealt one on average. So maybe, just maybe you have a small fraction more than 10 HCP, but you must deduct a full point, if not more for 4333 distribution. I see no obvious source of extra tricks either.

So..IMHO, I cannot see where your hand is worth more than an average 9 points.
Therefore, I bid 2S whether playing constructive raises or not. Many pards open a touch light and aggressively so I am cautious about giving a 3 card limit raise unless I think my hand is worth a good 10 points. It can be difficult to stop after a limit raise as PD with a point or two extra is often left guessing.

I play Bergen (prefer Rev Bergen) so I can stretch my 4 card limit raises just a bit, since after 3C=4 card limit, PD can invite me to game with a bid below 3M. Also, having 9 trumps makes many games easier and very rarely do you have to suffer due one opp having 4 trumps.

[Echognome]

Double !, on Jul 8 2006, 12:50 AM, said:

In your (Matt's) post, I believe that you (Matt) are talking about using a 2C response as either a 3-card limit raise, a balanced invitational hand, or natural with clubs.    Or, are you using 2C to show any type of invitational hand?

For the purposes of this discussion, I am talking about 2♣ as: 3 card limit, GF balanced or GF clubs. So similar to what you say, except for the invitational part.

In my limited openings system, I play 2♣ as any invite with less than 4 card support. So I would bid that and following up with 2♠ after p shows me a minimum with 5 spades.

[JSilver]

mike777, on Jul 7 2006, 07:12 AM, said:

If you are ever going to pass with 13 hcp and a 5 card major in first seat, this is the hand for it. Not sure this is allowable in this Century.

Good point. I would open the North hand, but only if I were confident partner wouldn't limit-raise me on a 4333 10-count. In the event, two overbids added up to one.

[Double !]

Echognome, on Jul 8 2006, 01:34 AM, said:

Double !, on Jul 8 2006, 12:50 AM, said:

In your (Matt's) post, I believe that you (Matt) are talking about using a 2C response as either a 3-card limit raise, a balanced invitational hand, or natural with clubs.    Or, are you using 2C to show any type of invitational hand?

For the purposes of this discussion, I am talking about 2♣ as: 3 card limit, GF balanced or GF clubs. So similar to what you say, except for the invitational part.

In my limited openings system, I play 2♣ as any invite with less than 4 card support. So I would bid that and following up with 2♠ after p shows me a minimum with 5 spades.

oops
i knew that (The GF vs. GI part)


DHL

[JSilver]

Double !, on Jul 7 2006, 05:50 PM, said:

I am a strong advocate of 1NT forcing dating back to my old K-S days in late 60's.

I like what Mike Lawrence said about 1NT forcing. He compared it to a carburetor: You need it to make your car run, but if you were showing off your car, you wouldn't highlight it. Of course, that was before fuel injection became common.

[han]

I consider the south hand to be a clear 2S bid.