[kenberg]

ochinko, on Jul 24 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

In the SAYC realm, silent opps, new partner, not many agreements, is this a possible or an impossible bidding?

1♣ - 1♥ - 3NT

The Q asks abouy SAYC land so I tried looking at: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf

Nada.

Then I tried the Full Disclosure card for SAYC, provided by BBO. It says: 6+ clubs and 1 to 3 hearts.

To the extent the question is "What should be expected in a pick-up partnership that has agreed to play SAYC", this would appear to be the answer. It also seems to me to be the answer in any pick-up partnership that has not discussed the auction.

[ochinko]

Thanks everyone for your input.

Obviously I didn't phrase the bet terms properly because it turns out that the 3NT bid wasn't impossible after all. The thing is that partner had somewhat balanced 19 points, and I tried to explain how the NT ladder goes.

[kenberg]

Since this was a bet with perhaps large sums of money involved, I should slightly correct my response. The BBO card is not strictly a SAYC card but rather the BBO basic card, which is advertised as "based on SAYC". BBO basic deviates some from SAYC, for example 1m-2N is played as invitational in BBO basic, but as forcing in SAYC. So I guess SAYC itself has to be regarded as silent on the issue. Still, I would expect a club suit on the auction. With discussion, there could be other meanings. But the default is a club suit and an expectation of nine tricks. This appears though to be a matter of "common knowledge" rather than "SAYC".

Incidentally, I prefer "club suit with an expectation of nine tricks" to "solid clubs". This preference appears to match with the BBO basic card, which describes the bid as 6+ clubs (the commonsense implication of expecting nine tricks is unmentioned) rather than solid clubs.

Ken

[benlessard]

1m---1 X---3nt

show a long solid minor with a minimum hand with the desire to be declarer something like


Kx
xx
Qx
AKQxxxx

Quote

uIt's standard to rebid 3NT with a solid minor and quick tricks outside responder's major, and it denies a fit.

Ax
x
Axx
AKQxxxx

is the ideal hand.

Roland
ndefined

with a hand as good as this make a jump shift.


The idea of jumping direct to game is to tell slam is unlikely and you want to make it harder for defense with good hand take your time.

[FrancesHinden]

benlessard, on Jul 31 2006, 07:18 AM, said:

Quote

uIt's standard to rebid 3NT with a solid minor and quick tricks outside responder's major, and it denies a fit.

Ax
x
Axx
AKQxxxx

is the ideal hand.

Roland
ndefined

with a hand as good as this make a jump shift.

The idea of jumping direct to game is to tell slam is unlikely and you want to make it harder for defense with good hand take your time.

I disagree. A jump to 3NT should certainly specific, because it takes up a lot of room. But there's no reason to play it as saying 'slam is unlikely': just because it is such a descriptive bid, it can make slam bidding easier, not harder.

Making a jump shift on a 2137 (or rather I suspect you mean reversing into 2D) doesn't make slam bidding easier because you haven't described your hand.

[benlessard]

I was suprised by Frances response so ive asked around to players in Montreal and the consensus was the following.



7-8 solid in the bid minor
sure stopper in spades.
at least half a stopper in the other minor.
Probably a stiff in opener suit.

around 15 pts.


Some did argue that the stiff in partner suit is almost mandatory since a doubleton and a ruffing value make 4H or 6H a possible contract.


All the player ive asked said that they would never bid 3nt with 3 aces or 18 pts



ax
x
axx
akqxxxx

1c--1h--???
All of them thought 2d was obvious



The more i think about it the more i prefer the sure stopper in the other minor because opponent didnt overcall spades so they are more likely to have diamonds then spades.




Im not saying this way is much better then the other just that i find there is a major style difference here worth discussing with your partner.


on one side its a tactical bid
"right siding" the contract
putting the defense on a tough spot
reaching a good game with slight values
but possibly losing the 6 first trick
The frequency is a bit higher


on the other side
its a sure thing contract
but "wrong siding" the contract. (in matchpts)
telling the defense to lead hearts
forcing you to bid 3 clubs with minimum values but with a long suits
missing some cold games
probably a easy for some slams
lower frequency



Ben

[mikeh]

benlessard, on Aug 1 2006, 01:33 AM, said:

I was suprised by Frances response so ive asked around to players in Montreal and the consensus was the following.



7-8 solid in the bid minor
sure stopper in spades.
at least half a stopper in the other minor.
Probably a stiff in opener suit.

around 15 pts.


Some did argue that the stiff in partner suit is almost mandatory since a doubleton and a ruffing value make 4H or 6H a possible contract.


All the player ive asked said that they would never bid 3nt with 3 aces or 18 pts



ax
x
axx
akqxxxx

1c--1h--???
All of them thought 2d was obvious



The more i think about it the more i prefer the sure stopper in the other minor because opponent didnt overcall spades so they are more likely to have diamonds then spades.




Im not saying this way is much better then the other just that i find there is a major style difference here worth discussing with your partner.


on one side its a tactical bid
"right siding" the contract
putting the defense on a tough spot
reaching a good game with slight values
but possibly losing the 6 first trick
The frequency is a bit higher


on the other side
its a sure thing contract
but "wrong siding" the contract. (in matchpts)
telling the defense to lead hearts
forcing you to bid 3 clubs with minimum values but with a long suits
missing some cold games
probably a easy for some slams
lower frequency



Ben

I don't know which players you asked in Montreal, but I have played a lot with Doug and Sandra Fraser, two of the leading montreal players before they moved out west a few years back and have been teammates with several of the top Montreal players... and I would be astounded if the top players had a consensus that 3N showed Kx x Qxx AKQxxxx That is a perfectly normal 3♣ rebid, and I frankly can't understand why one would not make that bid.

And I disagree with your assessment of the gains and losses from the two approaches. Jumping to 3N on your hand strikes me as making constructive bidding virtually impossible, and will lead to a lot of minuses when modest pluses were available. OTOH, bidding Roland, Frances, I and others prefer affords a clear description of one's hand, making partner's job easy (he doesn't have to pass with xxxx in ♥ if he has outside values, you know) and I see no resaon why using this approach should lead to missing any games. When I open 1♣ and jump rebid 3♣, I don't miss many games in my partnerships.

[benlessard]

IMHO the problems with bidding 3c with

kx
x
qxx
akqxxxx


is that partner will pass with hands that you would want to be in 3nt.

xxxx
aJ9x
jxx
xx



you might wrongside 3nt.

3 clubs is not my favorite matchpoint contract and in imps i prefer to have 25% of making game then 50% of making partscore.


I think that on a long run 3nt is highly likely to be the best spot on most deal and that by going the fast way you maximise your chance of making it wheter its a good or bad contract.



as for

axx
x
ax
akqjxxx


most says its a 2c--2d waiting ---3nt (not 25-27 bal but a long solid minors and ready to go down like a man)


I think its positive bridge to bid games that could be could be off the first 5 tricks but where you keep the defense on a tough spot at trick 1 and 2.


Im sure most world class player make their bread and butter by bidding low HCP game and making them not by settling for small plus when game is only 30%.





Anyway ill keep asking there is plenty of top players in Montreal so im sure ill get some interesting answers.





Ben