[the hog]

"Many people have suggested that we've already described our hand. But this hand has two features that suggest bidding on: the seventh diamond and the singleton heart. "

So AWM, you are saying that the 2D opening denies a s/t H or a 7th D. If it doesn't then to bid on IS to bid your hand twice. As Frances implies above, why limited openings if you are going to double guess your partner? The whole purpose of a limited opening is to give information in a narrow trange to your partner.

[Echognome]

The_Hog, on Oct 17 2006, 10:11 AM, said:

"Many people have suggested that we've already described our hand. But this hand has two features that suggest bidding on: the seventh diamond and the singleton heart. "

So AWM, you are saying that the 2D opening denies a s/t H or a 7th D. If it doesn't then to bid on IS to bid your hand twice. As Frances implies above, why limited openings if you are going to double guess your partner? The whole purpose of a limited opening is to give information in a narrow trange to your partner.

I don't think that comment is completely fair. There are certain hands where a limited opener is justified in taking another bid. If opener were, e.g. Axx --- AT9xxx KQTx, then we might expect another bid. Or if opener were say 1=1=6=5 or 1=1=7=4, then we might expect another bid. To me it isn't a question of having to bid your hand once and for all on your first go, it is whether this hand warrants another call. In my opinion it does not as I don't feel that an extra diamond in an already promised 6 card suit justifies another go. Give me a stronger diamond suit and then my hand becomes more offensive and I may act then.

[Chamaco]

awm, on Oct 16 2006, 06:16 PM, said:

I'm sure that most of us, seeing the auction 1♥-1♠-2♥-2♠ would bid 3♥ holding a minimum hand with a sixth heart and a singleton spade, wouldn't we?

Most of the times yes, but it seems to me that competing for a partscore at level 3 and at level 4 is RADICALLY differerent for the following reasons:

1- at level 3 opps shall double much much less often; the chances of playing undoubled are dramatically higher at level 3

2- if we push opps into a makeable contract in a major, it is substantially different at level 3 and 4. If we push them into a makeable 3M contract, we have not lost anything (compared to a 2M contract). If instead we push them into a marginal makeable 4M contract (biddable only because we have revealed extra length in diamonds, so they know they'll be playing with a 30 hcp deck), then we have lost indeed something

==================

One last point: I believe our heart singleton is no surprise to pard.
In fact, when we open an intermediate 2m we more or less promise an unbalanced hand, and opps have bid and raised, so it is reasonable from pard's viewpoint to expect heart shortness.

Hence, the only "untold" feature to pard is the extra length in diamonds, but my opinion is that bidding "automatically" to the LOTT level is not always the best policy, because in some cases the advertised extra shape might me more useful to opps to diagnose the fact that the hands are ery pure and they can bid marginal games.
It seems to me this is one of such cases.

[Chamaco]

Echognome, on Oct 17 2006, 10:18 AM, said:

If opener were, e.g. Axx --- AT9xxx KQTx, then we might expect another bid.

I think this hand is too strong for an intermediate 10-14 2-level opening (even if the raw point count is 13)

[MickyB]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 16 2006, 08:11 PM, said:

There is a conceptual difference between the auction

2D (2H) 3D

and

1H (1S) 2H

In the first auction, the 2D bidder (theoretically) limited their hand, as is not expected to act again. The 3D bidder could have all sorts of things - I've seen this type of raise done on a VOID by an absolutely top world class player, which generated a huge penalty for him (he knew how to pick his moment).

On the second auction, the 1H opener is unlimited and undefined, so the 2H bidder has to limit his hand; the opener can then take subsequent action as he chooses.


There was a while ago a long discussion on captaincy. When you open with a limited opening, in general you concede captaincy to partner unless he asks your opinion.

I'm sure many strong club players would still compete to 3H on the second auction, despite their 1H opening being limited. The difference is that 2D is a lot more likely to end the auction, so an offensive hand might have to find an alternative call, but given that game in a minor requires a trick more I see nothing wrong with opening 2♦ and intending to take another call with a hand too good for 4♦ but not offensive enough for 5♦.

[MickyB]

awm, on Oct 16 2006, 07:16 PM, said:

So what about that 4♥ contract? At IMPs there's a serious risk/reward issue. Opponents will almost surely bid 4♥ over 4♦, figuring that on a bad day they're trading a +50 for a -50 and on a good day they score up +420. This is fairly obvious "IMPs math" and even if 4♥ is fairly low-percentage to make (like say around 30%) the bid is reasonable because you're risking so few IMPs to win so many. So if I pass and 3♥ passes out, I get either -140 or -170, and if I bid 4♦ I get either +50 or -420. Unless I think the odds are substantially in favor of 4♥ failing, I should pass. This implies that bidding 4♦ can only be right on hands with substantial defense, which this hand is not!

I believe that there is a flaw in the logic of the second half of this paragraph.

You are correct that the opponents should stretch to bid 4♥ over 4♦, but this isn't in itself an undesireable thing. When they bid what appears to be a 30% game, a large proportion of the time they are going to go negative when, if you had passed, they might have made a comfortable 140. You are pushing them into bidding game more often than they would choose to do so; in absence of any other information, this has to be a good thing.

You can be fairly sure that 4♥ is making and it can still be right to bid 4♦ - after all, the opponents are probably about to bid it themselves, and if not, do you still have reason to believe that 4♥ is making?

IMO, there are three ways in which you might stand to lose from pushing the opponents into game -

- If you are playing against weak, fairly conservative players, then they may fail (or in RHO's case, already have failed) to make an obvious 4♥ bid if you keep quiet.
- Showing your diamond length may help the opponents to evaluate whether to bid 4♥ or not.
- If you think the cards are lying particularly well for your opponents, or you are certain that they have game values, then you don't want to encourage them to bid on.

[cherdano]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 16 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

There is a conceptual difference between the auction

2D (2H) 3D

and

1H (1S) 2H

In the first auction, the 2D bidder (theoretically) limited their hand, as is not expected to act again. The 3D bidder could have all sorts of things - I've seen this type of raise done on a VOID by an absolutely top world class player, which generated a huge penalty for him (he knew how to pick his moment).

On the second auction, the 1H opener is unlimited and undefined, so the 2H bidder has to limit his hand; the opener can then take subsequent action as he chooses.


There was a while ago a long discussion on captaincy. When you open with a limited opening, in general you concede captaincy to partner unless he asks your opinion.

I think the 2D (intermediate) (2H) 3D is somewhere in between 1H (1S) 2H and 2D (weak) (2H) 3D. While 2D describes the strength of this hand, it can be fairly wide-ranging in terms of shape and ODR.

Also, unless responder has two ways to raise to 3D, there is a good case for playing 3D as constructive, i.e. partner is allowed to bid again. How else could responder get openers opinion about whether to compete to 4D?

Having said that, I would need a more offensive hand to bid 4D or 5D.

Arend

[P_Marlowe]

awm, on Oct 16 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

<snip>
My partner thought I was crazy to bid this way, but by his own admission he's a better IMP player. The poll seems to confirm partner's opinion though , so I guess it's better to be lucky than good.
<snip>

That is certainly true.
And there is a second reason to defend
the bid: You do not win playing by the book.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: If you believe, that they can make 4H,
and that they are good enough to bid it,
and if you also believe, that 5D is at most -2,
than 5D is ok (300 vs. 420).

You have to guess, but you do not have a lot of
defence against 4H (1 diamond trick at most,
since you will have a 10 card fit most of the time,
the Ace of spade is the 2nd trick, and partner may
provide the 3rd, ... buth the 4th?)

[the hog]

"Also, unless responder has two ways to raise to 3D, there is a good case for playing 3D as constructive, i.e. partner is allowed to bid again. How else could responder get openers opinion about whether to compete to 4D?"

There is a very strong argument for making 2NT a constructive raise. When opener has shown a 6+ carder it is rarely right to play exactly 2NT. You will probably make more or less than 8 tricks, but rarely exactly 8.
We used to play the following =
2D 2H relay GF
2S nat inv
2NT good D raise
3C constructive in H!!
3D poor raise
3M good 6+ suit, gf
3N obvious

we lost a 3C bid, but again, when opener has 6D, it is not often right for responder to show a 6 card C suit.

[Impact]

Ron,

Actually slight improvement when not playing Myxos:-

2H=Relay
2S= nat I
2NT= H I (allows counter try)
or alternatively good for uninterrupted auctions: either C OR H & 3C by opener says would not move over C...
3C= constructive in D
3D= competitive in D

[whereagles]

I think along these lines:

"Are opps likely to have 4♥?" I think so. I got 2,5 tricks, but opps seem to have all the high cards in hearts. It wouldn't surprise me that their values fit and 4 is there.

"Are opps likely to bid 4♥?" That I'm not sure. There's a chance they won't. However, they are more likely to bid it if I bid 4♦. Since I rate they'll make 4, I might as well be quiet and hope they don't bid it!

Therefore, pass now. I think the true problem comes if opps do bid 4♥.