[Cascade]

How does that change in the raise structure help your 2/1s?

[Winstonm]

Cascade, on Aug 16 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

How does that change in the raise structure help your 2/1s?

If you hold, Qxx, xxx, AKxx, KJx you simply bid 1S-3S (or you could bid 2N equally effectively as both are forcing bids). In other words, the first bid made shows the raise of the major, and thus if the first bid made is a minor the emphasis is on the minor.

If I hold these two hand types: Qxx, xxx, AKxx, KJx and Qxx, xx, Kxx, AKJxx I bid them two different ways: 1S-3S on the first and 1S-2C on the second and later supporting spades.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on Aug 16 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 16 2009, 01:05 PM, said:

How does that change in the raise structure help your 2/1s?

If you hold, Qxx, xxx, AKxx, KJx you simply bid 1S-3S (or you could bid 2N equally effectively as both are forcing bids). In other words, the first bid made shows the raise of the major, and thus if the first bid made is a minor the emphasis is on the minor.

If I hold these two hand types: Qxx, xxx, AKxx, KJx and Qxx, xx, Kxx, AKJxx I bid them two different ways: 1S-3S on the first and 1S-2C on the second and later supporting spades.

If you have an external KJx and AKxx, bidding a simple 3♠ is not all that simple. You have no idea what shape partner has, what strength partner has, what trump honors partner has, or what needs partner has. However, you have only one level of bidding left to resolve all of this. What you end up resolving is probably simply controls and general strength.

I mean, make this simple. Partner has AKxxx in trumps and AQxxx in a side suit, with a stiff in another side suit.

If his stiff is in hearts and his AQxxx in clubs, life is good.

If his stiff is in diamonds and his AQxxx in clubs, life is not good.

If his stiff is in clubs and his AQxxx in hearts, life is not good.

If his stiff is in diamonds and his AQxxx in hearts, life really sucks.

I mean, if your approach to bidding is to add HCP and distribution points to see if you get to 32, and then to address controls, you still don't know much here, because Opener has such a range (11-21?) to divide between serious, non-serious, and hopeless. Hopefully serious or frivolous is available.

But, youi do know the largely irrelevant fact that you have three trumps instead of four with your 4-3-3-3 shape.

[awm]

Even if we ignore the impact on our raise structure and the elimination of whatever other useful purpose we set for our jump shifts (I like invitational if 2/1 is GF and strong if 2/1 is only F1) it's not clear how much the forcing 2NT bid helps us.

If we view the goal as being responder describing his hand, it's certainly true that the immediate 2NT describes responder's shape a lot better than 2♣. But when responder is balanced, it's frequently more valuable for opener to do the describing. Once responder knows opener's long suit(s) and shortness, he usually has a good idea of the final contract. For example:

1♠ - 2♣(1)
2♥ - 2NT
3♣

(1) Clubs or balanced

Here responder more or less knows opener's complete shape (5413, or maybe a diamond void with an extra card in one of the other three suits). Compare this to:

1♠ - 2NT(1)
3♥

(1) Natural and forcing

Here responder has much less information. If responder has weak diamonds and good clubs (for example ♠Kx ♥Qxx ♦Qxxx ♣AQJx) he knows to try a moysian major suit contract on the first auction (and even has space to intelligently determine which), but really doesn't know what to do on the second.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But, youi do know the largely irrelevant fact that you have three trumps instead of four with your 4-3-3-3 shape.

Well, there's a ton of understandings that I didn't mention because I didn't feel like re-creating the article from The Bridge World that covered all this.

I was trying to give a simple answer to the question asked.

[Winstonm]

Quote

1♠ - 2♣(1)
2♥ - 2NT
3♣

(1) Clubs or balanced

Yes, and for every time you have this auction you can have this auction:

1S-2C(1)
3C-3S

(1) Clubs

Quote

1♠ - 2NT(1)
3♥

(1) Natural and forcing

Here responder has much less information.

Right. But what if the diamond was the J and responder held Q10xx? There is no way to know this. Besides, opener knows he is facing a balanced 12-15 and he suggested 3H. Responder can bid 3S now showing some doubt. Is that as accurate or is it perfect. No. But neither is the either/or approach you suggest. The other consideration is that with real weakness in a suit such as Kx, Kxx, xxxx, AKJx, there is no rule against bidding 2C instead of 2N.

Quote

If we view the goal as being responder describing his hand, it's certainly true that the immediate 2NT describes responder's shape a lot better than 2♣. But when responder is balanced, it's frequently more valuable for opener to do the describing.

I don't understand at all this argument - it is certainly not true that it is better for responder to describe his hand to an opening NT bidder. The reason bidding is so accurate after a 1NT opening is that the shape and size of the NT hand is quantified in 1 bid.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on Aug 16 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

Quote

If we view the goal as being responder describing his hand, it's certainly true that the immediate 2NT describes responder's shape a lot better than 2♣. But when responder is balanced, it's frequently more valuable for opener to do the describing.

I don't understand at all this argument - it is certainly not true that it is better for responder to describe his hand to an opening NT bidder. The reason bidding is so accurate after a 1NT opening is that the shape and size of the NT hand is quantified in 1 bid.

This is one of the strangest things I have read in a while.

If we simply ignore the fact that the vast majority of NT bidding, exception being puppet and stayman, is a matter of Responder describing Responder's shape, the premise still is absurd.

Opener's distributional advertisement is 2+ in every suit (probably). Hence, he has described 8 of his 13 cards. Each suit could be 2-card to 5-card. Maybe 6-card if a minor. So, other than 2+ in every suit, little distributional description has been made.

Furthermore, absolutely nothing has been said, or will be said for a while if ever, about honor type in each suit, whether slow values, fast values, no values, concentrated values, whatever,

When Opener has no shortness, and usually nothign remarkable distributionall, two features need to be described by Opener -- fit, and spread of honor type.

As to the first, knowledge of Responder's distribution is one of the key means of Opener knowing whether he has or lacks fit and then announcing his findings accordingly. As to the second, the easiest method of stating the honor spread and type is by knowing partner's pattern and the responding honor fit for that pattern.

I mean, could you imagine some sort of silly Alpha/Beta/Gamma asking bid structure over 1NT openings? That would be sick, probably. No one does that for a reason.

So, I would suggested that it in fact is generally better for responder to describe his hand to a 1NT opener. I would even suggest that the meat of Stayman sequences actually is in Responder's acceptance more than Opener's description and thus actually fits in the "describe" category rather than "ask" category.

[Winstonm]

Quote

So, I would suggested that it in fact is generally better for responder to describe his hand to a 1NT opener.

I don't want to get into a long-winded debate about this so if you can show me how the standard NT responses are "showing" bids where the opening NT bidder determines the final contract, level and suit, I will say you won. (Note, we are not talking about simply being given the choice of playing NT or a suit - that is a dialogue between both hands.)

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on Aug 16 2009, 09:09 PM, said:

Quote

So, I would suggested that it in fact is generally better for responder to describe his hand to a 1NT opener.

I don't want to get into a long-winded debate about this so if you can show me how the standard NT responses are "showing" bids where the opening NT bidder determines the final contract, level and suit, I will say you won. (Note, we are not talking about simply being given the choice of playing NT or a suit - that is a dialogue between both hands.)

I just cannot help you with understanding this.

When one partner has 2-5 cards in every suit, and the other has 0-11 cards in every suit, system structure typically focuses on hand types for the wildly unknown.

When one partner has described a huge distributional feature in his hand, system structure typically enables that partner to complete pattern.

Understanding the shape of the unbalanced hand is critical to knowing whether honors in the balanced hand fit or do not fit. Understanding the exact shape of the balanced hand typically does little to help the cause of the unbalanced hand.

This seems rather elementary. Imagine this sort of structure: Opener starts with 2D, Flannery. Responder knows that a major fit exists. My thought might be for Opener to then describe his minors, so I know which is short. Typically, Responder won't show his minor shape, as that is usually much less important. Your theory seems to suggest that strange alternative course.

[Free]

It's general knowledge that in case of a balanced hand vs an unbalanced hand, that it's always better to describe the unbalanced hand.

So after a 1NT opening, it's better to let responder show his hand, rather than just ask his shape (ending high at 3-level) and having to ask strength and position of honours in 4 suits with limited space. If you can describe an unbalanced hand with a shortness, you only need to find honours in 3 suits with almost the same amount of space available as the case above.

[Cascade]

I gave up on relays (except Stayman on some hands) in this situation in favour of responder showing distribution. This seems to work very well.

In fact our Stayman is almost completely restricted to hands without a singleton or void if game forcing. There is one specific exception. So even that is showing in a way.

[Winstonm]

O.K., fine. Let's start with an routine opening 1N of 15-17 and fairly standard responses.

2C - Stayman. This does not show shape.
transfers: These are not designed to show shape.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It's general knowledge that in case of a balanced hand vs an unbalanced hand, that it's always better to describe the unbalanced hand.

Sorry, but I have to call "rubbish" on this claim.

It is general knowledge that a 1NT bidder transfers captaincy to his partner unless his partner later asks for his help in the decision.

[jillybean]

Winstonm, on Aug 17 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

FREE! said:

It's general knowledge that in case of a balanced hand vs an unbalanced hand, that it's always better to describe the unbalanced hand.

Sorry, but I have to call "rubbish" on this claim.

It is general knowledge that a 1NT bidder transfers captaincy to his partner unless his partner later asks for his help in the decision.

Could you please Quote the Quoter when you Quote, otherwise I have to scroll back up to find out who said what.

[awm]

Winstonm, on Aug 17 2009, 07:18 PM, said:

O.K., fine. Let's start with an routine opening 1N of 15-17 and fairly standard responses.

2C - Stayman. This does not show shape.
transfers: These are not designed to show shape.

Transfers are designed to show shape. You have auctions like:

1NT - 2♦(1)
2♥(2) - 3♣(3)

(1) I have hearts
(2) tell me more
(3) I have clubs also, and game-going strength

Now opener gets to decide what he thinks about his hand -- does he have a fit for either of responder's suits? Does he have stoppers in the pointed suits? Are his stoppers "fast cards" or "slow cards"? This pattern of responder describing is even more extreme if you play transfer extensions, where you might have what looks very much like a relay auction:

1NT - 2♦(1)
2♥(2) - 2NT(3)
3♣(4) - 3♠(5)

(1) I have hearts
(2) tell me more
(3) I have clubs also, and game strength
(4) tell me more
(5) spade fragment, so 3514 or similar (assuming natural style)

Basically you have sequences where after bidding 1NT, opener never makes another call that describes his shape. Responder describes his shape via a series of forcing bids and then opener places the contract.

It's true that stayman bucks this trend somewhat. But if you play puppet it's again responder doing most of the describing. And many of the other things people play over notrump involve responder describing (like three-level splinter bids for example).

The reason this approach is "right" is that selecting the proper contract often depends on the holding opposite a singleton. With slow cards (say KQTx) opposite a stiff you usually want to play in 3NT (and this can be right even with a major suit fit). With no values opposite a stiff (say xxx) 3NT is ridiculous and you can often make a slam on light values. With a weak holding (say Qxx) you normally want to avoid 3NT to play a major suit moysian or a minor suit game (i.e. avoid 3NT even if there's no major suit fit). Thus it makes sense for the person with the shapely hand to describe his shape so that partner can look at his honor structure and select the contract.

[Free]

Winstonm, on Aug 18 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

Quote

It's general knowledge that in case of a balanced hand vs an unbalanced hand, that it's always better to describe the unbalanced hand.

Sorry, but I have to call "rubbish" on this claim.

It is general knowledge that a 1NT bidder transfers captaincy to his partner unless his partner later asks for his help in the decision.

Your statement has nothing to do with what I said. Your statement about captaincy after a 1NT opener is "true", but mine is true in a general context. You assume I'm talking purely about a 1NT opener, while in fact my statement is also true after strong ♣ auctions and alike where you have 1 or 2 unlimited hands.

Why is yours only "true"? Because most of the time, captaincy is in fact transfered back to opener. This is so for invitational hands, but also in choice of games after a transfer, or after stayman. 1NT-2♦-2♥-3NT asks opener to pass or bid 4♥. 1NT-2♣-2♥-3NT asks opener to pass or bid 4♠. Etc.

The argumentation disappeared from the quote, but can you tell me what's wrong with that before calling common sense + experience with relays "rubbish"?

Just to add another argument:
Suppose you have a 5431 and partner describes his hand as a 2434. How can you evaluate your hand in a borderline case? If partner has ♣Axxx or xxxx it's great, if he has KQJx, KQxx or KJxx it's awful. On the other hand, if you described your hand as a 5431, partner will know what to do.

And another:
Why do you think NT systems concentrate more and more on showing responder's hand? I'm talking about transfer extensions, puppets, 4-card transfers, splinters,... It's easy to have full relays after a 1NT opening, not even having to give up on transfers, so why isn't anyone doing this at top level?

[Cascade]

Free, on Aug 19 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

Just to add another argument:
Suppose you have a 5431 and partner describes his hand as a 2434. How can you evaluate your hand in a borderline case? If partner has ♣Axxx or xxxx it's great, if he has KQJx, KQxx or KJxx it's awful. On the other hand, if you described your hand as a 5431, partner will know what to do.

This is precisely the sort of problem that is insoluble with the traditionaly captaincy theory that responder is the captain after 1NT.

That argument is only good for raises not distributional hands.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Your statement has nothing to do with what I said. Your statement about captaincy after a 1NT opener is "true", but mine is true in a general context. You assume I'm talking purely about a 1NT opener, while in fact my statement is also true after strong ♣ auctions and alike where you have 1 or 2 unlimited hands.

This all semantics. I said the same thing - unless responder invites opener back into the discussion. It still isn't captaincy. And in your examples you are not showing shape (which you argue is the ideal) but simply getting help chosing the best game.

Sorry, but I distinctly remember you using the phrase "balanced hand". NT hands a balanced hands. This whole discussion began with another person's claim that it is always better for the distributional hand to describe his shape to the balanced hand.

Again, I say nonsense - in standard bidding, anyway.

Quote

Why is yours only "true"? Because most of the time, captaincy is in fact transfered back to opener. This is so for invitational hands, but also in choice of games after a transfer, or after stayman. 1NT-2♦-2♥-3NT asks opener to pass or bid 4♥. 1NT-2♣-2♥-3NT asks opener to pass or bid 4♠. Etc.

Quote

The argumentation disappeared from the quote, but can you tell me what's wrong with that before calling common sense + experience with relays "rubbish"?

Because this thread dealt with standard bidding and not relay methods.

Quote

Just to add another argument:
Suppose you have a 5431 and partner describes his hand as a 2434. How can you evaluate your hand in a borderline case? If partner has ♣Axxx or xxxx it's great, if he has KQJx, KQxx or KJxx it's awful. On the other hand, if you described your hand as a 5431, partner will know what to do

.

Inviting partner to help make a choice is not the same as saying I must tell my partner my shape and he makes the complete decision.

Quote

And another:
Why do you think NT systems concentrate more and more on showing responder's hand? I'm talking about transfer extensions, puppets, 4-card transfers, splinters,... It's easy to have full relays after a 1NT opening, not even having to give up on transfers, so why isn't anyone doing this at top level?

Because the hand type is known with the nt bid.

Enough of this discussion. It makes no sense unless you are strongly seeking to implement relay structures into all sequences and trying to argue that this method is superior.

[Cascade]

I tried to estimate this.

I gave one hand a specific game going 5=1=4=3 opposite any Balanced hand.

The standard deviation for tricks in spades was 0.955707068

Second i started with a specific 3=4=3=3 opposite a random 5=1=4=3.

The standard deviation was then 0.829442584

Not surprisingly lower since 5=1=4=3 is more specific than any Balanced hand.

Next I looked at 5 spades and 1 heart and any minor distribution (which happens to mimic our system).

The standard deviation was 0.906209689 - still lower than the distributional hand judging.

Surprisingly I generalized a bit more to 5+ spades and 0-1 heart (0 only with exactly five spades) and the standard deviation was 0.864081015.

While the responder most certainly needs to be the captain for the initial decision - part-score, invite game, game, invite slam, slam. It seems that most definitely that opener is better placed to make the final decision.

[kenrexford]

Cascade, on Aug 18 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

I tried to estimate this.

I gave one hand a specific game going 5=1=4=3 opposite any Balanced hand.

The standard deviation for tricks in spades was 0.955707068

Second i started with a specific 3=4=3=3 opposite a random 5=1=4=3.

The standard deviation was then 0.829442584

Not surprisingly lower since 5=1=4=3 is more specific than any Balanced hand.

Next I looked at 5 spades and 1 heart and any minor distribution (which happens to mimic our system).

The standard deviation was 0.906209689 - still lower than the distributional hand judging.

Surprisingly I generalized a bit more to 5+ spades and 0-1 heart (0 only with exactly five spades) and the standard deviation was 0.864081015.

While the responder most certainly needs to be the captain for the initial decision - part-score, invite game, game, invite slam, slam. It seems that most definitely that opener is better placed to make the final decision.

I also tried crunching some numbers on this. I took the standard deviation ratio of the inverse of the par 0.50000, multiplied by the ratio of the number of cards in spades in the average deal where 1♠ is the opening, divided by the number of side suits expected to split 2-3 or 3-2 because of a secondary, but unknown, fit.

Using this figure, I then extrapolated the likelihood of a stiff emerging against each of the three top honors, and then combinations of the same, with an averaged deviation expectancy for the unknown values of lesser honors (using 8, 9, 10, and J at a surrogate value of .25, .33, .50, and 1 respectively), plus or minus from an average expectation of 3.33 (the average length of a suit when esponder has 4-3-3-3 and 3-card spade support) times the average spread of these cards that is expected (each suit having honors, or no honors, respectively).

I then cross-checked these figures to corroborate the valuations, discerning that ties to higher honors were less likely than originally inspected, in a sense because the high honors take a "space" in the grid of calculated occurrences.

This final figure was then tweaked by 0.125% off base, to gain a more realistic view of what is actually happening.

I then did the same process in reverse, to account for Opener-directed inquiry, as opposed to Responder-directed inquiry, alternatively Opener-show versus Responder-show (a term I think fits). Comparing these two results yielded interesting insights.

Primarily, I determined that Winston has no clue how to bid bridge hands and that Cascade is out of his mind.