[bluecalm]

Quote

Well I don't really know how to quantify this, but I think that this is a hand that will be very easy to make a bad lead/misdefend.

Like they might lead a club pretty often (partner opened diamonds), or maybe they'll try a trump, or in general maybe they'll misdefend because our hand is well disguised (never bidding our good 6 card suit). I suspect a diamond is almost always their best lead to tap our hand but that might be difficult to ever figure out.

Of course it's MP so 170 might do well but I think everyone might have the same troubles defending.

Basically this is the type of hand where I'd expect to have a significant edge over a double dummy simulation.

Thanks for this post.

Quote

Your simulation is unfair to yourself though since I assume you open at least some balanced 11s in precision, and even though we might stop in 3 opposite that theres a chance 3 goes down which is a gain for not game trying.

Well, it's a bit unfair the other way around. The purpose was to see how often I will make game opposite hands which accept an invite and probably not all balanced 12's do

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on May 22 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

gnasher, on May 21 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 21 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

Playing completely standard methods:

1D 1S
2S 3C
3D 3S
P

What would your auction be if responder had Q98xx Kx xx KQTx ?

If I didn't bid 1D 1S 2S 4S (that's what I'd bid at imps dunno at MP maybe that's too cavalier?), I'd certainly bid 4S over 3D. To me 3D shows extra values. Not perfect since you never clarify whether you have 3 or 4 spades if you're min but that's why I play an asking bid usually. If I didn't bid 4S I would certainly bid at least 3H over which partner should bid 3N imo (which I'd correct to 4S) or 4S.

Justin, this approach seems dubious.

It seems like there are two very good arguments for why it is more important to indicate the 3-piece hand (unknown whether min or max) rather than to leave the with-a-minimum length unknown. In other words, to have 3♦ show 3-piece, unknown strength, rather then 3-piece maximum with 3♠ unknown strength.

First, when length is unimportant (Responder has five spades), you blast game on marginals anyway. When 4-3, you get hesitant even opposite a maximum.

Second, Opener can bid 3♦...3NT if he wants with the maximum, unless Responder passes, in which case that's probably right anyway.

[Fluffy]

just for something new

1♦-1♠
1NT-2♣
2♦-3♣
3NT

[Jlall]

kenrexford, on May 22 2010, 07:52 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 22 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

gnasher, on May 21 2010, 07:19 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 21 2010, 09:43 PM, said:

Playing completely standard methods:

1D 1S
2S 3C
3D 3S
P

What would your auction be if responder had Q98xx Kx xx KQTx ?

If I didn't bid 1D 1S 2S 4S (that's what I'd bid at imps dunno at MP maybe that's too cavalier?), I'd certainly bid 4S over 3D. To me 3D shows extra values. Not perfect since you never clarify whether you have 3 or 4 spades if you're min but that's why I play an asking bid usually. If I didn't bid 4S I would certainly bid at least 3H over which partner should bid 3N imo (which I'd correct to 4S) or 4S.

Justin, this approach seems dubious.

It seems like there are two very good arguments for why it is more important to indicate the 3-piece hand (unknown whether min or max) rather than to leave the with-a-minimum length unknown. In other words, to have 3♦ show 3-piece, unknown strength, rather then 3-piece maximum with 3♠ unknown strength.

First, when length is unimportant (Responder has five spades), you blast game on marginals anyway. When 4-3, you get hesitant even opposite a maximum.

Second, Opener can bid 3♦...3NT if he wants with the maximum, unless Responder passes, in which case that's probably right anyway.

Hey Ken, I'm sure you're right but if you're going to make an artificial 3D bid showing 3 spades any strength then you're probably at the point where you use 2N as an asking bid heh. If you're playing with someone who cannot handle any artificiality then it makes sense to me to use 3S as any minimum since that seems "natural" to me and is what happens over game tries with less room (so it's symmetrical).

[kenrexford]

Fair point.

[OleBerg]

1♦ - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
2NT - 3♣
3NT/Pass

Honest.

[cherdanno]

OleBerg, on May 22 2010, 01:52 PM, said:

1♦ - 2♣
2♦ - 2♠
2NT - 3♣
3NT/Pass

Honest.

If 2♣ isn't gameforcing then it's the obvious bid I think. However, in your auction I would pass or bid 3S as opener, never 3N.

[Fluffy]

If 2♣ ain't GF it isn't so obvious either since bidding a reverse later might be GF for you. That's my case at least.

[OleBerg]

Fluffy, on May 22 2010, 10:34 PM, said:

If 2♣ ain't GF it isn't so obvious either since bidding a reverse later might be GF for you. That's my case at least.

That would be standard.

I play it as only 10+ though. In part because opener has an artificial GF in 2NT available on the second round. So openers secom bid shows a minimum, and responder will rarely need to establish more than a one-round-force.

[Dirk Kuijt]

Well, playing "little canape" (and not showing it to best effect), it would go:

1♥-1[S]
2♦

1♥ is a four card heart suit, which may have a longer second suit. 1♠ over 1 ♥ is a Kaplan interchange, showing, essentially, a forcing 1NT bid without 5 spades. 2♦ is the long suit.

At this point, responder has a serious problem: Try to get back to opener's major, get to NT, or just try to stay low on misfits by passing. My tendency is to pass.

Yes,I know that neither of us has bid spades in the natural sense, and so staying in a 5-1 can not be optimum. OTOH, we are still low, which has its own advantages.

[Codo]

I play 14-16 NT as well and as this hand is not rebiddable after 1 Spade from partner, I had tried 1 Nt and finished in 3 NT like he did.