[whereagles]

inquiry, on Oct 7 2004, 06:07 PM, said:

First, can you see why 3NT was wrong? Over 3♣ it is your duty to cue-bid your diamond control. If you can get that far, you are a long way towards improving your bidding, imo.

My duty is to make a bid that is descriptive and that partner will understand. I don't see what's wrong with that.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Oct 8 2004, 05:16 AM, said:

inquiry, on Oct 7 2004, 06:07 PM, said:

First, can you see why 3NT was wrong? Over 3♣ it is your duty to cue-bid  your diamond control. If you can get that far, you are a long way towards improving your bidding, imo.

My duty is to make a bid that is descriptive and that partner will understand. I don't see what's wrong with that.

What is wrong with it? You played in 4♠ with this pair of hands....

---

Now if we converted this to assess the blame question question, I would come down very hard on you.

[whereagles]

LOL

I guess you play bridge as an exact science. I play it to win.

[flytoox]

inquiry, on Oct 8 2004, 11:02 AM, said:

whereagles, on Oct 8 2004, 05:16 AM, said:

inquiry, on Oct 7 2004, 06:07 PM, said:

First, can you see why 3NT was wrong? Over 3♣ it is your duty to cue-bid  your diamond control. If you can get that far, you are a long way towards improving your bidding, imo.

My duty is to make a bid that is descriptive and that partner will understand. I don't see what's wrong with that.

What is wrong with it? You played in 4♠ with this pair of hands....

---

Now if we converted this to assess the blame question question, I would come down very hard on you.

Ben, I think 3N is a very nice bid, it perfectly draws the picture. Pd should be able to make a smart decision from 3N. I wont blame 3N, rather, I would say 4S is a very bad call.

Hongjun

[luke warm]

my thinking on this is that 3C was slammish... 2D shows real spade opener, 2S shows 3rd hand crap, other bids should be cues or 2nd suits to show at least slam interest

next, the 3nt bid promises a balanced hand with 3 card spade support AND stoppers in the red suits, which is what he has.. the problem with it is that partner has shown slam interest... i think 3D is better if you interpret 3C as slammish... pard knows you have a limit hand, yet he still wants to look... cooperate

[inquiry]

I gyess my "problem" with bidding a descriptive 3NT is that it is not at all descriptive. What you ask? Don't I have only three card support, don't I have 4-4 in the unbid red suits, don't i have 1.5 stoppers in both red suits? Isn;t 3NT the PERFECT descriptive bid for my hand?

The answer is no. You are bidding your hand, and not thinking about the auction. First, let's draw a distinction here. Was 3C only a game try or was it a slam try, game force. Ok, I will allow how if 3C was at most a game try, 3NT is ok as a reasponable shot (enough for game, balanced, red stoppers). I addressed this in my intial repy and my subsquent conversation with phil over what 3C means. However, assume for a minute that 3C was a slam try instead of a game try. Give partner 5-5, 6-5, or strong 5-4 in the blacks. Do you really think 3NT is the best bid? After you bid 3NT, you WILL NEVER HAVE A CHANCE to show your key club control. Partner will either pass, or he will bid, and you will be beyond the cue-bidding level of 4C. When you bid 3NT you are looking only at your own 13 cards, you are thinking "how do I show this hand" rather than "what does partner need to know".

I contend that once partner shows a black hand with 3♣, the best strategy is to cue-bid your cheapest control and plan to cue-bid 4♣ over partners next bid. This is the problem with bridge by the numbers. Sure, 3NT looks "reasonable". Balanced hand, good stoppers in the red suits, only three card support. What could be simplier? If bridge was simple we would all be excellent players.

As far as the problem being "north's" for bidding 4♠. I would take 3NT as the most discouraging bid my partner could make over 3♣, even worse than if he had bid 3♠. No way could I ever envision doubleton club king. Three small clubs, are much more likely, and slam would be AT BEST, on a club hook if partner had a doubleton small club and would have no play if he had three small clubs. So with this hand I too would have just bid 4S over 3NT.

Bridge is a partnership game.. try not to only bid your 13 cards, but try to envision your partners problem and desires, and construct bidding sequences where you can get him the information he needs.... 3NT just doesn't get the job done. You have to plan your auction.. show red suit control, planning on showing club control next. It is like chess, think two or three moves ahead.. not just one.

Ben

[whereagles]

Inquiry, while you do have point, I still don't agree that to bid 3NT you necessarily need something as tame as

Jxx
KQJx
QJxx
xx

Why should one overload other bids when 3NT is a perfectly reasonable pinpointing of where your values lie, and what your hand looks like? It is a first warning against going too far, which might be crucial if pard has another type of hand. After all, pard can still ask us for a re-evaluation by cueing on the way to 4S. And with this hand we'd be glad to oblige, of course.

Note also that if 3NT showed a hand so strict as the one above, there'd be almost no need for bids such as

pass 1S
2C 3C
3NT 4D

Of course, to widen the definition of this 3NT created problems on this particular hand, but might have kept the partnership away from a 5-level contract on a different layout. That also counts as good and winning bridge.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Oct 8 2004, 08:50 AM, said:

Inquiry, while you do have point, I still don't agree that to bid 3NT you necessarily need something as tame as

Jxx
KQJx
QJxx
xx

Why should one overload other bids when 3NT is a perfectly reasonable pinpointing of where your values lie, and what your hand looks like? It is a first warning against going too far, which might be crucial if pard has another type of hand. After all, pard can still ask us for a re-evaluation by cueing on the way to 4S. And with this hand we'd be glad to oblige, of course.

Note also that if 3NT showed a hand so strict as the one above, there'd be almost no need for bids such as

pass 1S
2C 3C
3NT 4D

Of course, to widen the definition of this 3NT created problems on this particular hand, but might have kept the partnership away from a 5-level contract on a different layout. That also counts as good and winning bridge.

Funny, I think the hand you drew up is the perfect 3NT bid over 3♣. 3NT wasn't the perfect pinpoint of where you values where. You held the club Kx which is a wonderful holding if your partner is thinking slam. In addition, I belive we both agree that your partner will ahve three aces if he is thinking possible slam opposite a passed hand, so at least one of your red kings will be working.

So with three working features for slam (Club king, doubleton club, and at least one red king), I can't imagine making such a negative, don't continue bid as 3NT. You are bidding just your hand pattern. This shows no imagination, this shows no caring for the message your partner tried to convey with 3C. this shows no concern that if you bid 3NT you will NEVER be able to show what is probably the most important feature in your hand (the club king) that will help your partner evaluate slam possibility. 3NT is simply not useful to a parnter who is exploring slam. Do you really think he has a strong balanced hand and would be looking for 6NT if you ahve a scattered 10 count and red suit stoppers? What do you open with a balanced 22/23 count? I suspect it is not 1S.

3NT is a bid without a plan. Or if it has a plan, it is, here, let partner figure out what to do, I told my story perfectly, balance hand, red suit stopers....... but you are asking him to figure it out without any real guidence from you. When I look at this hand over 3♣ I am thinkning HOW AM I GOING TO COOPERATE with partners initiative? What features do I have.. I have good club fitting card, and I have controls in both unbid suit... Let's start by showing my cheapest control, then I will show my club control.

Perhaps this is a difference in bidding philospophy... yours seems to be to find the best general descriptive bid for the cards you hold. That is a good strategy when you have nothing else to go on. But here, your partner is the captain, drury described you general values. Parnter seeked more information, and my view here is not stick my head in the sand and "describe" the general nature of my hand, but rather, tell partner specifically the kind of information I think his 3♣ request was looking for. That is, I try to find the most helpful bid, not the most descriptive. Biddign 3NT with the new hand you proposed (KQJx of hearts), is probably the most helpful and most descriptive.. but not so for the original hand.

So we will have to agree to disagree...as I have said enough about this one. My view is there from my initial response to your question. My bidding choices are most often the least popular and I am willing to accept that... this is why I play better with partners who understand my style of bidding... as you can imagine they are few and far between.

Ben

[whereagles]

It is a difference in bidding philosophy, yes. But not in the way you think. It's not

"Make the most descriptive bid possible" vs "Make the bid that is likely to help the most"

but rather

"Make a descriptive bid now, and re-evaluate later in light of what I already showed" vs "Bid all I have in one go and let pard make the decision"

Besides, let me tell you I posted this hand in another forum and nobody there argued against 3NT.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Oct 8 2004, 09:56 AM, said:

Besides, let me tell you I posted this hand in another forum and nobody there argued against 3NT.

On this I am not surprised. That, however, does not make the 3NT the "right" bid, it just makes it the popular bid. As I said, I am often a lone voice for many of the bids I make and explainations of why a bid is right, or wrong.

I think 3NT is clearly wrong. I have reasons and bridge logic to back up my belief, and this hand, the hand you showed, supports my view, and is a great example hand for why I bid the way that I do.

If 3♣ was a clear slam try (which by the way I think it should be), and if you posed the question on any forum (inlcuding this one or the other one), where you unambigiously stated 3♣ as a slam try, you would find that 3NT would now not be so popular a choice (it will still be the most poplular, but now it will lose a fair number of votes)...

The "confusion" over the right bid here is that 3♣ can be in standard drury a game try with club values or a slam try. If it is a game try only, then 3NT is CLEARLY correct. Your partner has expressed doubt about level (3 or 4) and perhaps strain (is 3NT playable). If 3♣ is a game try, the information your partner needs to know is exactly what you provided. But I have, as I said earlier, a view on game tries. I think they should start with the artificial 2♦ response (which shows minimum but sound opening), then make your game try with your second rebid. Even stain investigations (NT versus Spades) should start with 2♦ and then bid again over partner's 2♠ response. This sound approach allows the immediate 3♣ to be a clear, and unambigious slam try. If opener wanted to explore game chances and show clubs, he bids 2♦ then rebids 3♣. Simple, eloquent, easy, and consistent with the concept of normal drury. I reverse this process playing reverse drury.

Ben

PS.. besides, if it wasn't for alternative views on what bids mean, and why you should bid this way or that, there would be no need to post hands and ask bidding questions, would there?

[whereagles]

Actually, I didn't discuss with pard what 3C was. Though, as I said, we both agreed implicitly it should be slammish.

By the way, if there's anyone "wrong" here, that one is you. You should know better than assuming that there is only one way of looking at things.

[cherdano]

whereagles, on Oct 8 2004, 03:16 PM, said:

Actually, I didn't discuss with pard what 3C was. Though, as I said, we both agreed implicitly it should be slammish.

By the way, if there's anyone "wrong" here, that one is you. You should know better than assuming that there is only one way of looking at things.

Hi whereeagles,

you asked a question, and Ben gave you an answer. (A very convincing one IMHO btw.) He is just trying to explain at his best (which is, as usual, VERY good) why he thinks this way is best. Nobody forces you to follow his advice. Bridge is a free game. (Yeah I know, not really, the law book is pretty thick )

In another strategy game, where I could consider myself much closer to expert status than in bridge, I learnt after many years that you can always learn something from stronger players, however odd their advice seems to be. You learn how they think, and even if you don't follow their recommended move/bid, you can benefit from this.

No need to get personal here -- you asked for advice, and you got one. Now it's up to you what to do with it.

Are we all happy now?

Arend

[gabika73]

Thank you, Arend...
You saved some minutes for me. Was just going to write something similar, but you were faster. And I could not put it that nicely..;-)

Only one thing, where I think Ben went wrong, and that has nothing to do with hand-evaluation or bidding strategy.
(Classic) Drury uses the bid 2♦ to show subminimal hand, and 2M shows full opening strength.
Reverse Drury uses the bid 2M to show subminimal hand, and 2♦ shows full opening strength.


With reverse Drury, it is of course a partnership agreement whether bids above 2M show only INV hands, or are gameforcing, and therefore, looking for slam.

I like it when all INV hands (i.e. those that can accept a game-try) go thru 2♦, and bids above 2M show some extras towards slam. (Reversing this as Ben means you are playing a reverse continuation of Reverse Drury...;-))

And yes, this is why you must have an agreement about continuations before playing any conventions. When both are aware that a bid is really forward-going, one is much more prepared to evaluate holdings, and tell partner what she needs to know.

[inquiry]

gabika73, on Oct 8 2004, 12:47 PM, said:

Only one thing, where I think Ben went wrong, and that has nothing to do with hand-evaluation or bidding strategy.
(Classic) Drury uses the bid 2♦ to show subminimal hand, and 2M shows full opening strength.
Reverse Drury uses the bid 2M to show subminimal hand, and 2♦ shows full opening strength.

You are probably right.. like I said in the orginal post, I don't play drury this way... so I was trying to remember from my reading and so many years ago. But now that I see what you wrote, you seem correct that 2D is the subminimum opening (what a waste, 2M rebid with minimum or subminimum is good enough).... but no matter, 3C has to be very forward going.

As to my friend and my being "wrong", my being wrong about 2D here and 3D on the auction in question (if I am wrong ther) will not be the last time, I assure you. :-)

Ben

[flytoox]

cherdano, on Oct 8 2004, 04:31 PM, said:

whereagles, on Oct 8 2004, 03:16 PM, said:

Actually, I didn't discuss with pard what 3C was. Though, as I said, we both agreed implicitly it should be slammish.

By the way, if there's anyone "wrong" here, that one is you. You should know better than assuming that there is only one way of looking at things.

Hi whereeagles,

you asked a question, and Ben gave you an answer. (A very convincing one IMHO btw.) He is just trying to explain at his best (which is, as usual, VERY good) why he thinks this way is best. Nobody forces you to follow his advice. Bridge is a free game. (Yeah I know, not really, the law book is pretty thick )

In another strategy game, where I could consider myself much closer to expert status than in bridge, I learnt after many years that you can always learn something from stronger players, however odd their advice seems to be. You learn how they think, and even if you don't follow their recommended move/bid, you can benefit from this.

No need to get personal here -- you asked for advice, and you got one. Now it's up to you what to do with it.

Are we all happy now?

Arend

Well said. Though I still think 3N is not that bad, but Ben has his point(as always). More importantly, he spent time explaining all the details and thoughts go through his mind. I really hope this discussion focus on logic and nothing personall involved.

I learned a lot from Ben. Though I still have different opinion about this hand, I respect very much Ben's input here. His patience/interlligence deserves all our's respect.

HOngjun

[whereagles]

Look people, I understand Inquiry's point. I just do not see bidding in such a strict way as he does. Furthermore I explained why I see things differently and what my approach would be. It's all in my posts, if you care to read them. What I definitely find wrong is to think only one view is the "correct" one.

I should also say resent the way Inquiry dismissed my view as inferior. I would never have been so aggressive as he was, but I know this way to do things is common in the United States, so I don't blame him for that.

[luke warm]

ok, 3nt may or may not have been wrong or bad or whatever... i *still* think if i had opener's hand i'd look for slam over a limit raise, regardless...

i can't really imagine why 3c would be anything other than a slam try... so at the table, if i felt strongly (and i do) about that, i'd feel i had to cue the diamond... pard *knows* i have a limit raise, i told him... he's looking for bigger and better things... my hand isn't exactly chopped liver, so i'd cooperate

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Oct 8 2004, 05:53 PM, said:

Look people, I understand Inquiry's point. I just do not see bidding in such a strict way as he does. Furthermore I explained why I see things differently and what my approach would be. It's all in my posts, if you care to read them. What I definitely find wrong is to think only one view is the "correct" one.

I should also say resent the way Inquiry dismissed my view as inferior. I would never have been so aggressive as he was, but I know this way to do things is common in the United States, so I don't blame him for that.

Well, I will address these comments. First, my replies are directed at much more than you. My position is quite different from all the responses of the other users except Flame and Jimmy.

Let's review the answers to the original question.

Mauro - Pass, "the hand is rather poor"

Arend - Pass, "You have no surprises for him, neither a 9th trump nor a exceptional shape"

Ron - didn't even think bid or not was a serious question

jtfanclub - thought serious, but also pass was clear

HOngjun - thought 2Cl and 3NT showed your value. And later, he added "I think 3N is a very nice bid, it perfectly draws the picture."

Phil - " Now pard chooses 4♠; looks like a normal place to play. If 3♣ was some kind of slam try, certainly pard can find another call than 4♠.

So people where passing passively, and thinking that they had done all they could do. At least Flame hinted that you did something wrong when you bid 3NT, he said - "I don’t know what was 3nt, but you should have showed slam interest before, and if partner doesn’t like it, then let him play 4sp"

Like Flame, I thought you SHOULD HAVE SHOWN slam interest over 3♣, but I was more forceful in my initial response. First, I found the bid (5♠) that works wonders on this hand over 4♠, explained why I made the bid and came up with the two hands I was trying to separate between with this bid. But I wasn’t happy at having to bid 5♠. And I went further and EXPLICITLY stating what was wrong with 3NT bid which has to do with hand evaluation (I disagree obviously with Mauro and Arend hand evaluation).

I was surprised that such outstanding players as Ron and Phil and HOngjun didn't see the slam potential and agree with my analysis right away (in fact, at least HOngjun still doesn't totally agree). It is comforting that at leastJimmy - completely sees the concept "i think 3D is better if you interpret 3C as slammish... pard knows you have a limit hand, yet he still wants to look... cooperate "

So this hand is the perfect opportunity for me to discuss a bidding concept that I think is poorly understood, bolstered as it was by the fact that my "out there" answer (compared to all the others) was dead on correct. I think I explained, in multiple responses that I understand the world doesn't bid this way (but that they should). And for my efforts, as stated in my original post and the follow ups with Phil, what was your reply? (the part in your quote above that you "why [you] see things differently"

First you ignored completely the my concept that your 3NT bid was the real culprit on bidding the slam and used your partner's four spade bid as a way to blame him (since he didn't "cue bid 4D" -- your item number 2). Well, since you didn't even address my point about 3NT being the problem and compounded it by what seems making it your partners bad choice of 4S that caused me to restate my position, completing the logic for my choice (that was there in the very initial post)...

So in response, to my detail logic and long reply, how did you response to my view? If you had said that that 3♣ was game try only, I would accepted your reply (as in fact I had added in my reply). But your total answer defense to your 3NT bid was “My duty is to make a bid that is descriptive and that partner will understand. I don't see what's wrong with that.” That is it, the entire reply, and no reason why 3NT instead of 3♦ was "the bid that was descriptive".

To draw your attention back to “what is wrong with that” I showed the hand and the result. Clearly if you HAD cue-bid 3♦, and cue-bid 4♣ over your partner’s 3♥ cue-bid, your partner would have taken control and EASILY bid the slam. And what was your detailed response to that? It was to laugh ("lol") and make the pejorative comment that I bid “scientifically” and all you do is bid “winning bridge”. Again, failing to justify your bid or failing to discuss what is wrong with my logic.

Now surely at this point I was forceful in my replies, as I was trying to get a discussion of the merits of one approach versus the other. I was presenting an idea that is either unpopular or unknown (since others didn't reach the same conclusions as I did). While I frequnelty admitted that there are other views, I was certainly not going to get there by saying, "well 3NT is a good bid, but so is 3D, and if you bid 3D, you may still be able to get to 3NT" because after 3C, I am NEVER PLAYING 3NT. My “plan” is to cue-bid 4C... over 3H or 3S by partner. Note, over 3S by partner, 4C cue-bid will show not only club KING, but will also promise a control in hearts (since 3S would have denied one). Talk about absolutely descripitve. The concept here is that when bidding, you need a plan to present the information that your partner needs (or wants) to know. This concept is either hard or foreign to many people, because they are use to trying to figure out the "right bid" to describe what they hold, rather than to build an auction that allow you to present the most relevant information that your partner will need to know. Not a popular concept.. 95 out of 100 players will bid 3NT with your hand, maybe even more. But I am absolutely convinced it wrong. As Jimmy said, after your initial pass and drury raise, your partner knows you are very limited and yet he wanted to look for slam, so your RESPONSIBILITY is to cooperate as logically as you can. 3NT just doesn’t cut it.

I( am sorry you found this appoach as dismissive to your view. The fact is, at least I addressed your view, and explained, in great details, why I disagree with it. You simply never addressed my views, so I have a different opinion who was being dismissive. But I have a simple solution, I will no longer go out of my way to comment in details on any of your bids or plays. Instead I will simply give short, non-explained, non-defended answers. Perhaps this will be loss to others who might want to hear logical reasons for alternative approaches, but at least you will not feel dismissed.

Since you feel like you have been slighted here, should I delete this entire thread?

Ben

Ben

[whereagles]

Ahem.. look, rest assured I understand your point. Instead of discussing everything from top to bottom again, let me just summarize a thing or two. As I said, there are two ways of looking at it:

1. I bid hand type first. There's time to show my good controls later.
2. I bid my controls right now, since that's what's more likely to interest pard.

I think both views are equally valid and efficient approaches on the long run, and one can argue equally well for both. One should just discuss with pard which to use.

Mind you, at table I didn't have any agreement with pard, so I wasn't sure which way he expected me to bid. I actually thought about 1 min whether to bid 3NT or 3D, and another 2 mins after his 4S , so it wasn't a decision on the spur of the moment (is this how you say it?).

As for the "acid bit" of the discussion, you can let it be. Anyone who discusses stuff over the Internet must get used to some flames

[luke warm]

i'm not arguing with you, all i'm saying is that in this case you can do both... right? you're below 3nt and 3nt does tend to stop further bidding