Stronger Hand v. less described hand Which should be declarer
#1
Posted 2004-November-01, 06:27
Sometimes a system can achieve both. But where this can not happen, which do you think is more important?
Eric
#2
Posted 2004-November-01, 06:43
As an aside, given that all things are equal, is it better to have the long trump hand declaring or on the table?
#3
Posted 2004-November-01, 08:27
But the main purpose of transfers is to preserve bidding space by reserving the more economic minor suit bids for the more useful major suits. Exept in competion, where you may want the overcaller to lead, declarership is not so important.
#4
Posted 2004-November-01, 09:18
If you know absolutely NOTHING about declarer, the defense is twice as though. If you however know something about his hand, then there's not much use of hiding a weak hand. As long as declarer has some values, it's better to hide the unknown hand and let opps look surprized from time to time
In other words: NONE OF THE ABOVE.
#5
Posted 2004-November-01, 09:26
#7
Posted 2004-November-01, 12:11
I think there is a dimension missing to this question, being the level of opponents. If you are playing in a local club game, few people are counting out the hand, even when you open a NT. But in "good" events, lets say A/X nationals, everyone is counting.
My answer would depend on the field. I want the strong hand in hand in a weak field. In a strong field I want the undifined hand in hand.
Brian
#8
Posted 2004-November-01, 12:25
If one hand is very weak, it needs to be dummy.
I claim that honor partials are more important than either. If you have Axx across Qx, the hand works much better if the Qx is declarer. Doesn't matter which hand has more points, or is more defined. Having an opponent lead around to your partial is often the difference between making or being set.
#10
Posted 2004-November-01, 13:02
jtfanclub, on Nov 1 2004, 06:25 PM, said:
If one hand is very weak, it needs to be dummy.
I claim that honor partials are more important than either. If you have Axx across Qx, the hand works much better if the Qx is declarer. Doesn't matter which hand has more points, or is more defined. Having an opponent lead around to your partial is often the difference between making or being set.
This is true, but it only gains if the King is wrong; and also, even if you do arrange for the Qx to be declarer, the hand must be such that the player not on lead can't get in later in the play and successfully broach the suit from there.
Especially in part score hands the chances are that both opponents will be able to lead at some point in the hand.
Eric
#11
Posted 2004-November-01, 13:24
EricK, on Nov 1 2004, 02:02 PM, said:
Maybe it's because of the level of the opponents, but often if the opponent leads something because he can't lead into my Axx across Qx, when the other opponent gets in he doesn't know to lead that suit.
Also, while double-dummy I might make the same tricks if the king is onside, in reality I may not be able to do so- I might not have sufficient entries, or I may not be able to afford for them to clear the suit if I'm wrong.
#12
Posted 2004-November-06, 03:58
Part of what got me thinking about this were auctions like
1NT 3NT
1NT 2♦ 2♥ 3NT
1NT 4♦ 4♥
1NT 2♣ 2♥ 4♥
1NT 2♣ 2♦ 3NT
and similar auctions beginning 2NT
Here, as soon as dummy goes down, the defense has an excellent idea of the whole hand. At MP they know whether they should be trying to defeat the contract or restrict declarer to eg eleven tricks. At IMPs they know whether they have to take desperate measures to defeat it, or whether passive defense is called for.
It seems to me to be a fundamental mistake from the point of view of bidding theory for one hand to limit itself so much in shape and strength AND to arrange for that hand to be declarer in so many auctions.
Are there any systems which try to avoid these problems (by not opening or rebidding NT on balanced hands with a well defined HCP range)?
Could a useable one be designed?
Eric
#13
Posted 2004-November-06, 06:27
#14
Posted 2004-November-06, 08:42
#15
Posted 2004-November-06, 09:21
but if the bidding goes (in standard), 1d/1s/2nt now i think i'd rather the strong hand declare, if possible
#16
Posted 2004-November-06, 09:24
Having the unknown hand as declarer is essential
#17
Posted 2004-November-06, 10:21
So they go part of the way, but still have the problem I highlighted.
Eric
#18
Posted 2004-November-06, 11:14
EricK, on Nov 6 2004, 07:21 PM, said:
So they go part of the way, but still have the problem I highlighted.
Eric
I've never analyzed this specifically, however, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the auction
1N - (P) - P - (P) is a damn sight more common than either
1♥ - (P) - P - (P) or 1♠ - (P) - P - (P)
I am a very firm believer that preemptive bids should be "natural" so that Responder can pass the suit opened with a high frequency. The same holds true for MOSCITO's 11+ - 14 HCP NT opening.
#19
Posted 2004-November-06, 13:09
hrothgar, on Nov 6 2004, 05:14 PM, said:
EricK, on Nov 6 2004, 07:21 PM, said:
So they go part of the way, but still have the problem I highlighted.
Eric
I've never analyzed this specifically, however, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the auction
1N - (P) - P - (P) is a damn sight more common than either
1♥ - (P) - P - (P) or 1♠ - (P) - P - (P)
I am a very firm believer that preemptive bids should be "natural" so that Responder can pass the suit opened with a high frequency. The same holds true for MOSCITO's 11+ - 14 HCP NT opening.
This adds another factor to the equation.
A weak NT does act as a pre-empt, and it may be that this factor is more important than making the "described" hand dummy.
Eric
#20
Posted 2004-November-07, 06:37
Imo NT is a necessary evil, you can't make a perfect system which rightsides the contract EVERY time, you can only increase the frequency of getting the right hand to play, usually by using transfer or reversed responses over relays.
Take Jimmy's NT structure for example: 2♦ is a GF relay, which asks about opener's shape. You can answer natural which will usually make opener (and known hand, and the weak hand) declarer, but if you reverse the responses (2♥ shows ♠s, 2♠ shows ♥, and 3-level bids try to transfer ♣) responder has A LOT more chance of becomming declarer. Not always, but pretty frequent.