Bid After 1S Response
basis_co...@hotmail.com
You are East. Dealer is South. Duplicate scoring, nobody
vulnerable. Assume standard Amer. bidding, not playing
2/1.
The hand:
J 7 5 3
K Q 3 2
(Void)
K Q J 5 4
Bidding is as follows:
S W N E
P P P 1C
P 1S P ?
Despite the fact that my partner passed, the 8+ spade fit, my
void in diamonds and strong club suit leads me believe that
we likely have game in spades.
What is the best second bid that I can make? What would
2S or 3S mean?
Thanks,
QZ
Nick France
well in simple terms
2S = 13-15 points in support of spades
3S = 16-18 points in support of spades
4S = 19+ points in support of spades
This is a very good hand in support of spades. Using a point count
system for an old book ('Five Weeks to Winning Bridge') You have 12
HCP + 5 points for the void in diamonds + 1 point for a Jack in
partner's suit. That is 18 points and makes this a 3s bid. Using
Losing Trick count you have 5 losers which is equivalent to the 19+
point hand and would make this a 4S bid.
By any standard this hand is too good for 2S. My choice is 3S as any
values partner has in diamonds are wasted. However, having said that
4S isn't a terrible bid while 2S is.
Nick France
Raija D
<basis_co...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4870f60-f388-4a2a...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
=======
Standard uncomplicated meanings for various bids:
Pass means you have 3-card spade support and no chance for game opposite a
maximum passed hand.
2S means you have 4-card spade support and minimum, possibly bulky 3-card
support and a ruffing value in singleton or doubleton.
3S means you want to invite game.
4S means you probably have enough for game opposite a minimum 5-6HCP.
Now you will just look at your hand and judge what the plan should be. 3S
looks obvious.
pgmer6809
Even though you are not playing 2/1, you can treat a jump to 3D as a
mini-splinter (non G/F).
Since 2D would be a reverse and forcing, 3D (an unnecessary jump)
should show a splinter.
If you are playing this treatment, then 3S would show a balanced 16-18
suppt pts for spades,
while 3D would show diamond shortness and 16-18 support points.
Partner can bid 3S or 4S depending on how his hand fits diamond
shortness opposite.
pgmer6809
Will in New Haven
In standardish methods, a raise to two would show 13-16 dummy points
in support of Spades.
A raise to three would show 16-18 dummy points, sixteen only if you
like the hand. This range should be kept narrow, as partner cannot
make a game try but must make a game/no game decision.
A raise to four would be stronger.
Now let us evaluate the hand. You have twelve HCP and the void is
worth five or so points when accompanied by four-card support. In
addition, the length of the strong Club suit is worth something. So
this is at least a good sixteen and most systems would count it 17-18.
Obviously, it is too good for 2S.
It is possible to assign enough value for that Club suit to make the
hand too strong for 3S. It is also tempting to bid beyond 3S because
partner won't evaluate his hand perfectly. Your void is the kind of
holding that makes his evaluation more difficult. However, that Spade
suit is too weak for me to want to bid more than 3S and that is what I
would bid.
--
Will in New Haven
boblipton
Well, that all depends on what 1 Spade means. The rule of thumb in
my partnership is that partner does not have four spades and five
diamonds, but that certainly doesn't apply in a random auction.
The opponents' quiet is both encouraging -- tending to show extras in
partner's hand -- and disquieting -- with 13 diamonds in three hands,
no one has seen fit to bid diamonds, indicating length in partner's
hand -- which is good for ruffing -- but also wastage.\
Finally, a fourth-suit opener and raise tends to be fully valued.
Bidding 3 Spades would make partner simply count his points and be
likely to count wastage in diamonds as enough to move on to game.
This being the case, I would rather simply bid 2 Spades and leave any
further move to partner.
Bob
Will in New Haven
Are you sure you wouldn't rather pass? I play Weak NT and might be
able to justify a raise to two-only but this hand is too good for a
single raise in standard methods and it would be an underbid in my
methods. Someone suggested playing a 3D bid as showing four Spades,
Diamond shortness and the values for a raise to three. That would be
great because partner would know how to evaluate his hand. However, I
don't think "You should play these methods or that convention" is
usually all that helpful.
Derek Broughton
Partner should have 8-10 losers, you have 5. Against a 10 loser hand and
some 9 loser hands, you probably _won't_ make game, but this is certainly
worth an invite. 3S.
--
derek
henry...@yahoo.com
One of my rules is that hands with voids require aggressive action.
After all, a hand as weak as
AQxxx
xx
xxx
xxx
might be enough for game.
So I would bid 3s and would not bid 5s for fear that partner, holding
AQxxx
xx
AKx
xxx
might bid 5d in search for a slam and take us overboard.
I also want more overcall HCP strength to bid 4d.
Henrysun909
Player
Raija D
"pgmer6809" <pgme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e9b5bdd-ebf8-4825...@b1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
=======
Good advice, but in wrong place.
Considering this hand was posted and that OP does not know what 2S and 3S
mean, I am 100% certain that they
a) do not play splinters and b) they certainly would not play - or
recognize - a minisplinter.
Eric Leong
wrote:
Certainly, an entertaining partnership.
Eric Leong
>
> I also want more overcall HCP strength to bid 4d.
>
> Henrysun909- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
castigamatti
Your best opening bid was a Precision 2D, now if you have a way of
showing the pseudo singleton this is the way to go, albeit you might
go down at the three level when partner is minimum and with wasted
values. Most of the time you'll have either a nine card fit or a club
+spade double-fit, the problem lies in the weak spades but this might
not be a problem if partner is holding ace fifth in spades.
BR
Keith Giddings
<basis_co...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4870f60-f388-4a2a...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
With 12 points H + 1 point L (5th Club) + 3 points D (3 for the void) you
have 16 points. I'd invite to game with 3S showing 16+ points HLD.
Regards
Keith.
OldPalooka
I understand the popular 3S bid, in a simple system it is the best bid
for game. But I think it is the wrong bid because it is definitely an
overstatement for slam. I suspect partner has a good hand when I have
no aces, no diamonds, only 12 HCP, and the opponents are passive, and
he is quite likely to be disappointed at the 5 level with my meager
controls and poor trumps.
So I would make the underbid of 2S, trusting partner or the opponents
will give me another chance to bid. If it is the opponents and they
balance us into a making game, I hope it is not the last board.
-- Bill Shutts
henry...@yahoo.com
My bad - should have read "would not bid 4s [not 5s]..."
Henrysun909
Lorne
news:a4870f60-f388-4a2a...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
The hand is too good for 2S - just KQxxx of spades andf a bust is enough for
you to want to be in game.
3S is my choice on line (and 4S my second choice) but surely with a good
partner 3D is the bid. Nobody has suggested it so far so does that mean
that a jump in a reverse suit is not a splinter raise to the 3 level for
most of you?
Will in New Haven
> <basis_consult...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
It has been suggested. And it has been discussed. It comes under the
heading "change your system and you won't have this problem," which
usually isn't a good first approach to a begginner's question. On the
other hand, lots of us play it that way.
castigamatti
Between 2S and 3S I would have chosen 2S. Partner can't expect a void,
but I really don't have much to offer other than that void and it is
difficult to believe that they won't balance in diamonds when we have
nothing wasted there, albeit it is possible.
BR
Will in New Haven
If RHO does balance and you bid 3S, do you expect partner to bid game?
If so, how do you ever compete with the knowledge that there is no
game your way? I have seen this suggested before and I don't think it
is good partnership bridge. If I make a limit bid and my partner
passes we are not bidding game later. If we had a game we already
would have bid it.
Now, bidding game yourself over a 3D balancing bid does have some
appeal.
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
And if partner has Axxx, Jxx, Axx, xxx, he'll raise 3S to 4 without a
thought, and have no play at all.
So what?
The point, folks, is that it requires only *some* measurable
duplication in diamonds, not *massive* duplication, for an invitation
by opener to backfire.
And all of you pointcounters are neglecting to subtract a point for no
aces.
Carl
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
Passing low and bidding game after the balance is a wonderful ploy,
almost a Grosvenor. Unfortunately, like a Grosvenor, it doesn't do
you any good in a 2- or 3-board round.
Carl
castigamatti
wrote:
You need a nine card fit and some aces, if partner is 5332 and is
holding two aces, he can always bid 3C himself. I don't see it as a
big problem really. Not a 3S call in my opinion.
It is a limited opening bid, a Precision 2D, moreover no aces, a
perfect limited opening bid with a minor inconvenience, the side void.
BR
Eddy
3S
Bergen Total Points = 12 + 4(with a void count the number of trumps)
+1(5-card in C) +1 (3+ out of 5 honors in 4-card or longer
suit[clubs]) -1 (Quacky) = 17, 3S shows 17-19 dummy points
Eddy
castigamatti
Yes but there are 8 trumps so far. Everything looks quacky to me in
this approximation of yours, but what do I know.
BR
Will in New Haven
It has one major resemblance to a Grovner. It's an error. And it
doesn't do any good in a long match either, unless the opponents are
the kind you can tilt by making an error and breaking even because
they don't play you for an error. The raise to only two isn't
_necessarily_ an error on this hand because some people play a raise
to two inclusive of values like this. But that is easier playing Weak
NT.
I have balanced and "pushed" the opponents to game and gone on without
a worry. My competent teammates bid their game. No swing.
Will in New Haven
And if the minor inconvenience nets you ten tricks, no game bonus. I
could see raising only to two with an aggressive partner, especially
if you weren't playing Strong NT, but three isn't an error.
Richard Pavlicek
: KQ32
: --
: KQJ54
:
: 1C P 1S P
: ?
Carl noted (after a raise to 3S):
> And if partner has Axxx, Jxx, Axx, xxx, he'll raise 3S to 4
> without a thought, and have no play at all.
> The point, folks, is that it requires only *some* measurable
> duplication in diamonds, not *massive* duplication, for an
> invitation by opener to backfire.
Certainly true, but a better philosophy (at least for games) is:
If you can't determine the presence/lack of duplication, go long.
I consider 3S routine.
> And all of you pointcounters are neglecting to subtract a point
> for no aces.
But didn't Goren also recommend adding a point for the SJ?
To me, the hand is worth 17, right in the middle of my 16-18
total-point range of 3S. Serious bridge evokes enough problems
without manufacturing one here.
--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: http://www.rpbridge.net
Andrew
Count me in Bill's camp. My partners always hold: Kxxx, xx, AQTx, xxx
when I bid 3S on hands like this.
Andrew
Nick France
>
> - Show quoted text -
And He'll raise to 4 with Axxx Axx Jxx xxx and Axxx Jxx xxx Axx. He
will pass 2S with both of these hands. That's 2 to one in favor of
the raise (and yes I know I still need trump 3-2)
Nick France
OldPalooka
wrote:
Yes, it depends on how he balances that will determine whether I
compete or COMPETE. Masterminding am I, to balance the force [bad
pun]. I am willing to lay a comfortable 2 to 1 they won't have a
chance to balance if they are not already in the bidding.
-- Bill
Andrew
Spoken like a true Jedi master.
Andrew
Andrew
Not really. On the auction, partner is more likely to have diamond
length/wastage than useful cards in a rounded suit. If partner held
your examples, then the opponents might have bid diamonds already and
will probably bid them soon before the auction is over.
Andrew
Derek Broughton
> Spoken like a true Jedi master.
But who would ever _bet_ with a Jedi master?
--
derek
Nick France
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why, they have the same number of points and the same number of
diamonds. I don't buy into that argument.
Nick France
Eddy
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Obviously you have no clue whatsoever who Bergen is, hardly surprising
if you even can't count trumps.
Eddy
castigamatti
Don't tell me. A Norwegian?
BR
Andrew
If partner has a weak diamond holding like Jxx, then one opponent will
often have a diamond holding strong enough to overcall/preempt. If
instead partner has a diamond holding like AQTx then an opponent will
hold diamonds good enough to overcall or preempt far less often. Given
that the opponents did not overcall, the relative probability that
partner holds length and strength in diamonds is increased.
If partner holds only one ace, it is clearly more likely to be the
diamond ace than the club ace or heart ace. The chance he holds the
diamond ace may in fact be more likely than the combined chance he
holds the club or heart aces.
Andrew
castigamatti
Bad luck. There are also some hands that I would have gladly opened
with a forcing bid. Bad luck again.
BR
judyorcarl
Just as the opponents don't bid with the purpose of easing your
bidding decisions, they also don't *pass* with that purpose.
In fact, I believe opponents' bids are signicantly more reliable bases
for inferences than their passes.
For that matter, your *partner's* passes are not very good bases for
inference. Unless you have an explicit agreement not to pass with
this or that specific holding; and you can remember the conversation
when it was agreed.
Carl
Adam Beneschan
I did deduct a point. That's why I only bid 3S!! :)
-- Adam
Eric Leong
wrote:
> On Feb 7, 11:01 pm, Eric Leong <ewleong...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 8:23 pm, "henrysun...@yahoo.com" <henrysun...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 1:14 pm, "basis_consult...@hotmail.com"
>
> > > <basis_consult...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
>
> > > > You are East. Dealer is South. Duplicate scoring, nobody
> > > > vulnerable. Assume standard Amer. bidding, not playing
> > > > 2/1.
>
> > > > The hand:
>
> > > > J 7 5 3
> > > > K Q 3 2
> > > > (Void)
> > > > K Q J 5 4
>
> > > > Bidding is as follows:
>
> > > > S W N E
>
> > > > P P P 1C
> > > > P 1S P ?
>
> > > > Despite the fact that my partner passed, the 8+ spade fit, my
> > > > void in diamonds and strong club suit leads me believe that
> > > > we likely have game in spades.
>
> > > > What is the best second bid that I can make? What would
> > > > 2S or 3S mean?
>
> > > > QZ
>
> > > One of my rules is that hands with voids require aggressive action.
> > > After all, a hand as weak as
>
> > > AQxxx
> > > xx
> > > xxx
> > > xxx
>
> > > might be enough for game.
>
> > > So I would bid 3s and would not bid 5s for fear that partner, holding
>
> > > AQxxx
> > > xx
> > > AKx
> > > xxx
>
> > > might bid 5d in search for a slam and take us overboard.
>
> > Certainly, an entertaining partnership.
>
> > Eric Leong
>
> > > I also want more overcall HCP strength to bid 4d.
>
> > > Henrysun909- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Henrysun909- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Something else too.
Eric Leong
Travis Crump
Asking what 3S means isn't necessarily a beginner's question. Because
of the hole created by the absence of strong NT raises, assuming you are
playing strong NT, it is not at all obvious that 3S and 2S need be
contiguous in range. Indeed, if you are also playing mini-splinters,
and I would suggest springing 'bigger reverse' on partner is liable to
be more confusing than mini-splinters, playing 3S as 16-18 dummy points
or so as you said is going to be exceedingly rare: bad 4333 18 counts
you didn't see fit to downgrade since no one ever downgrades, and 14-16
4225s. Better would be to play 3S as 18-19 balanced and mini-splinter
into your worthless doubleton with 4225, or perhaps only ever
mini-splinter into one suit to keep the other more reliable. But wait,
what do we do when there aren't enough/any mini-splinters available?
There are solutions but they involve increasing amounts of artifice. It
truly is a thorny problem.
Travis
Andrew
But their passes have that affect.
> In fact, I believe opponents' bids are signicantly more reliable bases
> for inferences than their passes.
Pass likely means that neither opponent holds seven or even six good
diamonds, or 5 good diamonds and a few cards. Their values could be
distributed between them so that neither was worth a call despite
having a strong combined diamond holding, so pass does not create a
100% inference of wastage. However the negative inference provided by
their passes does shift the odds significantly in favor of partner
having outside stuff in diamonds. If you want to see it do the
following:
1. generate 100 random hands consistent with a 1S call for partner
along with E-W hands.
2. calculate the percentage of hands where partner holds 3+ points in
diamonds
3. Now toss out all hands where in your opinion an opponent would have
bid diamonds
4. Now recalculate the percentage of hands where partner holds 3+
points in diamonds
The percentage you calculate in 4 will be higher than in 2--
significantly higher. It wont be 100% of course, but that does not
mean its not useful information.
> For that matter, your *partner's* passes are not very good bases for
> inference. Unless you have an explicit agreement not to pass with
> this or that specific holding; and you can remember the conversation
> when it was agreed.
Suppose you are dealt a 4-4-3-2 16 count as dealer. There is some
chance (X) that your side can make a slam. We don't know what that it
is, but we can agree that on some percentage of hands slam will be
cold.
Now move around to 3rd chair. Holding the same hand, it should be
clear slam chances have declined from X to X - Y because many of the
hands on which slam makes are excluded by partner's pass.
Negative inferences from lack of bids are still valid inferences even
if they dont offer the same degree of certainty as inferences from
bids.
Andrew
jonathan23
> Hi,
>
> You are East. Dealer is South. Duplicate scoring, nobody
> vulnerable. Assume standard Amer. bidding, not playing
> 2/1.
>
> The hand:
>
> J 7 5 3
> K Q 3 2
> (Void)
> K Q J 5 4
>
>
> Bidding is as follows:
>
> S W N E
>
> P P P 1C
> P 1S P ?
>
> Despite the fact that my partner passed, the 8+ spade fit, my
> void in diamonds and strong club suit leads me believe that
> we likely have game in spades.
>
> What is the best second bid that I can make? What would
> 2S or 3S mean?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> QZ
The simplest systemic bid is 3S - it says "partner, if you have about
2-3 points more than the rock-bottom minimum you promised with your
last bid, we may have a shot at game". It doesn't always pay off, but
if you don't have any other clubs in your bag you'll probably get a
reasonable result doing things that way and have some company.
As others better than I have pointed out, some things can go wrong
whether or not the invite is accepted. Partner's spades could be
terrible. The breaks could be bad. The diamond void could be a
problem, especially since nobody else has bid diamonds. If some of
partner's values are in diamonds they can be worthless (unless it's
Axxx). But I think that your clubs might make up for some of that. I
would be willing to make an attempt on this one, and I wouldn't
criticize anyone for trying this were I sitting across from them.
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa CANADA
Derek Broughton
> For that matter, your *partner's* passes are not very good bases for
> inference. Unless you have an explicit agreement not to pass with
> this or that specific holding; and you can remember the conversation
> when it was agreed.
At that point, what _you_ can remember is only important for the post-mortem
- the question is whether your partner remembers...
--
derek
castigamatti
It is kind of funny when you think about it. It is a jam out there,
not that I suspect some lost souls to be in diamonds and spades. I am
sure we can imagine the remaining honors in that jammy bus to be in
hearts and clubs as well, nevertheless it is strange hearing partner
not inviting despite everything. Something like S KQxxx H Jx D xxx C
Axx comes to mind. Does he really pass?
Oh well...
"I have a simple philosophy: Fill what's empty. Empty what's full.
Scratch where it itches." ~Alice Roosevelt Longworth
BR
castigamatti
Actually a club lead in the first case and a heart lead in the second
example hand are endangering the success of the contract. Also at this
vulnerability playing a weak NT range makes sense and it is easy to
understand a 3C from partner with the aforementioned hands. Also
opener is not likely to raise to 2S with three card support and no
side singleton.
BR
henry...@yahoo.com
Since the only options left are 2s and 3s, a bid Richard describes as
'routine,' one can only surmise that you support 2s, an opinion
implied without any support. Can't say that's not typical, of course.
Henrysun909
castigamatti
Siete proprio superficiali, non significa niente. Quando diventerete
uomini? Quando avrete un'opinione?
BR
Will in New Haven
Waarom ga je niet proberen Nederlands sinds uw italina geen zin.
castigamatti
castigamatti
Ever been in New York 'New Haeven'?
:-)
BR
Will in New Haven
Several times a year, if you mean New York City. Even more often if
you include the whole state. It is, after all, the place where one can
get the second-best Italian food, after New Haven.
I understand that there is some passable Italian food in Italy.
castigamatti
Ohoho. Passable. The best.
lol
BR
castigamatti
Nevertheless I am an Italian born in Croatia. Not that this changes
anything. The sea is somewhat cleaner here and beautiful as once in
Italy was. Good wine, good food and so on an on.
:-)
BR
castigamatti
Ever heard of Sergio Endrigo? I wonder...
:-)
BR
castigamatti
Raimondo Vianello? Funny really.
BR
judyorcarl
It's important for more than the PM. Unless you remember the
conversation, you risk making a consistency inference: "This is like
that other thing we have an agreement about; for consistency,
therefore, we must also be playing ..."
You would think that consistency inferences would be valid at least
half the time. Somehow, they're not.
Carl
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
The question is what is the rock bottom minimum 1S response.
If you are following the current teaching, where you require 6 points
*in high cards*, that's one thing.
If you follow the earlier tradition, it's another.
Carl
judyorcarl
But keep in mind that hands where *you* would bid or pass may not be
the same to people with different (unknown) bidding judgment or sense
of tactics.
Carl
jackie...@gmail.com
<basis_consult...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You are East. Dealer is South. Duplicate scoring, nobody
> vulnerable. Assume standard Amer. bidding, not playing
> 2/1.
>
> The hand:
>
> J 7 5 3
> K Q 3 2
> (Void)
> K Q J 5 4
>
> Bidding is as follows:
>
> S W N E
>
> P P P 1C
> P 1S P ?
>
> Despite the fact that my partner passed, the 8+ spade fit, my
> void in diamonds and strong club suit leads me believe that
> we likely have game in spades.
>
> What is the best second bid that I can make? What would
> 2S or 3S mean?
>
> QZ
In any system you have 17 points (12 HCP + 5 for the void in
diamonds). You neglected to say if you are playing splinters, or
Jacoby 2NT. If no splinter, bid 2NT if you are playing Jacoby.
If not, just make a forcing bid, and force to game or slam depending
on the responses.
Eric Leong
Do you really think your partners would have:
> > > > So I would bid 3s and would not bid 5s for fear that partner, holding
> > > > AQxxx
> > > > xx
> > > > AKx
> > > > xxx
as a passed hand?
Eric Leong
Adam Beneschan
wrote:
>
> In any system you have 17 points (12 HCP + 5 for the void in
> diamonds). You neglected to say if you are playing splinters, or
> Jacoby 2NT. If no splinter, bid 2NT if you are playing Jacoby.
> If not, just make a forcing bid, and force to game or slam depending
> on the responses.
Please see an ophthalmologist... you may be suffering from a case of
Liptonitis.
-- Adam
Tivo John
I think it is the other way around. When I first started playing
bridge, the minimum for responding to a 1-level suit opening bid was 6
hcp with relatively few exceptions.
As someone stated in the Bridge World's Master Solvers Club sometime
in this millenium, the threshhold for responding has been decreasing
by about one hcp in every decade for a while. Fortunately, we are
running out of decades for this trend.
How about this hand when you are vul and partner opens 1C?
S- KT632 H- 943 D- 8543 C- 6
I know some players who would routinely bid on even less with this
shape when playing common methods. I think the percentage is higher
for those who play weak NT openers.
John
Andrew
No matter who you are opposing, the oppos will bid diamonds on some
hands and those bids bias the sample of hands where they pass. (By
"bias the sample" I mean that the probabilities that partner was dealt
length and strength in diamonds is higher after a pass by both
opponents than before they have bid).
Now obviously some players bid more often than others, so against some
players the bias is stronger than against others, but there is always
a bias and the bias always operates in the same direction.
Andrew
Will in New Haven
wrote:
Note: YOU opened the bidding, not your partner.
Will in New Haven
I would respond happily if my partner opened 1D. I have a response in
support of Diamonds. If I responded to 1C I would think I was
stretching. We do play Weak NT.
castigamatti
Indeed, not to mention that I am playing strong jump shifts, ergo 1S
can be bid on weaker than normal hands, stealing a contract from time
to time.
BR
rhm
Very funny .-)
Rainer Herrmann
jonathan23
<SNIP>
>
> > The question is what is the rock bottom minimum 1S response.
>
> > If you are following the current teaching, where you require 6 points
> > *in high cards*, that's one thing.
>
> > If you follow the earlier tradition, it's another.
>
<SNIP>
>
> I think it is the other way around. When I first started playing
> bridge, the minimum for responding to a 1-level suit opening bid was 6
> hcp with relatively few exceptions.
Carl has a [high card?] point. If you delve back into Culbertson and
Goren, their evaluation systems allowed you to make positive
adjustments for side-suit shortness when opening a suit as the opening
bidder or in a takeout response to an opening bid, where your hand
would be the declarer if the final contract were in that strain.
In Culbertson (per a 1958 edition of "Contract Bridge Complete" I have
handy) you could make a 1-over-1 response with a biddable suit and
"1+" Culbertson honour tricks. "1+" in thise sense meant one honour
trick and a "plus value", or as little as an Ace or combined King-
Queen and a singleton or jack.
In Goren (per a 1960 Goren primer) you apparently could respond one-
over-one in a suit with six of his opener's points, which amounted to
what Culbertson said in a different language that didn't use fractions
or nebulous things like "plus values" and "fillers" (which is mostly
what Goren was). IIRC, only if responding 1NT did Chas. H. require
you to have at least 6 _HCP_.
By about 1980or thereabouts, when Goren's authourity was starting to
wane counting points for short suits in declarer hands fell out of
vogue as a beginner-level evaluation method in favour of the Karpin
count (did I call that by the right name?) where points were added for
fifth and out in long suits. So to make a 1-over-1 response with a
four-card suit required a full 6 _HCP_ since you didn't make any
adjustments for side-suit shortness, and this subsequently slipped a
little to needing at least 6 HCP to make a 1/1 response in many
elementary SA texts that I've seen, and still is. Two-over-one game
force and other systems could be different but I haven't seen enough
reference material to comment.
To add another viewpoint of just as much authority as anyone else's,
in Culbertson's point count that he introduced in about 1954 when he
realized that integer points were eclipsing honour tricks as a popular
hand evaluation method, I think that the OP's opener's hand would have
been worth 15 points to open 1C, and 16 points to respond to 1S. I
think the Culbertson point count has some merit, although it was too
late to the party to survive. The hand given in the OP can certainly
be viewed as borderline for a 3S response but that's a long way from
obviously, egregiously wrong, to me anyway.
None of this actually settles anything, of course, because no
evaluation method or bidding system yields a precise answer as to the
potential of the combined hands. They just give you an idea of what
it may be within certain bounds and you have to exercise judgement on
the borderlines and start taking "other things" not counted in the
evaluation method into account. This is where problems like the OP
poses come up because something isn't obviously on one side of the
line or the other and the impact of these "other things" is not
necessarily crystal clear, and that gives rgb'ers something to talk
about.
For a lengthy and worthy discussion of this sort of topic, I refer
readers to Frank Stewart's series of articles on "Non-system Bidding
Issues" which has been running in the Bulletin since last summer. I
think they're good reading, but probably better reading for those
below the "Advanced" heading that Stewart is published under in the
Bulletin.
<SNIP>
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa Canada
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
In 1974 or so, Monroe Ingberman wrote a series in the ACBL Bulletin
called something like "standard bidding." He gave as the standard for
responding to a 1-bid as 6 points. In the next sentence, he
emphasized that this included distribution.
Now the question is what people do today.
All I can say is that openers routinely jumpshift with 18 and no
particular fit for the responder. They are clearly counting on more
than a king opposite.
Goren's standard for opener's jumpshift was 21 revalued points.
Carl
Will in New Haven
I don't think you really understand the thinking process of someone
who would jump-shift on, for instance,
AQJX - X - AKXXX - KXX after hearing a 1H response. Rightly or
wrongly, and I agree it's wrongly, he thinks 1S would be an underbid.
He isn't counting on partner for anything in particular. He is just
trying to describe his hand. When partner has XX - KTXXX - XX - JXXX,
he isn't surprised or upset, or not for very long. He would have
responded on that hand also.
Similarly, the raise to 3S isn't "invitational," it is descriptive.
Just like the raise to 2S. Partner's strength is unknown, except that
at least there is a fit.
Jordan
shortness that is not yet known to be useful.
At matchpoints, I would bid 2S or 3D (if available) and have methods
to explore for game on appropriate hands - not that we'll always land
in the right place, but hopefully more often than the others.
Additional negatives are the weak trumps and lack of aces.
Conversely, there are not many losers off the top, and I wouldn't
quarrel with 3D or 3S (esp at IMPs).
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
He is expecting a plus score. Not just hoping for one. He is
*expecting* more than a nonworking king opposite.
Carl
Will in New Haven
Not everyone thinks like you. He could get a plus score by passing.
He's trying to describe his hand. Even if the response of 1S had _no_
minimum, a simple raise has to have a maximum and bidding less than
that is an underbid. "What is partner's minimum holding to respond 1S"
is not going through a player's mind when he is determining his rebid.
"How high can I bid and be safe" is not a front-of-the-brain
consideration either.
judyorcarl
But what is responder to do?
Which of his values are extra?
I brought up the question of responding standards because someone said
responder bids game if he has anything above a rock-bottom minimum
response.
To me, the descriptive content of 1C-1S; 3S is "I have a hand so
strong that even if you don't have your bid, you'll probably make
it." That is the traditional description.
Somewhere it the past 20 years, it became weakened to "I have a hand
so strong that if you have your bid, you'll probably make it."
Converted to points: For Goren it showed 19-20 revalued points. Now
it seems to be a king less.
Carl
Will in New Haven
I think you are misremembering Goren, not that Goren is an authority
anymore. In any case, opener's rebid cannot reference responder's
strength. Opener is showing his values. A single raise is a limit bid.
Putting the upper limit at eighteen is absurd. Even making a single
raise with seventeen, except if playing a Weak Notrump, is stretching
the range too much. Even if we put the lower limit at thirteen, and
many people open with hands that don't re-evaluate to thirteen, 13-18
is a very wide range. 13-16 is conservative for a single raise, making
the jump 17-18. Many players think the jump should be 16-18. I play
the jump good seventeen to bad nineteen, so responder can envisage
eighteen and not be far wrong. But I don't think you can make it so
strong playing Strong NT.
The person who said " responder bids game if he has anything above a
rock-bottom minimum response" was correctly describing the behavior of
responder if responder is only thinking about game or no game.
However, opener is describing his hand and responder may have a slam
decision or wish that she had never responded. That isn't opener's
concern.
jonathan23
> > > > > In 1974 or so, Monroe Ingberman wrote a series in the ACBL Bulletin
> > > > > called something like "standard bidding." He gave as the standard for
> > > > > responding to a 1-bid as 6 points. In the next sentence, he
> > > > > emphasized that this included distribution.
>
> > > > > Now the question is what people do today.
>
> > > > > All I can say is that openers routinely jumpshift with 18 and no
> > > > > particular fit for the responder. They are clearly counting on more
> > > > > than a king opposite.
>
> > > > > Goren's standard for opener's jumpshift was 21 revalued points.
>
> > > > I don't think you really understand the thinking process of someone
> > > > who would jump-shift on, for instance,
>
> > > > AQJX - X - AKXXX - KXX after hearing a 1H response. Rightly or
> > > > wrongly, and I agree it's wrongly, he thinks 1S would be an underbid.
> > > > He isn't counting on partner for anything in particular. He is just
> > > > trying to describe his hand. When partner has XX - KTXXX - XX - JXXX,
> > > > he isn't surprised or upset, or not for very long. He would have
> > > > responded on that hand also.
>
> > > > Similarly, the raise to 3S isn't "invitational," it is descriptive.
> > > > Just like the raise to 2S. Partner's strength is unknown, except that
> > > > at least there is a fit.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Will in New Haven-
>
> > > *expecting* more than a nonworking king opposite.
>
> > Not everyone thinks like you. He could get a plus score by passing.
> > He's trying to describe his hand. Even if the response of 1S had _no_
> > minimum, a simple raise has to have a maximum and bidding less than
> > that is an underbid. "What is partner's minimum holding to respond 1S"
> > is not going through a player's mind when he is determining his rebid.
> > "How high can I bid and be safe" is not a front-of-the-brain
> > consideration either.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>
>
> Which of his values are extra?
>
> I brought up the question of responding standards because someone said
> responder bids game if he has anything above a rock-bottom minimum
> response.
If you're referencing what I said upthread, it wasn't that at all. It
was "if you have about 2-3 points more than the rock-bottom minimum
you promised with your last bid, we may have a shot at game",
expecting that most responders nowadays will have at least 6 HCP for a
1/1 response.
>
> To me, the descriptive content of 1C-1S; 3S is "I have a hand so
> strong that even if you don't have your bid, you'll probably make
> it." That is the traditional description.
In what reference is it described as such? Aside from systems that
included psyches, whose bidding systems by default cater to partner
not having their bid in the first place?
>
> Somewhere it the past 20 years, it became weakened to "I have a hand
> so strong that if you have your bid, you'll probably make it."
>
> Converted to points: For Goren it showed 19-20 revalued points. Now
> it seems to be a king less.
The one Goren book from 1960 that I have handy says opener can jump-
raise responder's 1/1 bid with 16-19 points. The range he gives for a
single raise is 13-16 (there always seems to be overlap at the
boundaries). Otherwise, as Will indicates, the range for the single
raise would be too wide to be practical.
This business about responder being able to make a 1/1 bid in a new
suit with a non-working King and nothing else in high cards looks like
a chimaera to me. In Goren's system, to bid a four-card major suit it
had to be _biddable_. That typically required 3+ HCP in the suit
(maybe sometimes you could get away with Q10xx). Any less and you had
to have more length. To get three extra distributional points to add
to the minimum HCP in a biddable four-bagger would have required at
least one of: a void, a singleton and a doubleton, or three
doubletons. Not only do I expect such extremes to be rare, I would
also expect that when this happens there will be compensating factors
such as increased combined trump length, the possibility for cross
ruffing, or secondary fit(s). 21 Goren points could be 17 or 18 HCP
with a void or singleton, depending on how many Aces you have.
As you point out, and I am in complete agreement on this, things have
changed along the way. I think this is partly because hand evaluation
methods have changed and partly because bidding systems in general
have changed. Not all that change that's happened is necessarily
positive, and if I don't want to jump shift without a hand that has
the stuff needed to force game I just won't do it as long as I can
find a partner who's happy with me bidding that way (Goren, anyone?).
While the history interests me and I would be happy to discuss it at
length with others who are interested, it would probably bore the
socks off most people and it's not really a propos to what the masses
are doing now. But after watching his TV show, it is amusing to think
of Goren wrinkling his nose and saying in his inimitable way, "I
cannot say I approve, Alex."
--
- Jon Campbell
Ottawa Canada
castigamatti
Whatever, this is not a 16 count.
J 7 5 3
K Q 3 2
(Void)
K Q J 5 4
This is...
QJ32
KQ32
(Void)
KQJ32
BR
Will in New Haven
You are correct. It is a very bad seventeen.
>
> This is...
>
> QJ32
> KQ32
> (Void)
> KQJ32
No it isn't. It is a better nineteen than the other hand is a
seventeen.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> BR- Hide quoted text -
Douglas Newlands
I think it has become even weaker than that as changes in bidding
methods allow new shades of meaning and that 1C-1S-3S is shape-based
game try and another sequence is the heavy point-based game try.
One reasonably popular method involves transfer responses to 1C where
one completes the transfer at the 1 level with 11-13 flat and rebids 1NT
with 17-19 (and opens 1N with 14-16).
This means that 1C-1S-2N is free and a popular assignment of semantics
is that it is 6C+3S and 16-18 (the bridge world death hand) or 17-19
with 4 card support and it is trivial to disambiguate these.
Thus the transfer responses give you two ways of trying for game and
partner knows more about your hand.
Doug,
Tasmania
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
The "non-working king" referred to the case where opener was shortish
in responder's suit. King was working to responder, not to the
misfitting opener.
Carl
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
Goren 1951 says 17-19 dummy points for a jump raise, so you're closer
to right than I. But he says "partner is permitted to pass if his ...
response was of a shaded nature." Ie, you're going to game when the
response was sound but minimum.
And truthfully that is the only way that makes any sense. Otherwise,
your minuses at the 3 level after noncompetive auctions will be way
too frequent. That is, if you're going down 40% of the time in the
partscore, you're losing.
Bidding practices have changed, but chaotically. Eric Kokish has long
maintained that responses have grown steadily weaker. Presumably, he
is referring to expert games, because my club-game experience is that
responses are much sounder than when I was young.
Carl
castigamatti
Give me 3 aces outside diamonds and you are down in 4.
BR
Will in New Haven
Why? Have you beaten a contract lately? I'm surprised you didn't
start a thread about it.
--
Will lin New Haven
castigamatti
It is easy with point counters.
BR
castigamatti
It's not so easy with tricks counters.
BR
castigamatti
Your morality is unidirectional. You are not the first nor the last
one...you are nothing but a twisted mind. Like Dorian Gray, just a
pretty face with an ugly portrait awaiting you when you are alone in
that room of yours, more like the sepulchrum of your twisted morality
BR
rhm
While I agree with you in preferring 2S to 3S here, partly because I
dislike inviting with no aces and partly because I believe duplication
in diamonds is likely and partly because the spades are weak. This is
a matter of hand evaluation for me.
However, in general, I am an aggressive jump raiser of a major in this
type of sequence.
The traditional approach is to have full values for your jump raise
(17-19).
The direct consequence and the weakness of the traditional (Goren)
approach is that the single raise gets wide ranging.
Either you miss many games or responder will start to invite and again
you often get too high when opener is minimum or when he now accepts
with the slightest excuse.
Or responder may jump to game when you should be in slam.
Yes, jump raising with less will sometimes lead to a minus score,
though it is rare, but you also will reach games you will miss Goren
style and since a single raise will now be more minimum oriented,
responder can often stop bidding, which a traditionalist can not. I
would not call the new approach chaotic and the old one right here.
My experience with the traditional approach is not encouraging.
That's why I changed.
If you go through early BW "challenge the champs hands" you find
numerous examples of hands exhibiting this problem, probably not least
because K-S acknowledged this problem and had a solution in a weak
notrump context.
Goren never acknowledged the problem and offered no solution for it.
Kaplan did,
Rainer Herrmann
castigamatti
I don't raise to 2S with three card support and no singleton, I am
following the advice of M. Lawrence, therefore one can as easily
envision a singleton in opener's hand and this is lesser of a
problem. Expecting values in spades and clubs, so this is not such a
big problem, even when opener reveals to be balanced with four card
support. Weak NT's will give opener more often an unbalanced hand,
this is good for preemptive raises and bidding more games with the
knowledge that opener is unbalanced or balanced with a 15+ count but
bad when you collect -800 at unfavorable by opening some balanced junk
in the 11-14 range or missing some +620 for fear that partner is
holding garbage.
BR
rhm
Where does Lawrence recommend not to raise with 3 card support and a
balanced hand?
Say you hold a small doubleton in an unbid suit and three to an honor
in partner's major do you prefer to rebid 1NT?
Rainer Herrmann
jonathan23
<SNIP>
>
> Goren 1951 says 17-19 dummy points for a jump raise, so you're closer
> to right than I. But he says "partner is permitted to pass if his ...
> response was of a shaded nature." Ie, you're going to game when the
> response was sound but minimum.
I can only assume that Goren probably tweaked a little here and there
over the years, and perhaps also made adjustments for the intended
audience for a particular book. Likely the books he wrote for the
real duffers simplified things a bit and tried to keep them out of
trouble. Given his 26-point game I don't think the sequence we've
been discussing can be game forcing with a minimum of 17 if
responder's minimum is 6 counting distribution. I would have thought
he stipulated revaluing and doing the mental arithmetic to figure out
if you can add up to 26+ and making the go/no go decision based on
that. A jump by opener was not the same species of animal as a jump
by responder, which would have been an [I think] unequivocal game
force. Simple, conservative rules like those were what made bridge
Goren's way so workable for millions of average Joes and Janes playing
rubber bridge in casual partnerships. I think those people were the
source of most of his $150,000 a year income in the 50s.
However, I don't think Goren expected players with good playing skills
and the ability to visualize the other hands effectively to be quite
as hidebound by point count. In a simple system, sometimes you do as
[S.J.] Simon says and "bid what you think you can make". Watching the
Experts play on his TV show, they often did things that didn't
necessarily agree with his book methods and he would comment from his
glass booth on whether he approved of their judgment or not.
>
> And truthfully that is the only way that makes any sense. Otherwise,
> your minuses at the 3 level after noncompetive auctions will be way
> too frequent. That is, if you're going down 40% of the time in the
> partscore, you're losing.
Players as good as Barry Crane often said that the three level was
dangerous and if they found it dangerous, who am I to argue? It's the
most obvious argument for limiting bids that will put you on the three
level to ones where you have a good level of safety. And that is
really player- or pair-specific to some extent.
>
> Bidding practices have changed, but chaotically. Eric Kokish has long
> maintained that responses have grown steadily weaker. Presumably, he
> is referring to expert games, because my club-game experience is that
> responses are much sounder than when I was young.
I agree completely.
I think responses at the club level would have had to tighten up
because many pairs open lighter than they once did, players don't
adhere to quick trick and biddable/rebiddable suit requirements
anymore, and hand evaluation is less uniform than it used to be. I
suppose that's the entropy element where you can no longer get as good
a picture of what your partner might have when they open and have to
respond a little more conservatively if you don't want to get smacked
down on a regular basis when partner opens junk 12 HCP hands with
headless trump suits on a regular basis. The game is a little
different than it was.
To the extent that I've seen expert-level system notes, I think those
kinds of pairs have much better agreements, especially about the hand
types associated with different types of openings (e.g. Fantunes seem
to play extremely solid 1M openers, and put more uncertainty and
pressure into their 2's). This type of serious science, combined with
superior visualization and playing skills, means these pairs play a
different game. I don't know if I'll ever be good enough to play that
kind of game, but it sure is interesting to watch and think and read
about.
castigamatti
> Where does Lawrence recommend not to raise with 3 card support and a
> balanced hand?
> Say you hold a small doubleton in an unbid suit and three to an honor
> in partner's major do you prefer to rebid 1NT?
>
> Rainer Herrmann
You mean this sequence?
1C - 1S
1N - 2C
2S AP
Or this sequence?
1C - 1S
1N - 2D (NMF)
2S etc.
You are right about Lawrence, I am recommending rebidding 1NT even
more
strictly than what he does.
BR