Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2 is acceptable but it suffers from several problems:

(a) although certainly not required, jump advances of
TO doubles tend to suggest a 5 card suit.
Here, not only is the suit only 4 cards in length,
but it is a particularly poor suit

(b) jump suit responses typically show 9-11
“advancer points.”
I count this hand as 13 APs as follows:
* 9 HCPs
* +1 for 5th
* +3 for stiff

© starting with a jump to 2 will make it difficult
if not impossible to indicate that you have another
suit that is both longer and much stronger than your
s.

All this is not to say that 2 won't work great, but it seems to me that it is likely to be better to start with a cue-bid to facilitate exploring alternative strains.
And I do not think a cue-bid start over-states the strength of this hand (in fact, it might even be a better strength statement than would a strictly limited 2 advance).
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did a larger (5000 deal) simulation.
3NT was beatable on 1151 deals.
Results:
Lead IMPs Matchpoints
ST: 653 3541
S2: 658 3550
HK: 501 2259
H6: 637 3036
DA: 643 2977
D2: 518 3070
C5: 607 3327
Oct. 27, 2018
Craig Zastera edited this comment Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't quite understand why this is just a “proposal” as it sounds pretty much like what the ACBL already does.
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very close.
I did a 1000 deal simulation.

This showed that a lead was the best matchpoint lead by a fair margin.

But very close between T vs. 2:
T was best on 729 deals
2 was best on 737 deals

Next closest lead was 5–best on 687 deals

I think a larger simulation would be needed to be confident of choice between T and 2.

At *IMPs*, same simulation showed best lead (for defeating 3NT which was possible on only 225 of the 1000 deals) to again be a . This time:
T succeeded on 142 deals
2 succeeded on 140 deals

So, again close between T and 2, but order reversed for purposes of defeating 3NT (but too close to call with only 1000 deal simulation).

Best non- lead for defeating 3NT was A. This is perhaps somewhat of an artifact of double-dummy analysis as A sometimes wins when it allows leader to shift to a different suit at trick 2.
Not that real-world defender can't shift also, but he likely won't find that (or the right suit to shift to) as often as the double-dummy defender does (:-)).

On this simulation, A could succeed on 128 deals.
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tough one.
I try 2.
Then 2 after partner's likely 2.
If I catch a raise, I pass (3 or 4).
If not, I will belatedly introduce my s.

Guaranteed to work out well?
Right.
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think it is my job to “master-mind” by bidding a 3 card suit (I'd certainly pick s) when I have 4 cards in an unbid suit.
Either major *might* be a 3=3 fit.
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Reason for my choice of pass here is fear of pushing them into a making (6).

If I thought we would be allowed to play the hand, I would definitely bid 6.
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hard to answer as I would not consider doubling (1).

Since partner is a PH and we have 8 losers (well 7.5 using NLTC), I would bet that passing 3 is %age action.

However, VUL at IMPs favors overbidding when a fit is found, so perhaps these conditions justify a 4 overbid.
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
After 1-1-1:
A. 1: artificial, F1, denies 4+ s
Usually, some type of balanced hand lacking a stopper
(but of various strengths).
Opener should generally rebid NT with s stopped.
Responder will then usually Pass, raise to 2NT or
raise to 3NT depending on his strength.

B. 2: natural and GF with 4+ s and longer s.

C. 2-2-2:
natural and game invitational with 4 s and longer s

D. 3: auto-splinter. 0/1 s, long strong s, slammish

E. 2 (art. GF) then minimum rebid
Depends on what opener bid over 2 and details
of XYZ structure.
Often 1-1-1M-2 is bid by a responder with a
strong hand (slam interest) and both minors.
Opener's bids over such 2:
3M: natural with 5=6
2N: stopper in OM
3: 6 s (or very strong 5 s) and 4 in M
3: 4 card (or good 3 card) support for s
2M : default with none of above.
2M here does not show 5=6, although opener
might exceptionally bid this way planning
to continue with 3M to show a very minimal
5=6.
Oct. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe partner would not switch to the 3 from :QJ3 in your hypothetical deal.
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think it is the “and anticipated” part which is really important.

It is pretty easy to understand what “balanced with 8-14 HCPs” means.
What may not be so easy is to be prepared with a reasonable defense against such an unexpectedly wide-ranging 1NT opening.
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think a lot of people nowadays play 2 overcall of 1NT as showing both majors.
They may not call it Landy, though, because that is so old-fashioned.
But I think 2=majors is part of “Woolsey” and perhaps other defenses too.
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, using double your way is actually what Larry Cohen suggests in his methods from which mine are derived.

But I've found having double as “negative”, wanting to compete in the minor of partner's choosing, comes up a lot and is not well handled otherwise.

Particularly at matchpoints (where frequency is more important even if it means giving up an occassional chance for a big penalty), I think the “negative” double interpretation is a winner.

Also, using “double” this way allows this treatment to be extended to the common “DONT” case where the opponents use 2 to show both majors.
Then, “double” is either competitive with both minors *or* GF with s (i.e. stolen bid in the latter case). Everything else remains the same (i.e. as it would be if the opponents were using 2 or 2 to show both majors).
Partner replies as if the double were negative with both minors, but if responder actually has a GF, he can clarify this easily by making a further descriptive bid.
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm comfortable with 1, then 1NT over 1 or 2 over 1.
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I may not “get” this problem as I can't think of a plausible alternative to 1 which would appeal to me under any conditions.

BTW, we don't play 2 as a WJS, but I wouldn't choose that call even if we did.
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I really don't “get” a question where you first ask “what is the meaning of double in your partnership”, but then you follow with some weird-ass definition for how you play 2M which renders the meaning of “double” in my partnerships moot.

FWIW, we use “double” as negative, suggesting support for both minors, usually with competitive but not GF values.

We use 2 as GF with s and 2 and GF with s (and 3/3 as invitational with the bid minor).
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My requirements when not planning to rebid 2NT (22-24-) balanced) or 2 Kokish Relay to 2 followed by 2N (24+ and up balanced, forcing) are roughly at least 9 playing tricks (more like 10 if rebidding 3 or 3).

I know some might quibble whether that includes “freaks” like :AKxxxxxxxx (10 cards) and out. Perhaps (I play “super-Namyats–2 followed by 4 or 4) to show such).

But this OP hand is NOT in the class of a freakish HCP deficient 2 such as that.

No, this one is a full, solid, main-stream 2 opener as it has 4.5 quick tricks (4 would be considered sufficient for any traditional strong 2) as well as 10+ playing tricks.

Therefore, 2 with this hand without a moments doubt.

BTW, an exception to the ”9 trick" rule might be made for very strong 2-suiters. Those can be hard to bid starting with 2 as the high opening steals bidding space possibly making it hard to bid both suits at a convenient level.

So sometimes I risk opening a 1 bid on that hand type, hoping to get a chance to jump shift later. But if the 2-suiter is really strong, opening 2 might be better than risking not getting a second chance to bid after opening at the 1 level.
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How can this problem be answered intelligently when you've already dramatically misdescribed your hand with the initial pass?

It is now impossible to conduct a scientific auction because partner will never credit you with this hand no matter what you do.

Further, as a passed hand, nothing you can bid now is forcing.

My guess would be to bid 3NT which I think has better chances than 5.
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Can't imagine any thought of not opening this hand, regardless of methods or the state of the match.

This hand is *stronger* than an average balanced 13 HCP hand (but not as strong as an average balanced 14 HCP hand) for purposes of playing 3NT opposite a balanced dummy (with no 8+ card major suit fit).

A 5000 deal simulation of this hand opposite randomly chosen 12 HCP balanced hands (no 8+ card major fit) had 3NT making 62.7% of the time.

A similar simulation using randomly selected balanced 13 HCP hands instead this hand also opposite random balanced 12 HCP dummys had 3NT making only 58.7% of the time.

The explanation for the power of this hand beyond its HCPs is primarily the extremely powerful spot card holdings (although, of course, 3 aces are also typically more powerful than other 12 HCP combinations of honor cards).
Oct. 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And what if the stopper you need to ask about is s??
Oct. 24, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top