Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A natural, invitational jump to 3C would be perfect.
That is how I play 3C without the interference.

But, alas, after the double I use 3C as a strong (LR+), unbalanced diamond raise.

2C is non-forcing, but I bid it anyway in preference to a redouble which suggests interest in defending. I think
it is highly unlikely that it will go “all pass” after my 2C.

Redouble would be fine if the auction developed such that I could bid 3C next round. But what if it is higher when it is next my turn? Awkward.
Aug. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Whether hand was worth a non-serious 3NT is matter of partnership agreement.
But once you bid it and partner shows *serious* slam interest by cue-bidding despite your warning, it would be criminal not to bid 4D now. Kxx-AKxxx-Qxx-Ax makes 6S cold and that surely is not a lot for someone showing continuing slam interest over a “non-serious” 3NT.
If you instead bid 4S (or 4H), why won't partner place you
with AQJTxx-Qx-xx-KQx or some such?
Aug. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I play XYZ in this sequence.
My preference:
1. 1C-1D-1H-1S
is artificial, forcing one round, denies 4+ spades.
Typical hand is one that would like to bid NT
(1, 2, or 3), but lacks a spade stopper.
If opener has a spade stopper, he bids NT (usually 1)
and responder can pass or raise to appropriate level.

2. 1C-1D-1H-2S
is natural, GF, showing 5+ diamonds and 4 spades
(I suppose in rare case, could be 6 diamonds with
4 or 5 spades).

3. 1C-1D-1H-2C-2D-2S
2C is artificial relay to 2D.
Responder's 2S followup then shows exactly game
invitational strength with 4 spades and 5+ diamonds.

4. 1C-1D-1M-2M
shows exactly *3* card “M” support
and is game invitational (standard Walsh treatment)

5. 1C-1D-1M-3M
GF with four card “M” support and 5+ diamonds.

6. 1C-1D-1M-2C-2D-2M
2C is relay to 2D.
Responder's delayed 2M shows 4 card support for “M”
with 5+ diamonds and game invitational strength
Aug. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Standard methods (BWS, Mike Lawrence) is that new suit advance is non-forcing. Even a new suit *jump* is not forcing (but highly invitational) in these methods. Only a cue-bid is forcing.

Personally, I play transfer advances. These (transfers)
start with the cue-bid. New suit advances below the cue-bid
(when such exist) are played as forcing (BUPH) if using Ruben's transfer advance methods, but could alternatively be defined as non-forcing.
I opt to go with Ruben's forcing treatment for new suits below the cue-bid (even though hands where NF would be preferable are common) because of two advantages:
1. Now, new suit jumps can be played as “fit showing”
rather than “natural, invitational.”
2. When our suit is immediately above theirs
(i.e. (1C)-1D, (1D)-1H, (1H)-1S, (1S)-2C),
the cue-bid advance becomes unambiguously a
(strong) raise of overcaller's suit, since
advancer never needs to cue-bid with other
strong hand types (because his new suit
advances are forcing).
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4S definitely shows a 3 card limit raise while 3S is expected to show either just a doubleton spade (6-9) *or*
a very weak hand with three spades (too weak for a 2S raise of 1S).

If you somehow think this hand is now suddenly “too good” to merely show a 3 card limit raise because of the presumed club fit, I suppose “manufacturing” an ostensibly weak 3S call is OK if you are planning to continue with 5C over 4S.

Many play that opener's 3C JS is not necessarily natural (“Eisenberg jump shifts”). That's how I play. Could be
5+=4 majors with GF values, or a really big spade single suiter, or a hand with real clubs (4+). Usually, responder relays with 3D and opener completes his description
(3H = four hearts; 3S= big spade 1 suiter;
3N = real clubs, usually 4, passable
4C = extreme black 2-suiter)
This way, 3H JS guarantees at least 5=5 majors, but
3D jump shift is still ambiguous w.r.t diamond length.
Works even better to use opener's *2NT* rebid as an artificial GF (with responder's 3C as artificial relay).
That way, 3D JS also promises 5+=5 shape.
This gives up natural NF 2NT rebid by opener, but that isn't
too important (jump to 3NT with 19. with 18, rebid 2m then
2NT if responder gives you a third bid).
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Choices are poorly defined.

I suspect many votes for “intermediate” are based more on
uncertainty about the definition of “intermediate” vs. “strong” rather than being reflective of a genuine
difference of view of what hand type is shown by the 3S jump.

A 3S overcall is stronger than a 2S overcall but not as strong as a 4S overcall. 3S is highly invitational but definitely not forcing. 3S would nearly always be a 6+ card suit, whereas 2S might be only 5 (but could also be 6+).

A double followed by spades tends to be a more flexible hand rather than a spade 1-suiter, although a super strong spade 1 suiter might be forced to start with double (then bid spades up to at least the 4 level) in order to avoid missing a slam.
Aug. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
My partnerships also have this agreement–2C over their 1D has a “relaxed” standard compared to other 2 level overcalls. Still, *some* restraint is required.
Aug. 5, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
oops.
Aug. 2, 2016
Craig Zastera edited this comment Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would probably bid 2D if NV, but this is below my minimum strength requirement for a VUL Michaels call. I play continuous range Michaels, which style I think argues against using with extremely light hands.

I want partner to be aggressive in competing to our LOTT level whenever I overcall.
Here, provoking partner into overcompeting for the dread -200 (or -500 vs. their game) will not only be a zero on this hand but, worse, encourage timidity on future hands–something I definitely do not want to do.
Aug. 2, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I prefer 1NT over (1D) rather than actual double.
Anyway, partner can't have much since he didn't bid 2C over (1H).
What can I do now? I'm surely not going to bid 3C with Qxx when partner couldn't act over (1H). And doubling 2D (co-operative penalty?) seems too aggressive when they appear to have a good diamond fit.
July 29, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As to opener's 2S “reverse” after a 2/1 response, I think many (I haven't done a poll, so I won't claim “most”) 2/1 GF players would say that this does not promise extras.

The idea is that since we are in a GF, bids should describe shape without reference to strength.

This idea could be carried further, e.g. does 1S-2D-3C show extras? On this one, I think more 2/1 players would say that it *does* show extras, but I think that a significant number (but probably a minority) would say that such 3 level non-jump rebids are also just “shape showing.”

Similarly, how about a raise of responder's suit:
1S-2C-3C
1S-2H-3H
Do these show extras? Perhaps surprisingly, I think a majority play the raise of the minor as showing extras but not the heart raise.

The problem with the style where “nothing promises extras” is that the partnership may find itself uncertain whether it possesses slam level strength or not. That is one of the reasons for conventions like “serious” (or non-serious) 3NT.

The problem with the style where all rebids above 2M (except perhaps 2NT) show extras is that opener is forever rebidding 2M with all sorts of minimum hands that may be two (or three) suiters.
A 2H rebid with AQxx-xxxxx-void-KQxx after a 2D response may not appeal to everyone.
July 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Most 2/1 players would interpret such a jump to 3S as a splinter raise of partner's diamonds.
July 24, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Results of simulations are not “opinions”–they are facts.
July 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I picked 2C with “13+”, but the real criteria is whether you consider the hand a GF or not. So the exact HCP strength required will depend on your minimum requirements for opening bids and your exact shape (e.g. a partial diamond fit is better than diamond shortness).
Given that I play relatively sound openings, I might consider some responding hands sufficient to GF with only 12 HCPs.
QJTx-x-QTx-AKxxx would be fine for 2C even though only 12 HCPs.
July 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve,

Here is how your two example hands perform
in 2NT and 3NT contracts opposite
7 and 8 HCP balanced hands.

You can seen that the 3334 hand with three
tens does significantly better than the
3235 with poor spots for GAME PURPOSES

I then tested these hands in 6NT with
14 HCP balanced hands opposite.
You can see that the results are different–
now the effect of the 5 card club suit causes
that hand to actually perform slightly better
(in 6NT) than the 3334 hand with the three tens

Each result is based on a 5000 deal simulation.
All deals played from the strong hand side.
No constraints on the EW hands.

Test Hand 1: A32-J2-K32-AKQ43

7HCP: 2NT 3NT
70.34% 28.64%

8 HCP: 2NT 3NT
84.12% 48.64%

14 HCP: 4NT 5NT 6NT 7NT
98.40% 92.42% 57.56% 9.94%


Test Hand 2: AT6-JT5-KT7-AKQ3

7 HCP: 2NT 3NT
84.86% 35.46%

8 HCP: 2NT 3NT
94.64% 63.70%

14 HCP: 4NT 5NT 6NT 7NT
99.82% 96.56% 55.12% 5.06%
July 22, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Doug,
Useful to do what you did to determine what kind of (statistical) accuracy you can expect to be getting with simulations of various sizes. As your work shows, with 1000 deals simulations, you can be off by a couple of percent.
This is accurate enough to answer most questions (like the ones under discussion in this post).

But I prefer 5000 deal simulations where I expect the results to be generally within 1% of the “true” figures.
July 21, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A reason why upgrading a (good) 14 HCP hand to 15 so as to be able to open 1NT (15-17) might have more merit than upgrading a (comparably good) 17 HCP hand to 18 (so as to open 1m and rebid 2NT) is that the latter upgrade is more likely to produce an auction that gives away valuable suit-length clues to the defenders, whereas the former upgrade might lead to a more opaque auction like 1N-3N.
July 20, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg,
And if partner has KQJ-Qx-QJxx-Jxxx, then 3NT (and any other game) will fail despite partner's holding 12 HCPs.

The moral is that you can't determine the value of a hand by mentally creating a specific example hand where the pair perform very well or very poorly. It is too difficult to
estimate accurately the relative frequency of the “good”
vs. “bad” hands that may lie opposite.
The only way to reach a valid conclusion is to do large random simulations so that the entire range of hands that might occur (both favorable and unfavorable) will be
represented WITH THEIR PROPER RELATIVE FREQUENCIES.
July 19, 2016
Craig Zastera edited this comment July 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Aaron,
Just FYI, I simulated your latest example hand,
“AJxx-Qxx-Kx-AKJx”. Of course, that isn't really a hand
because “x” is ambiguous. So I chose a specific hand with
rather small spots (smaller than average random spots):
AJ73-Q63-K5-AKJ4

Here's how that hand compares to the original example
hand from this post as well as to random balanced
17 HCP and 18 HCP balanced hands when declaring
3NT opposite random 7 HCP balanced hands with no
8+ card major suit fit):

AT6-J5-K73-AKQ43 34%
Avg. 17 HCP bal hand 37%
AJ73-Q63-K5-AKJ4 53%
Avg. 18 HCP bal hand 54%

So as you can see, your latest example, even with very
poor spots chosen for the “x”s, is just about the equal
of a random 18 HCP balanced hand while the original
hand from this post (AT6-J5-K73-AKQ43) actually performs
WORSE THAN AN AVERAGE 17 HCP BALANCED HAND.
July 19, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually, this shouldn't be a question subject to a “vote” at all because there is an objectively determinable answer to the question. Thus, popular opinions are completely irrelevent (other than providing information about what
percentage of people have good hand evaluation skills).
July 19, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top