Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Craig Zastera
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your other problem is entirely different as it is not about passing an opening bid.

FWIW, I think that (second) problem is close between 2 and 2 (2 is out of the question). I don't mind a “light” reverse with good 3 card support for partner's s, although I'll admit this one is pushing the limit because the honor structure is poor.

A “nicer” 15 count (QJx-AKxx-AJxxx-x) would be an “easy” 2 reverse for me. Note that I'd only reverse this light with good 3 card support for responder's s.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The “usual” meaning for a responsive double here is both minors.
Long ago I too played 2NT to show both minors and the responsive double to show four s plus a minor.

But I have found that Lebensohl 2NT is too valuable to give up for this. Partner has asked us to bid a suit, so when I have four s, I show them with a tool to differentiate game invites from just competitive values.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True–rebid will be awkward after (not unlikely) 1 response.

Still is that reason enough to pass what seems to me (and I'm a “sound” opening bid advocate) to be an obvious opening bid?

I would in fact rebid 2 over 1, but agree that having to rebid a (not so great) 5 card suit is not appealing.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,
I'm not sure what “auction context” you have in mind that would change bidding 6 of a non-trump suit to show ace in that suit as well as first round control of the “problem” suit.

Assuming there has been no key-card ask (usual), having this agreement is quite useful.
On OP auction, for example, if 5 is known to show 1st round control but neither minor ace, then if we continue with any grand slam try, we are impying first round control of both minors as well as strength for grand slam interest based on previous auction, so partner can bid a grand with a trick source.
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the standard meaning for partner's 5 here is first round control and neither minor suit ace.
He could in theory have :Ax(x).

A 6m bid instead would show 1st round control and the ace in the bid minor.

5NT would have shown guarded K.
Pass would show no control.
6 would show singleton (other than the A).
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why did you pass an opening hand?
Nov. 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Don't understand criticism of opener's auction.

Using jump 3NT rebid (by either partner) to show 15-17 with appropriate shape and stoppers is quite a standard treatment in 2/1 GF methods.
One of the advantages of 2/1 GF methods is to reduce the need to open 1NT with a 5 card major.

However, I disagree that responder should expect opener to be “short in s”. The ideal hand for opener's sequence would be 3=5=2=3 shape, 16 HCPs, and stoppers in both blacks.

I picked 5, but perhaps 4NT is better. One or the other.
I thought it might be important to show the 3 card support as well as slam invitational strength.
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Depends on agreements, of course.

I consider this auction a “classic” for Lebensohl (aka “good/bad 2NT”) as it is imperative for advancer to be able to differentiate a hand with true game invitational strength (e.g. 8-10 or 9-11, whatever) from one that just wants to compete at the 3 level (say 5-7 or 6-8) because doubler can have quite a strong hand (so game is a real possibility).

Therefore, with Lebensohl available, this hand is clearly not good enough for an immediate, game-invitational 3.

Therefore, I advance 2NT, Lebensohl intending to correct 3 to 3. If doubler bids 3 instead of 3, that is “equal level conversion” in my methods, i.e. showing something like a minimum range TO double with four s and 5/6 s.
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Leonard,
I agree with you that if the K were guarded, then this hand would be (just) worth a “good/good” reply, even given the conditions (vul in 2nd chair).

The point about using the cheapest response as the Ogust inquiry is just conforming to “useful space principle” (similar to using Kickback for key card asks instead of always using 4NT). There are other examples of this /NT inversion.

We even extend this to using 2 reply to our (weak) 2 openers as our artificial ask. We use it as “feature ask” because we believe that pursuing 3NT is more likely the objective after a 2 opener (but could use it as Ogust).
Our replies are:
2: “feature” in or
then 2NT asks which:
… 3: feature
… 3: feature
3: feature
3: no feature (or minimum hand not showing feature)
3: solid suit (AKQ)

With this scheme, a 2 response to the 2 opener shows s, and a 2NT response shows s.

Sure, it is probably a good idea to encode two meanings into the 1st step reply so as to allow the description of *5* different hand types while still not rebidding above 3 of opener's suit.
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I voted for 1.
1NT is a possible alternative, but hand seems a trifle thin.

After 1NT overcall, we play advancer's 2 level suit bids as natural, for play.
That right-sides the contracts and makes it a little less dangerous to make marginal 1NT overcalls as partner can escape to any suit at the 2 level when he has 5.

I would not pass with this hand.
Nov. 14, 2018
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This depends on partnership agreements.
We define “good suit” as 2/3 top honors.

So this hand is “good suit” by that definition.

“Good hand” is a bit more subjective. And, it depends on position and vulnerability.

Second seat is the “worst” position for a weak 2, so partner is expecting a classic hand.
Also, we are VUL, so that suggests we need a better hand for a weak 2 then if not VUL.

Therefore, I would tell partner “good suit / bad hand” since I have the “minimum” good suit and the value of the stiff K is unclear.
But I would consider “good/good”.

BTW, you might consider using 2 as your “Ogust ask” over 2 openers instead of 2NT. That way, none of opener's replies go beyond 3.
With this treatment, a 2NT response shows s (and is forcing but not necessarily to game).
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It could be a “maximal overcall double”, i.e. a game invitation in s.

This convention generally applies when “our” suit is immediately below theirs and they have competed to a level where we have no room for other game tries.

It occurs most commonly when we have s and they have s and they have competed up to 3. In such cases, most would play that 3 is “just competitive”, so if instead we have a game-invitation in s, we use “double” (maximal overcall double) to show this.

Some consider having a penalty double too important to give up for a “MO” double. Such players, when they have a game invite, just jump to game and hope for the best.
Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, if there are 17 trump, competing is “LAW”ful at the given vulnerability.

But they might not have a 9 card fit. I will agree that it is more likely than not that they *do* have 9, but they might not (and didn't on actual OP deal).

Second, if overcaller is 3=6=2=2 or 3=5=3=2, he will have to guess well. It depends on partnership, but in mine he will think a doubleton is less likely than a stiff and might choose not to bid 3 with 6 not so great s.

Nevertheless, I agree that here making a responsive double with 4=2=5=2 shape and near maximum HCPs (for PH) is not an unreasonable choice.
Nov. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stan,
I mostly agree with your facts, but not so much with your conclusion.

Of course, it is unlikely that they will have 24 HCPs.
But they might easily have 21 or 22.

If I had to “guess” at the expected HCP distribution, I would guess close to 20-20 between the partnerships with *perhaps* their side *slightly* more likely to have slightly over half.

I know that's a lot of “slightlys”, but that is because there is a large range of uncertainty on this auction (one of the advantages of those “weak NT” openers).

As to whether only a “fraction” of the tables will be opening RHO's hand, with a 10-13 range that is far from clear.
If he has 12-13, nearly everyone will be opening.
Even if he has only 11, nowadays a lot of young crazies open all/almost all of these too.

So it is only when he has 10 (11) HCPs that we are likely to be in a disadvantageous position.

Also, it is important to know partner's bidding tendencies on this auction. Here are some important questions to try to answer before choosing our action:
1. If pard had a stiff with good TO shape,
say 4=1=4=4, 4=1=3=5, 4=1=5=3, 3=1=5=4=, 3=1=4=5,
what would be the minimum HCPs with which he would
double (2) ??

My answer is perhaps as few as 6 HCPs with 4=1=4=4,
maybe that or a point more with the others.

This situation is similar to an “OBAR BIDS” situation
in that partner, if weak but with good shape, knows
that we will have some points but may lack the shape
to compete. Hence, he will make very light TO doubles
when he has appropriate shape.

2. How about with “fair” TO shape: 4=2=4/3, 3=2=4=4 ?

My answer: assuming no wasted minor honor(s), I
think 8 HCPs would suffice.

3. With a *balanced* hand, what is the *maximum* HCPs
with which partner would/might pass (2)?

This one is harder, but I would say that with 13 HCPs
he should probably do something other than pass most
of the time. If none of his values are in s, I
think he should double with 11, even with 4=3=3=3,
probably even 3=3=4/3.

With 3=3=3/4 and values (e.g. KTx), he might pass
with 13, but I think that would be rare.

If you disagree substantially with any of the above, that might lead you to a different conclusion (from mine).
But my view is that partner will not have a hand with anything resembling TO double shape.
He probably has 3 s. Something like 2=3=3=5, 3=3=3=4, or 3=3=2=5 are likely.

So now I consider “Law of Total Tricks”.

It is quite possible there are only 14 trump (e.g. if partner's shape is 3=3=3=4, 2=3=3=5, 3=3=2=5).
In these cases, bidding (or doubling) now would be “wrong” from a LOTT perspective.

Also likely is 15 trump–perhaps they have an 8 card fit (I consider this slightly against the odds given partner's pass and the above analysis), or that we
have an 8 card fit in or s.
In this case, bidding/doubling is still probably wrong.
If they can make (2), by LOTT we would be down in 2 and even more likely in 3m. Since we are vulnerable, this would be risking being doubled, =200.

There would need to be at least 16 total trump for acting to be a likely winner. In this case, we might make 2 while (2) also makes. Or we make 3m while they would be only -1 in (2).

Although it is certainly quite possible for there to be 16 trump, I judge this to be against the odds.

Worse, in order to maximize chances of finding our “fit” if we have one, DOUBLE would have to be our balancing choice. But that is quite risky given that we don't really have TO double shape–if partner responds in s, that will likely be very bad for our side.

The alternative is to balance with 2. But that too carries substantial risks–we might play in a 4=2 (with perhaps a better fit available elsewhere) *or* partner might even compete to 3 thinking we have 5.

So my conclusion from all this is that although the scenario might be as you fear such that we are headed for a “zero” defending (2) and have some nice fit available where we can make 8 or 9 tricks, I think it is at least as likely that competing would lead to a minus score (perhaps -200) while we might even be able to defeat (2).

So I do not see sufficient probability that acting here will lead to a good result to justify the risk.
I think it is at least as reasonable to play for one of the scenarios where we are best off defending (2).

One final consideraton before passing (2) is “what am I going to lead?”
Unfortunately, it is true that we don't have a clear “good” lead (an argument in favor of bidding).

I think it is clear to lead a minor suit, but less clear whether to choose a prudent (probably an honor) or the aggessive K (hoping for a ruff).
I'll admit that the K appeals to me as we likely need something good to happen on defense in order to beat (2).
Nov. 13, 2018
Craig Zastera edited this comment Nov. 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing UDCA, if East wanted to encourage a shift, wouldn't she simply discard a low (a suit in which she is known to have many cards) rather attempting to encourage a shift obliquely by discarding a discouraging (a suit in which her attitude is already known)?

No, if she chooses to discard a , a suit in which she has no high cards and likely not much length, it can only be because she has shortness.

Therefore, a discard should be construed as count in that suit, not discouraging attitude.
Hence, playing UDCA, if East chooses to discard a rather than a , she should choose the 2.
Nov. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John,
I guess it is unclear to which play OP was referring.

I assumed it was West's shift because that is the play after which 2 becomes unbeatable with best declarer play.

But I suppose discarding T instead of 2 when playing UDCA is a candidate, as well as the later 4th round of s after declarer gave the defense a 2nd chance.
Nov. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Phil, East's s in my example are 98.
The :JT7 is the South holding.
Nov. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why is it “at best moot”?
Points are at best evenly divided. So unless you are arguing against the LOTT, a call that will likely result in our playing at the 3 level without sufficient “total trump” is likely to be a losing action.
Nov. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you are correct. My bare-bones example does not produce a 50% play for 4.

On the other hand, I actually expect a somewhat better hand than this for partner's negative double.

Still, I suspect that 3 is probably the “percentage” action, which is why I think it would be my choice at matchpoints.

We all know that at IMPs, though, it pays to bid games aggressively. Even when these games turn out not to be percentage, the result is a “push” at -1 or even -2.
Nov. 13, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why does our side have to hold at least half the deck?
I mean, we could,…. but also East could have 13 and West up to 11, so we certainly don't have to hold half the deck.

Another inference is that partner knows (2) is terminal for their side. So if he had anything (particularly with fewer than 3 s), he likely would have done something (e.g. double) over (2) since he would know that we might be in a tough position in pass out seat with some HCPs but no shape.
Nov. 12, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top